That’s the Difference

As I sit back and watch the newest installment of The Librarian series on TNT, I’m reminded of one statement that was said. “Sacrificing your needs for the greater good is the difference between a good librarian and a great librarian.” Which started me thinking, what are some other differences between a good and great librarian? Jim Collins has had plenty of experience in distinguishing between “Good to Great,” but I believe when it comes to librarians the difference lies within service and adaptation.

In the two articles for this week’s reading are over the adaptation needed for the Web 2.0 and the invisible web and how individuals can adapt and use those resources: Indexing the Invisible Web: a Survey by Yanbo Ru and Ellis Horowitz and The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More by Greg R. Notess.

Ru’s article discussed the existence and continuous growth of the invisible web. The invisible web according to Ru is “the vast collection of information that is accessible via the worldwide web, but is not indexed by conventional search engines.” The invisible web since it is not indexed by conventional search engines posses as a problem when attempting to organize the material on the web that is easily accessible for all users.

Because of indexing the interface of invisible web sites is insufficient the content on these sites is unable to discover. The inability to maintain invisible web directories is only added more problems to the findability issue. According to Ru invisible web sites confront three challenges:

• because of the lack of knowledge of the underlying database schema, it is difficult to generate form assignments that are guaranteed to yield information-rich resulting pages;
• interfaces of the invisible web sites, even those belonging to the same domain, are very different, and therefore it is hard to design a form-filling method that is appropriate for all the search interfaces; and
• the volume of the information in the invisible web is of a magnitude greater than that in the PIW, which is more than can be reasonably indexed and searched using today’s technology.

There needs to be a change so this content can be found and used. Invisible web standards need to be addressed so the finability and accessibility can succeed.

Notess’s article covered the 2.0 society in which we are currently living. It seems that everything has been categorized as a 2.0 from the web to Nissan’s new ad campaign. But what exactly is this 2.0 business? Examples of Web 2.0 include: del.icio.us, Flickr, Listible, Writely, Yahoo! Answers, Google Maps, Meebo, Ajax, blogs, APIs, clouds, CSS, RSS, social networking, tagging, and wikis. According to Notess the biggest difference between the Web and Web 2.0 is user interactivity.

The Web 2.0 phenomenon has spread to other venues as well such as Library 2.0 and News 2.0. Library 2.0 or L2 is now the desire to rethink and retool library services. As libraries are looking for a new niche to help relate to customers and establish a more technical edge, L2 is the way. Libraries over time have shifted and now have an opportunity to be on the cutting edge of upcoming technologies and help entice customers to become a part of the 2.0 society as well.

As you can see from these two articles the web is changing. To be a good librarian you know about these things, but to be a great librarian, you incorporate these things. You help establish content, create resources, and share your knowledge for the greater good. That’s the difference!

Indian Jones Beware....

Information seeking behaviors are essential for users of internet sources. Seeking information in the same format time and time again helps build a greater understanding of searching methods but helps provide a commonality for those users.

In two articles one by Daniel Rose, Reconciling Information-Seeking Behavior With Search User Interfaces for the Web and the other by Scott Nicholson Digital Library Archaeology: a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Library Use Through Artifact-Based Evaluation focus on information seeking behavior of those using internet and digital library resources.

Rose stated there are three areas in which knowledge of user behavior can be addressed for future interface design:

1. Goal of the user when conducting a search
2. Cultural and situational context at the time of the search
3. Iterative nature of the search task itself.

Rose also stated there are specific goals associated with a search they include:

• Getting a specific piece of information
• Getting an answer to an open-ended
• Getting advice
• Exploring a general topic

Searching on the web in the future may allow individuals the ability to just search for one of the specific goals and have a tailored search engine to those specific needs. The interfacing of common search engines will greatly change to help accommodate for those search behaviors. It will be a great day when individuals can go to the Internet go to a specific engine and find what they are looking for without the useless filler sites and dropped links. Having specialized search engines can also help those novice users and help propel them into searching success.

Nicholson has described a very interesting topic, digital archaeology. What an amazing topic? I mean Indian Jones has nothing on a digital archaeologist. The concept of developing a digital archaeology of search patterns, fragmented data, user information, and combining those to form a specialized approach for digital libraries is truly fascinating.

The shift from traditional archaeology to new archaeology is not defining what the items are but how and why they are there. How the items got there, why they were searched and what significance do those items play for the users of information? Those questions are the ground for digital archaeologist.

According to Nicholson there is a cycle of information seeking behavior and these cycle is essential for understanding the seeking behavior of customers:

• collection
• induction
• deduction
• prediction
• testing

Nicholson also states that web-based information resources do not use hypothesis based research when evaluating their services; which can result in the stunted growth of search sciences. By applying these conceptualized methods in searching research, the possibilities are endless and customer satisfaction can only increase.

