This slightly delayed blog post is dedicated to the theme of timeliness.
The study by Collins and Quan-Haase (2014) of Ontario academic libraries' social media adoption from April 2010 to April 2012 provides--in addition to some nostalgia-making reflections on which platforms were popular when--this caution: "[S]ocial media use by academic libraries requires content creators and distributors to be diligent" (p. 65). Librarians who would use social media must keep abreast of which sites their users use and for what.
The year prior, Comeaux and Schmetzke (2013) published a study of 56 North American academic library websites that were graded on their compliance with accessibility best practices over 10 years. They found great progress by some measures--errors per page, in particular--but caution that accessibility best practices had evolved, as has consumer technology. Again, librarians must keep up.
References
Collins, G., & Quan-Haase, A. (2014). Are social media ubiquitous in academic libraries? A
longitudinal study of adoption and usage patterns. Journal of Web Librarianship, 8, 48-68.
Comeaux, D., & Schmetzke, A. (2013). Accessibility of academic library web sites in North America: Current status and trends (2002-2012). Library Hi Tech, 31, 8-33.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Post 4
If I had to concoct a motif shared by the studies of Howland et al. (2009) and Young & Madans (2009), it would be the coexistence of the old and the new, and the question whether such is possible.
Young & Madans, who were affiliated with the Hachette publishing conglomerate, have written an apologia for the use of XML--not just at the end of a book's production but throughout. The authors are at pains to portray the technology as sympathetically as possible to the less than tech-savvy. This results in some fairly gross oversimplifications: for instance, the statement that "there is only one difference between XML mark-up and traditional editorial mark-up of your content, and that is the difference between tagging a digital file and manually marking up a physical manuscript" (p. 148). That "difference" literally applies to any digital process: doodling on a manuscript in MS Paint, say. The authors more substantially articulate their business goals than their technological ones. There is much talk of shifting models, of efficiency, of how those who resist this (any?) new way of doing things are benighted and the rest enlightened.
In the study conducted by Howland and colleagues, of the BYU libraries, the old way of doing things is played by library subscription databases, and the new by Google Scholar. The locus of concern was how "scholarly" were the articles found in each. The researchers found--surprisingly to me--that, on the whole, the articles found using professional search techniques were as scholarly in library databases as on Google But Howland and colleagues--unlike Young & Madans--do not proclaim that Google is superior on account of its lower cost and overall greater compatibility with the new economics of et cetera. Their conclusions are modest, to the effect that, in the absence of comprehensive data, there is presumptively room for the old and the new.
References
Young & Madans, who were affiliated with the Hachette publishing conglomerate, have written an apologia for the use of XML--not just at the end of a book's production but throughout. The authors are at pains to portray the technology as sympathetically as possible to the less than tech-savvy. This results in some fairly gross oversimplifications: for instance, the statement that "there is only one difference between XML mark-up and traditional editorial mark-up of your content, and that is the difference between tagging a digital file and manually marking up a physical manuscript" (p. 148). That "difference" literally applies to any digital process: doodling on a manuscript in MS Paint, say. The authors more substantially articulate their business goals than their technological ones. There is much talk of shifting models, of efficiency, of how those who resist this (any?) new way of doing things are benighted and the rest enlightened.
In the study conducted by Howland and colleagues, of the BYU libraries, the old way of doing things is played by library subscription databases, and the new by Google Scholar. The locus of concern was how "scholarly" were the articles found in each. The researchers found--surprisingly to me--that, on the whole, the articles found using professional search techniques were as scholarly in library databases as on Google But Howland and colleagues--unlike Young & Madans--do not proclaim that Google is superior on account of its lower cost and overall greater compatibility with the new economics of et cetera. Their conclusions are modest, to the effect that, in the absence of comprehensive data, there is presumptively room for the old and the new.
References
Howland,
J. L., Writhg, T. C., Boughan, R. A., & Roberts, B. C.
(2009). How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library
databases. College & Research Libraries, 70, 227-234.
