A library on the Edge?

Like two distinct brands of the same religion, librarians are drifting into two camps–those that believe libraries are in peril and those that don’t. Those who find themselves as a member of the former tend to feel that their libraries need to change in a number of fundamental ways in order to remain relevant. Those who identify with the latter group feel that good old-fashion librarianship is still what their users want or need.  They’re the purists. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying this, but I do believe that all of us sit somewhere between these two poles.

This dichotomy yields some interesting implications for discussions about the future of libraries and what we should be doing now and in the future. For instance, if you’re inclined to think that libraries are in danger of becoming irrelevant, you’re probably going to be more open to many of the more radical proposals and developments we’re seeing and hearing of today. Purists, of course, are just as vehement and passionate about libraries, but want to see the core values of their libraries shored up.  To them, good old fashion reference and circulation is what libraries are all about.

So the question is, how do these two groups find a middle ground that will not compromise us into mediocrity? I’m skeptical about the prospect of creating more excellent middle-of-the-road libraries. That’s what most of us are right now.

Web 2.0 is saturated while Library 2.0 is parched

The library corpus cannot absorb all the 2.0 being thrown at it. I see two major problems that are causing a veritable 2.0-anemia.

First, while Library 2.0 may not be exclusively about technology, it’s hitched its wagon to technology in inextricable ways. That means that in order to be deft L2 wagon-drivers, we need to have great technologists and great technology. Libraries have a severe shortage of both and while we may try to make ourselves gleam to one another as best we can, what we really ought to be doing is focusing on how libraries can be attracting new blood into that particular sector of the industry. There is no doubt that great work is being done by a lot of talented people (and they know who they are). But for most of us, implementation is still that big old swollen caveat hanging out there uncomfortably.

Second, after implementation, integration tends to be awkward, at best. There is a fairly severe disconnect between what the 2.0 pundits say (among whom I count myself), and what is really happening. Your library may have, for instance, a Flickr account, IM reference, a bloglines blog, delicious bookmarks, whatever. But are they truly embedded into the way your institution works? In almost every case, this approach seems like throwing seeds into the air, letting them land where they may. I think it’s time to start talking about how we arrange these components into a more suitable constellation of services. These technical elements of L2 must be aligned along our institutions’ field of influence and expertise so that the seams don’t show. Seams send the wrong message, they say we’re being disingenuous and sloppy. In effect, poorly implemented technology amounts to spamming our users and staff with “new features.”

The user is sometimes broken

Sorry Karen, but sometimes the user is broken. And that’s ok. We’re all broken in some way and that’s what makes us human. Let’s not forget that, at its core, the library is a human construct created by humans for use by humans.  I think we can be there to help fix the user, to enable the user to change in the ways that he or she would like.

There will be times when we get it right and the user still can’t handle it, because the user can’t deal.  We shouldn’t change a good thing for him because accommodating him will send us down an endless rabbit hole.  It’s those cases that we rely on our hospitality and deference to help the user as best we can.

The librarian is sometimes broken

Of course, the flip side of this is that, yes, sometimes the librarian is broken too.  In comparison, it’s much easier to deal with a broken user than a broken librarian.  The broken user is a support issue, and support is simply a commodity.  The broken librarian, if not fixed, is an institutional liability.  But God bless us, we’re a compassionate, sensitive bunch and we’re going to tip-toe around that person’s shortcomings and weave them into the fabric of our organizations.  That’s the way we roll.

The new versions allow users to display cover images along with the records. A new option gives you the choice of text only, images only, or images and text. Not a major change, but noteworthy. Also, in case you missed the update in my previous post, the new items gadget can now match subject headings–useful if you want to be notified about new items on a particular topic.

For the purposes of the Talis mashup competition (for the judges), the original xml files are still available under a different name (tops-v1.xml and new-v1.xml). Everyone else, here are the new ones:

• tops.xml
• new.xml

(FYI, it’s the same URL as the previous version. If you’ve already added it to your Google page, the update will be automatic)

While working on this little project, I became painfully aware of PatREST’s limitations when dealing with asynchronous execution — like that of Google gadgets. I previously thought it would be better to limit the amount of data returned in an XML hit-list and use a second record query for and detailed info. I think I may have been a little short-sighted. At any rate, the lesson learned is that the more practical experience I have with PatREST, the more I’ll know what works and what doesn’t.