It's the Real Thing

Ray Bradbury once stated, “Without libraries what have we? We have no past and no future.”

In these two articles, The Public Library as a Meeting-Place in a Multicultural and Digital Context: The Necessity of Low-Intensive Meeting-Places by Ragnar Audunson and Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment: Changes in Reading Behavior Over the Past Ten Years by Ziming Liu express different theories with an underlining theme: the importance of information (whether a physical building as an information warehouse or reading that information).

Audunson’s article looked at the cultural importance of the role of the public library. This article expressed the purpose of the library as access to cultural expressions and values that are tolerated and appraised. The digital revolution opened up the communication of libraries and increased the development of cultural niches. Audunson addressed an additional library role as meeting-places and arenas for community communication.

As times change and resources evolve, it is only natural the focus of the library changes. It may not change drastically but should shift to reach the populous it represents. For libraries to be successful in the future, they must understand that changing their focus and broadening their horizons are essential for longevity.

In Liu’s article described a study that investigated the reading behaviors of individuals in the current digital environment. Lie analyzed how individual’s reading behavior has changed over the past ten years. The findings listed that online reading mostly consisted of browsing and scanning rather than in-depth reading. Reading from a paper format is still consider to be the best source for high concentrated, more in-depth reading. While additional research is needed, the idea is the same and I’m sure the findings will remain at the same level.

I know from personal experience that I do just that, I do not read as in-depth online as I do with a hardcopy. I do not know if it is a preconceived notion or something that is inherent inside of me.

I believe as times change and new generations come in contact with digital resources the shift will change where the digital reading will become the chief source of in-depth reading and may even become the preferred method. But for me, the hardcopy will always remain as the real thing.

Web 2.0 and Beyond...

Everyone enjoys an opportunity to choose their own homework assignment. This week, I choose two articles that will help me in two different avenues. The first article I chose was: Using a Wiki for Documentation and Collaborative Authoring by Michael Angeles. This article will come in handy specifically at work. I have convinced my boss to allow the training department to use a wiki to update training manuals. The next article I chose was The Habits of Highly Effective Web 2.0 Sites by Dion Hinchcliffe (this article was recommended by classmate Julie Kreft).

The Angeles article went over the basic reasoning for using a wiki and how a wiki can better improve collaboration in library settings. An interesting part of the article was the best practices listed to help ensure the sustainability of your company’s wiki:

• Train your users
• Keep it organized
• Understand use
• Lead by example
• Protect
• Style guides

This article will come in handy when I start the implementation of the wiki at our library. I know that this project will take planning and dedication but I’m thoroughly excited about the possibilities it brings to our system.

In Hinchcliffe’s article gave a definition of Web 2.0 as networked applications that explicitly leverage networks effects. The important thing to remember is that Web 2.0 evolves everyday and has become a “living” website. People no longer go to the web to check their email or conduct business but have developed a community of friends and family within a digital arm’s reach and have created a home within the Web. Hinchcliff outlined the Essentials of Leveraging Web 2.0 as:

• Ease of Use
• Open up your data as much possible
• Aggressively add feedback loops to everything
• Continuous release cycles
• Make your users part of your software
• Turn your applications into platforms
• Don’t create social communities just to have them

These two articles help describe how to make the most out of a social website and what can be done to accomplish its set goals. I know with the information I have gained in these two articles, I will be able to accomplish the goals of our library system and what could be better than that?

Tag--You're It!

WOW! What can I say? I've learned tag, tag, and tag in these articles. It was excited to learn about tag and tag. Well, all tagging aside, the two articles for this week’s readings were quite interesting and addressed some semantic web and social tagging information.

Ying Ding, wrote A Review of Ontologies with the Semantic Web in View. This article basically covered definitions of ontology, kinds of ontology, ontology tools, ontology language and some important ontology projects. According to Ding, “Ontology is a term used to denote the shared understanding of some domains of interest, often conceived as a set of classes (concepts), relations, functions, axioms and instances.”

Knowing this basic statement helps translate a higher learning for social bookmarking and social interests. Using ontologies on the web can help breed a better understanding for social issues that are digitalized and help develop a common language for those users of the digitalized media.

Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems by Scott A. Golder and Bernardo A. Huberman is takes a closer look at collaborative tagging on del.icio.us. Golder and Huberman completed a study on user activity, tag frequencies, tags used, and bursts of popularity in social bookmarking on del.icio.us and found regularities in those items and how users used the site.

Both of these articles got me to think about the social implications of using social bookmarking and ontologies. No longer does a librarian or a cataloger need to tag or code items. Using common terms by people (like us); we are better able to use and identify with the resource because it is in our own language. Natural language.