Young, D. & Madans, P. (2009). XML: Why bother? Publishing Research Quarterly, 25, 147-153.
Young, D. & Madans, P. (2009). XML: Why bother? Publishing Research Quarterly, 25, 147-153.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Post 3
"Human–Computer Interaction." The phrase suggests a binary ontology: humans are here, computers are there, and HCI is where the twain meet.
This is not so, and Gupta (2012) explains why. There are two "main terms," Gupta says, "which are now defined under [HCI's] branch...: functionality and usability." Functionality comprises the set of actions and services that a user can take; usability corresponds to the range with which the user can this use the system (p. 1736). It appears to me, from his very setup, that Gupta is trying to integrate the user and the computer.
Tidal's (2012) case study of a university library's website presents an application of an integrated understanding of HCI. Tidal does not use all of Gupta's (2012) terminology, nor does he spend as much time analyzing the system side as Gupta's methodology might suggest (possibly because the content management system that Tidal studied "utilizes a 'what you see is what you get' (WYSIWYG) embedded editor...;" Tidal, 2012, p. 91). But Tidal's attention is free-floating--"Users were observed and asked to 'think aloud'" (p. 92)--and he responds to users' behaviors by considering, on the one hand, whether the website needs to be updated, and, on the other, where the users are coming from (e.g., from a place unfamiliar with "library jargon;" p. 95).
The upshot of Gupta's and Tidal's studies: researchers looking to do right by HCI must hold humans and computers in their minds at once.
Tidal's (2012) case study of a university library's website presents an application of an integrated understanding of HCI. Tidal does not use all of Gupta's (2012) terminology, nor does he spend as much time analyzing the system side as Gupta's methodology might suggest (possibly because the content management system that Tidal studied "utilizes a 'what you see is what you get' (WYSIWYG) embedded editor...;" Tidal, 2012, p. 91). But Tidal's attention is free-floating--"Users were observed and asked to 'think aloud'" (p. 92)--and he responds to users' behaviors by considering, on the one hand, whether the website needs to be updated, and, on the other, where the users are coming from (e.g., from a place unfamiliar with "library jargon;" p. 95).
The upshot of Gupta's and Tidal's studies: researchers looking to do right by HCI must hold humans and computers in their minds at once.
References
Gupta, R. (2012). Human Computer Interaction—A modern overview. International Journal of Computer Technology & Application, 3, 1736-1740.
Tidal, J. (2012). Creating a user-centered library homepage: A case study. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 28, 90-100.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Post 2
Tzoc & Millard (2011) analyzed which skills prospective employers of digital librarians seek and how well those skills correspond with those taught in LIS programs. Asher, Duke, & Wilson (2013) analyzed how--and how successfully--undergraduate students at two schools find information resources using any of several platforms. While neither article is a comprehensive overview of librarianship in the digital age, both reveal a lot.
Tzoc & Millard (2011) found that the job descriptions they examined called for what I would call a reasonable degree of technological competence. Just 3 of the 12 categories represented skills that a majority of employers called for, and those 3 are elementary. The categories that require more abstruse or specific knowledge, such as Digital Conversion and Programming - Java, C++, represent skills called on by a notable minority of employers. The implication is clear, and refreshing: successful digital librarians need not be good at everything--not even as much as LIS programs require competence in (p. 13)--just the basics of their field.
Asher, Duke, & Wilson (2013) analyzed an interesting development in library technology: such "discovery tools" as Summon and Google Scholar are "help[ing] to diminish the 'cognitive load' on students" (p. 476) who are called on to research academic topics in an appropriately rigorous way. "Cognitive load" is no overstatement, judging from the remarks of the authors' interviewees: by and large they don't seem to know what a scholarly source is, or why using them instead of nonscholarly sources is appropriate, nor does curiosity drive them to look beyond the first page of the first database they try. They can find the required number of articles: the most basic of basics of writing a scholarly paper.
The upshot from both articles, then, is that working with information is difficult. Mastery of any given set of skills in this arena is, on the evidence, a lot to expect.