The upshot of all this is that I’ve expanded the result objects in any PatREST function that returns multiple records to include more information, such as ISBN, cover image, author, and record link. For those asynchronous folks, this will make life a lot easier. The new additions have been added to an updated specification. Existing PatREST applications (I don’t think there are many at this point) will continue to work, of course.

While a number of more high-profile libraries have garnered national attention for their blogs, Darien has been quietly assembling their all-star blogging team. What makes their effort truly different is that it has been a top-down initiative that involves staff members representing different parts of the organization. Last week, Jenny Levine took notice of Louise Berry’s blog. Louise is Darien’s director and she has a prolific and candid blogging style that I find inspiring. She’s not the only library director who is blogging right now, but she’s clearly the one who enjoys it the most.

I thought I was going to have to pester Alan Gray, Darien’s head of technology (and tech services), again to get him blogging as well–no need! Alan has started his blog, “Last Clear Chance.” Named after an intriguing legal doctrine, Alan’s blog will more-than-likely reflect his tell-it-like-it-is personality. You’re not going to find the party-line here.

Another major component of Darien Library’s master plan is the construction of a new 45,000 square foot $22 $26 million dollar library to replace the facility they are currently in. In the spirit of keeping the community informed of what’s going on with the new building, Darien has started a dedicated blog for the project; they’ve labeled it, “A Chronicle of Progress Towards a New Darien Library.” The blog seems to be staffed mostly by Alan, but I wouldn’t be surprised if other voices chimed in as well. For anyone interested in the process behind building a new library, this is the perfect blog for you.

In addition to these three blogs, Darien offers a suite of other blogs, all RSS-capable, all very interesting. From books to technology, they are creating a voice all their own.

You can also catch some Darien Flickr action: Louise Berry, Alan Gray, and the Darien Library itself.

In response to Hennepin’s new commenting capability, Talis’s Paul Miller asks the question, “Participation is an important part of moving forward. How much better might shared participation be?” What he’s talking about is allowing other libraries to access Hennepin’s comments in an effort to provide a more enriching search experience beyond Hennepin’s OPAC, say, at Ann Arbor, or wherever.

What Paul goes on to propose in a follow-up post is a shared collectionof user participation much like the UK’s archival project. This would provide a central database and, presumably a set of web tools to access and interact with the data. Libraries anywhere in the world would have access to add and read content. It would be a shared, collaborative clearinghouse of participation.

I’m all for it–but with some caution. Isn’t that what Amazon is now? If you take away the e-commerce, Amazon is a collection of reviews, tags, and ratings on an insanely large amount of material. Interesting? Indeed. Useful? Of course. But I feel the need to point out that libraries are community-based institutions. They are supported by local taxpayers and are run, mostly, by members of the communities they serve. As such, wouldn’t we want any social element that is incorporated into our OPAC to reflect the tastes and opinions and personality of our community? I think so, and so does Ed Vielmetti:

…here in Ann Arbor there are a lot of book readers, and it’d really be rather nice to read comments from people who shared the same town with you. If I want to read random untrusted comments from people all over the world there’s already Amazon.

I mentioned some of this a while ago, though never specifically addressed the local vs. global social data repository idea. All this is not to say that in addition to community-driven social software we can’t access and make use of a shared data store. In response to a comment I made to Paul’s second post on this, Fiona Leslie made two very good points that she has seen come up repeatedly.

1. Libraries have reading groups and staff who create reviews, and there is no mechanism for getting those reviews “available” beyond posting them on notice boards, or perhaps on the library’s web pages. A few of them have an OPAC implementation that allows the reviews to be viewed in their OPAC.

2. Libraries have few or no reviews, but they see the value in having them, and would really appreciate a kickstart by having access to a shared repository of reviews created by other readers and staff in other areas.

Ok, so I’ll address each one separately. First, she is absolutely right, there is no de facto method of integrating participation in to our OPACs. This is compounded by the fact that our OPACs themselves tend to be unalterable beasts and we must rely on vendors themselves to make changes and enhancements to them. Many of you who follow what I write here know that’s a contentious issue for me, but I’ll keep my hackles down for now and simply remind everyone that this is another reason to demand a few basic rights from our vendors.