In my opinion, knowing that others out there will be using and searching for my tags only fuels my desire to tag more items so the person who enjoys the same things I do, can finally be able to without a long search string or multiple clicks. It’s a great thing that social bookmarking is making an insurgence. Not only because people are finding what they are looking for, but they are able to connect on a subliminal way that can only bring our digital society closer.

Meta-whata?

Metadata = data about data.

It seems that everyone is jumping on the metadata bandwagon. Libraries, individuals, publishers, and others are using metadata as a source of publicity. By using current and industry-driven metadata libraries are able to propel their collection into the arms of anyone with an Internet connection because they have the right metadata.

In two articles over metadata the importance of metadata still stands and through the advancement of schema and searchability, more items can now be accessible.

The first article Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes by Jane Greenberg analyzed current schemas with the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domain, and Architectural Layout) framework. MODAL helps relay the value of schema framework.

This article concluded defining specifically a metadata scheme can prove to be a greater challenge and the MODAL framework is the best way to study the complexity of metadata scheme. The MODAL framework is also a useful aid in metadata scheme design because it focuses on the features that are specific to metadata.

Through further study it would prove that the best way to handle such a complex topic is through frameworks such as the MODAL framework and divide, categorize, and analyze the topics pertinence.

Alan Dawson and Val Hamilton wrote Optimising Metadata to Make High-Value Content More Accessible to Google Users. This article was very interesting in the respect that libraries are now more than every willing to step out on the limb to make their content and collection known. Dawson and Hamilton concluded that now publishers are indexing their content to help meet the standards for users of the search engine Google. By changing their procedures to increase access to their content is evidence of the “On Demand” society.

Dawson and Hamilton also concluded that libraries and other institutions can follow those steps to help with accessibility. By adding additional tags or changing the metadata schema millions of users could have access to the particular institution’s information without ever visiting their website and have Google.com as the middle man.

Both of the articles still bring up the constant worry of lack of standardization amongst libraries and other institutions. Different schemes are created and others are thrown to the curb without really any hope for a common scheme. This is difficult to ensure usability and accessibility. Having a limited knowledge on several schemes is not as powerful as having extensive knowledge on one schemes. I understand the need for various schemes but not understand why there is not a common ground for schemes when it comes to searchability on the Internet. I now guess that with Google.com having their say on the type of scheme they prefer, more and more institutions will be using one standard form.

Gettin’ Digital with It!

In my generation, it has seemed that computers have always been a constant state of curiosity and information. Going digital with various aspects of our lives has allowed us to ask, “What will they think of next?” Digital libraries are no exception. It would only be fitting to have a “digital library” on the Internet and have access to records and documents from miles, states, or countries away.

According to the Digital Library Federation,

Digital libraries are organizations that provide the resources, including the specialized staff, to select, structure, offer intellectual access to, interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence over time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and economically available for use by a defined community or set of communities.

It is hard to imagine that they were able to categorize and synthesize this information into one sentence. Two articles were on the list of recommended readings for this week and they deal first hand with the usability of digital libraries they are: Usability of digital libraries: A study based on the areas of information science and human-computer-interaction by Sueli Mara Ferreira and Denise Nunes Pithan and What Is Usability in the Context of the Digital Library and How Can It Be Measured? by Judy Jeng.

In Ferreira and Pithan’s article they list five key components for a successful digital library and they gauge user information on the following to help judge which components have meet or are below standards for an effective digital library. They are:

1. Learnability
2. Efficiency
3. Memoriablity
4. Errors
5. Satisfaction

The results of their student concluded that there is a basic synergy between the Human-Computer-Interaction (HCI) and Information Sciences (IS). The study also concluded that it is possible to observe users’ actions, feelings, and thoughts in relation to their usability. These experiences help disclose significant cognitive information that can help contribute to the design of digital libraries.

This study can help facilitate the design a better used digital library. Understanding search patterns associated with actions, feelings, and thoughts is only one more way to connect the human and bridge stronger synergy between applications and individuals.

Jeng’s article also focused on a study of usability in digital libraries. This study examines how learnablitity interacts with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to devise an evaluation model/method for digital libraries, but it also addressed usability issues. The study also concluded that there is a relationship between effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction.

I know that understanding this principle is a key concept for having an effective evaluation method for digital libraries. Knowing the interrelation between key concepts can help elevate concerns that are associated with evaluation methods.

Both articles have conceived that it possible to evaluate the usability of digital libraries. However, I believe more evaluation can be concluded on this subject. Shifts in search patterns by users can help build lasting knowledge. And it is essential for individuals to understand the purpose of digital libraries and who the users are.