References
Asher, A. D., Duke, L. M., & Wilson, S. (2013). Paths of discovery: Comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. College & Research Libraries, 74, 464-488.
Tzoc, E., & Millard, J. (2011). Technical skills for new digital librarians. Library Hi Tech News, 28(8), 11-15.
Tzoc & Millard (2011) found that the job descriptions they examined called for what I would call a reasonable degree of technological competence. Just 3 of the 12 categories represented skills that a majority of employers called for, and those 3 are elementary. The categories that require more abstruse or specific knowledge, such as Digital Conversion and Programming - Java, C++, represent skills called on by a notable minority of employers. The implication is clear, and refreshing: successful digital librarians need not be good at everything--not even as much as LIS programs require competence in (p. 13)--just the basics of their field.
Asher, Duke, & Wilson (2013) analyzed an interesting development in library technology: such "discovery tools" as Summon and Google Scholar are "help[ing] to diminish the 'cognitive load' on students" (p. 476) who are called on to research academic topics in an appropriately rigorous way. "Cognitive load" is no overstatement, judging from the remarks of the authors' interviewees: by and large they don't seem to know what a scholarly source is, or why using them instead of nonscholarly sources is appropriate, nor does curiosity drive them to look beyond the first page of the first database they try. They can find the required number of articles: the most basic of basics of writing a scholarly paper.
The upshot from both articles, then, is that working with information is difficult. Mastery of any given set of skills in this arena is, on the evidence, a lot to expect.
References
Asher, A. D., Duke, L. M., & Wilson, S. (2013). Paths of discovery: Comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. College & Research Libraries, 74, 464-488.
Tzoc, E., & Millard, J. (2011). Technical skills for new digital librarians. Library Hi Tech News, 28(8), 11-15.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Post 1
What I took from the readings for weeks 1 and 2 was sticker shock.
I could not read, the twelve-step "Software System Development Life Cycle Model" of Cohen et al. without keeping a rough total of how much all the model's parts cost. I wonder how upstart software developers, with fewer than the 100 to 10,000-plus employed by the firms Cohen et al. studied, possibly compete.
Nor, reading Merali et al., could I help totaling the costs that lie in solving information systems firms' "Key Challenges:" "Strategic Advantage," "Top management's role," "alignment with Business Strategy," "outsourcing."
I work in a budget-conscious library in the budget-conscious federal government. I cannot imagine having enough money to navigate that life cycle, to manage all those challenges--or having enough money to pay for the information architecture that, at whatever cost, is the upshot of all this. Such is the cheap luxury, I suppose, of having someone else draw up the contracts.
References
Cohen, S., Hann, U. D., & Dori, D. (2010). A software system development life cycle model for improved stakeholders' communication and collaboration. International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control, 5(1), 20-41.
Merali, Y, Papadopoulos, T., & Nadkarni, T. (2012). Information systems strategy: Past, present, future? Journal of Strategic Information, 21(2), 125-153.
I could not read, the twelve-step "Software System Development Life Cycle Model" of Cohen et al. without keeping a rough total of how much all the model's parts cost. I wonder how upstart software developers, with fewer than the 100 to 10,000-plus employed by the firms Cohen et al. studied, possibly compete.
Nor, reading Merali et al., could I help totaling the costs that lie in solving information systems firms' "Key Challenges:" "Strategic Advantage," "Top management's role," "alignment with Business Strategy," "outsourcing."
I work in a budget-conscious library in the budget-conscious federal government. I cannot imagine having enough money to navigate that life cycle, to manage all those challenges--or having enough money to pay for the information architecture that, at whatever cost, is the upshot of all this. Such is the cheap luxury, I suppose, of having someone else draw up the contracts.
References
Cohen, S., Hann, U. D., & Dori, D. (2010). A software system development life cycle model for improved stakeholders' communication and collaboration. International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control, 5(1), 20-41.
Merali, Y, Papadopoulos, T., & Nadkarni, T. (2012). Information systems strategy: Past, present, future? Journal of Strategic Information, 21(2), 125-153.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)