But even if we did all have unfettered access to our OPACs, or were resourceful and persistent enough to subvert the plain vanilla foisted upon us, what would a socialPAC look like? Fiona specifically mentions reviews, so lets stick with that for the purposes of this post. Actually, let’s not, because it doesn’t matter what the implementation looks like–that’s the fun part you and your development team get to mess about with when you do your redesign. What’s important is what we do with that review data after we get it and the value it adds to the process of searching for material. I’d suggest that the data be made available via two conduits. First would be the end-user interface. That is, the website or application patrons use to both consume and produce the content. How you weave this in to your OPAC is ultimately up to you (or… up to your vendor).

Richard Wallis weighed in ad responded to my comment. He writes:

So what are my assumptions then? Well firstly, the contributions of the citizens of Ann Arbor would be of great use, interest, and value to a far wider audience than just their district. Secondly, contributions to any global pool should be tagged as to their source and type. Thirdly, because of that tagging, selection of results should be able to be via many filters such as library, library authority or institution, library type, country, language etc.

So following through those assumptions in John’s situation, I would hope that contributions for my community would add value to the global pot; be displayable locally in isolation as a coherent set; and optionally could be supplemented by those from other appropriate communities around the country and the rest of the world.

I suppose I was a little unclear in my comment on Panlibus. I’d agree with Paul that, once the data is in, it would be nice to have a way to share it with other libraries. And I also agree with Richard that there is a place for supplementing existing data with a larger pool. In fact, I believe we have an obligation, as libraries, to do some manner of both. I envision Ann Arbor’s system providing a very lean web service on top of this entire system. Using this model, we will be able to share our community-driven social data beyond our borders. Libraries who do not enjoy the same community support that Ann Arbor, has will still benefit from the data. I believe this distributed approach to generating and maintaining socialPAC data will ultimately offer both redundancy and diversity. The thought of hundreds of libraries making their data available is certainly a more appealing alternative than that of the monolithic database. Metadata itself is an archive–it tells a story.

Fiona’s other point was that kick-starting a service may be difficult, especially in communities that are not likely to respond to and prime a service like this. Personally, I think we all might be surprised at the response that socialPACs will have with our constituents. Almost everyone has an opinion, and most people want to share it. That aside, however, Fiona is right. There will be cases where social software is not successful, popular, whatever.

So how do you evaluate your own situation with respect to social social software? Can your community sustain a socialPAC in perpetuity in a manner that will continually reflect a unique attitude and personality? If it can, how do you get it started?

First, you’re going to have to be honest with yourselves about the project itself. Do you want to pursue social software because it’s cool and hip, or do you really want to change the way your users interface with your collection in profound and personal ways while building a legacy at the same time? You can get a good feel for the level of Web 2.0 participation your community engages in by using existing Web 2.0 services which often let you dial in on specific locales. This may give you a good indication of whether a program like this might be a success.

If you’re convinced that your community will support a socialPAC, the next step is to come up with a a design and interface concept that will truly let your existing catalog shine while providing all the Web 2.0 immersion people expect. (easier said than done). This is where the innovators need to step in and start coming up with tangible examples of how this might work. I suspect that most libraries that do this will pursue a variation on a theme, but bear in mind that there are a lot of directions to take this stuff and in the end, it’s the one-of-a-kind feature that will give your OPAC its fingerprint. I suppose that vendors will dial in on the more popular and successful models and run with those. I have no problem with that as long as they adhere to the Web 2.0 spirit.

What about the initial “jump-start”? While I was writing this, my thoughts kept drifting to sourdough and I remembered a good friend of mine who, on occasion, liked to bake sourdough bread. It was this person who introduced me to my first sourdough starter. A shapeless blob that lives in your refrigerator and which, on occasion, you feed. At any rate, he was telling me how some sourdough starters have very rich and colorful histories because they have been passed down, literally, through generations. Some are closely guarded, while others have been disseminated and passed around liberally. It’s pretty fascinating.

But before I digress completely, Fiona’s concern about kick-starting can be addressed if we make our metadata available to systems starting up. Instead of one or two large repositories, however, wouldn’t it be great if we could choose from hundreds and all we had to do was send a request against a web service to get started? The tools are in place to allow this kind of interaction. All it takes is a willingness to communicate and share.

I suppose I may be searching for blue sky here, but Web 2.0 gives us a chance to do things properly from the beginning. Ultimately, the successful system will be rich with good data and useful to your patrons. The deeper significance of a unique repository will not emerge right away, but in time, you’ll see how data, like buildings themselves, can add to the legacy of a place. Make it available to the larger library community and we’ll see some very interesting things, indeed.

I’ve never attended a real open spaces event, so this is going to be a completely new experience for me (I’ve been saying that about a lot of things lately). I’m confident, however, that the format will be conducive to discussion and I’m expecting that we’ll not only learn a lot but accomplish a fair bit as well. A number of great people are planning on attending–be sure to add your name if you plan to come. I believe that space constraints are capping registration at 40.

Some of my topics may overlap what Eli’s already tossed out, but that’s the idea–to find the overlapping topics and go from there.

I’d like to spend some time looking at Library 2.0. I’m wondering if the term itself is becoming a liability. My concern is that there is so much contention associated with it now that the great intellectual discussion it’s intended to represent is being neglected.

I want to talk about ways that techies and non-techies can better communicate. I think there will be a good representation from both camps, if you will, that a candid dialogue could ensue.

I’d like to spend some time talking shop with other techies. Specifically, I’d like to get together with some other III users and see where that goes. I’d also like to cover/learn more about some of the stuff discussed at code4lib. XML/XSLT hacking would be fun too.

I want to talk about OPACs. Specifically, I want to talk about adding social software to the OPAC. I’d like to share some of the work I’ve been doing in this direction and invite others to do the same. I’d also like to gather ideas on getting buy-in for this sort of thing.

A general talk about trends in library websites. I’d really like to hear from the academic sector on this because the public library perspective can be very different and sometimes the academic library voices don’t come through as well as I’d like. I’d like to find out where the similarities end and differences begin.

Because this is not an “in-industry” event, I’d like to talk with library users and get their opinions and perspective on many of the ideas behind Library 2.0.

I’d like to spend some time checking out all the neat gadgets people will be coming with–so bring your cool stuff!

I, too, would like to talk about IM virtual reference. AADL doesn’t do it and I really think we should. I’d like to hear from others who may have successfully pulled it off. I’d like to talk about some other alternatives as well, such as web-based IRC clients/bots/etc.

I’d like to talk about networking in libraries. Perhaps cover different Wi-Fi solutions. I have some ideas on using bittorrent as a content delivery system for patrons I’d like to vet. General chat about networking/server infrastructure would be fun.

I think some discussion should go into whether an information clearinghouse should exist for L2 ideas and resources. The Library 2.0 wiki, perhaps? Maybe we can get a start on filling in some information.

I have a feeling I’ll be updating this page post, but this is a start. I’ll be cross posting this list to the possible session page on the Library 2.0 wiki. Be sure to add yours there as well. Even if you’re not going, if you think of a topic, add it because there will be a number of bloggers present who will be interpreting events. Who knows, your topic might get discussed.

Much has changed in the last year with respect to the notion of a "library website". It's as though the clear, glassy surface of a morning bay has been turned and cast about by steel, unforgiving turbines. Many unsuspecting libraries are now caught in that turbulent wash, casting about for something, anything to hold on to as they begin the daunting task of "the redesign". The problem is, where do we even begin? If there was no gold standard before, there still is none, but we now acknowledge two things: Traditional library websites drain the life-force from patrons. Our OPACs finish the job.

So where do we go from here? Is there anything, anything at all we can use as a modus operandi as we, once again, begin the process of re-provisioning the obligatory library website?

Let me suggest five directives that may help get your creative minds turning. I want to talk about these not only because they represent common sense, good design, and patron convenience, but also because by using these directives as a kernel in your new project, you are sure to come out the other side feeling highly rewarded and sporting a new website that will invigorate your inner-geek for years to come.

Social software, as you are probably aware, was born of the read/write web. Partially due to persistent connections, newer software, higher bandwidth, and plain old human acceptance of the machine, the social web is a beautiful lace spun with minds, machines, and information. It is who we are as humans--it is community. just like the public library is community. So to ignore social software in the context of our library websites, is to ignore our communities. We need to find a prominent place on our mantle for it and ensure that our websites invite humanity in and give it right back. The point here is to extend the boundaries of the library, perhaps blurring the edges like watercolor so we're not quite sure where the library ends.

There are many ways to incorporate social software into your sites, not the least of which is the use of mash-ups, or the judicious use of an open source database like MySQL in conjunction with a little PHP, running on Linux, served up by Apache. Adopting open-source platforms and technologies in a library is not just financially beneficial. Philosophically, it's the right thing to do. We ought to be developing on open-source then turning around and making our work freely available to one another. We are libraries after all, we ought to act like it, not just in the stacks and at the circulation desks, but in the server rooms and IT departments as well. Don't forget the intrinsic benefits of supporting and pursuing an open sourced development program. Eric Raymond writes in The Cathedral and the Bazaar:

...we have fun doing what we do. Our creative play has been racking up technical, market-share, and mind-share successes at an astounding rate. We're proving not only that we can do better software, but that joy is an asset.

Joy truly should be an asset as you continue to plug away at your web project. If it is, the final product will reflect it. Open source allows success to be contagious as code is reused, changed, improved, forked, spawned into radical new ideas. That sounds like something a public library ought to be involved with, doesn't it?

I think it's time libraries took the notion of single sign-on seriously. We need to get away from the model where patrons are required to have their library cards handy every time they reserve an item. Who wants to have one set of credentials to access the OPAC and yet another to make a blog comment, or fill out an ILL request? Why not be like the rest of the world and simply require a username and password? Let me take this one step further, as well, and suggest that your new websites support session-based single sign-on--a useful little bit of web technology that has been around since, well, almost forever. When I create an account on a site I use frequently, I expect that I'll not have to keep re-entering my password every time I visit. Otherwise, I won't be visiting that site very frequently.

Single sign-on is not just about convenience, either. A unified user management system is a vital ingredient in the foundation of a cohesive online experience. Think about what your users will be doing, especially in light of the fact that you're going to implement all those great social software features. As I've mentioned before, the library website can be so much more than just a resource--it can, and should be a destination--a community touchstone. You can't do that if there is a functional disconnect between what you're offering and how you're offering it.

Single sign-on will prove to be a more difficult implementation than you may be thinking at the moment. As you scratch the surface, you'll see why, what will all the disparate software you'll be gluing together. After all, it's not like our vendors are going out of their way to offer and support open standards. We ought to, of course, for many of the same reasons I've outlined for open source. Open standards, however, gives us the flexibility both internally and externally to promote vital services in a timely and easily accessible manner. That sounds good, right? Adopting W3C standards will ensure that we've provisioned for any eventuality. Need to export? No problem. Someone wants to get Greasemonkey all up in your site? Go right ahead, Ed. RSS feeds? Absolutely essential. Want to offer a web services front-end to your OPAC? Why not use SOAP and throw in some WSDL so that potential coders can hit the ground running? Open standards, open minds, open doors.

Then there's the white elephant. Your OPAC--that malignant growth that looks nothing like the rest of your site and appears to have been coded by a CS 101 student who is contemplating switching majors to say, English. Insist on an integrated OPAC. Again, this may be a technical challenge, but nothing is impossible. If you find a way to tame the beast, you're going to completely transform the way your website operates. Ideally, the OPAC should be embedded inside the framework of your site so that you have access to all the site data and functionality during page parse. Once you've got control over what, where and when your OPAC displays, you'll find that a world of opportunity has opened up to you. While pondering a way to achieve this, you may find yourself, again, at your vendor's doorstep, whimpering, "please sir, may I have some more?" Unless the request is in an RFP, however, good luck. All we can do is chip away at them, in the meantime, there are ways of getting around that technical hurdle, but they probably require a programmer--a position libraries should consider adding anyway.

All this is an oversimplification of an arduously complex process, I confess. Sometimes, however, when you're not sure where to begin, it helps to consider all your options within a set of parameters. If I were to launch into a library website project right now, these are the "must-haves" I'd start with. For my part, these comprise an ideal that will stand a project in good stead as we continue to cast about in a 2.0 world.

[tags]Library, Libraries, L2, Web Design, OPAC, Development, Programming, Coding, PHP, HTML, HTTP, AADL[/tags]

The 2006 Library Camp will be held here at the Ann Arbor District Library. Programs and discussions will continue throughout that day and may spill out into the stacks, computing centers and wherever else the participants deem a good meeting place. Of course, all your geek amenities will be provided.

Be sure to visit the wiki or tune into Ed's blog for more information.

[tags]L2, Mash-ups, AADL, Superpatron, Unconference, Library, Librarians, Geeks, Library Camp[/tags]