Going Mobile

This week's question is what mobile services should a library offer?

For me, that answer is contingent upon price.  If you'll allow a brief tangent...one reason I'm back in school after slogging through 10 years of post-graduate work on a PhD in English is that the mission of the library is to serve everyone.  Not to get too political, but (especially here in California) our public universities are becoming prohibitively expensive while at the same time relying more and more on the relatively inexpensive labor of lecture faculty, adjunct faculty, and graduate students.  These people can be wonderful instructors but are often overworked and underpaid, so students are paying more but getting less.  And, because of the costs, universities are only able to serve a select group of the populace.  Unlike the university, one can enter a library and access information and professionals for free.

While more and more people have mobile devices, a large population still does not.  I think we should do all we can to meet people on their mobile devices, but we must balance this against the services we offer to people who rely on the brick and mortar library.  If we become entirely virtual, we become accessible only to those elite enough to connect to the Internet from their home or phone.  Especially in times of economic trouble then, I believe libraries should be going mobile as cheaply as possible.

Having said all of this, it turns out not to be that difficult to go mobile on the cheap.  Sarah Houghton's 2012 article "Mobile Services for Broke Libraries" has 10 suggestions.

Here are a couple of highlights.

1) Houghton suggests making your website mobile-friendly.  But first you should check to see if it already is.  She notes that you can check at http://validator.w3.org/mobile/.  Validator will give you a breakdown of just how mobile-friendly your webpage is.  An ideal solution would be to make your standard webpage mobile-friendly instead of having separate versions that require updating and upkeep. 

A screen shot of validator.w3.org/mobile/ results

2) Houghton suggests offering a mobile Online Public Access Catalog.  Since the OPAC is one of the most commonly used features of a library website, making it mobile makes a lot of sense.  And making the OPAC mobile isn't as hard as you might think.  Houghton points to a couple of open source OPACs that are mobile friendly: SOPAC, Evergreen, and Koha.

3) While e-books and audio books seem like obvious arenas for taking your library mobile, Houghton does offer some words of warning.  She notes that 

Most e-audiobooks are provided as WMA files, with a smaller selection available as MP3 files. Text e-books are provided in a plethora of formats—the three most popular being PDF, EPUB, and Mobi.  (317)

It's useful to be aware of the formats of your e- and audio books.  WMA files will only work on a computer running Windows Media Player, while the more universal MP3 will run on most audio devices.  The producers of E-Readers are not in the business of open-source DRM-free altruism.  There are a plethora of e-book file types -- many are device specific.  Apple has iBook, Amazon has AZW and KF8 and currently doesn't support EPUB.  Libraries should offer e-books and audio books, but it's important to keep in mind that offering e-books isn't as simple as offering corporeal books.  If the real thing is in English, all readers of English can read it.  If the e- thing is offered in AZW, only Kindle owners can.  So be aware and be smart about format.

The rest of Houghton's essay is equally worthwhile.  Track down a copy if you're thinking about going mobile or reexamining your library's mobility.

References:

Houghton, S. (2012). Mobile Services for Broke Libraries: 10 Steps to Mobile
Success. The Reference Librarian. 53(3), 313-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2012.679195

Crowd Sourcing or Crowd Surfing

Crowd sourcing is typically supposed to tap into the wisdom of the crowd.  In the case of many library initiated crowd sourcing ideas it seems that crowd sourcing is intended to take the pulse of your local community.  In his 2009 post, Libraries and crowdsourcing -- 6 examples, Aaron Tay lists some common uses of crowdsourcing for libraries:

1. Digitisation of newspapers and correction of OCR errors (National Library of Australia)
2. Tagging of photos on Flickr (Library of Congress)
3. Rating,tagging and contribution of user reviews of books (via Endeca, Encore, Aquabrowser, Koha and other next-generation OPACS etc)
4. Frequently asked questions (Social reference tools like LibAnswers)
5. Comments and suggestions (GetSatisfaction , UserVoice etc)
6. Collaborative Cataloguing (Library Thing, Biblios.net and Open Library)

Half of these uses (uses 2, 3, and 6) are basically folksonomies (a kind of group tagging popularized by the site delicious.com -- formerly known as del.icio.us).  There are definitely advantages to this kind of cataloging.  Massive numbers of resources can be tagged in far less time than it would take a diligent S.W.A.T. team of librarians to do it (in the case of the Internet, assigning your library cataloging task force is almost akin to giving them life sentences).  And so things are allowed to take on a kind of organization that wouldn't be possible otherwise.  But the trouble with folksonomies is that they aren't thorough or consistent.  Casual taggers aren't following Ranganathan's faceted colon classification system; they're developing something much more complex and infinitely less searchable.  They create subjective cataloging.  While Ranganathan might praise the way in which this system divests hierarchy, he'd probably be pretty dismayed when he went to search Flickr for pictures of Russian Blues and found that no one had used that tag.  And in fact that there was no consistency to the language or spelling of the tags that had been used: "cute cats," "kittens," "qt kitty," "meows," or whatever other variations you can imagine.  It's nice that things are getting classified, but it's not useful.

                   Here's your Russian blue S.R.

Another type of crowd sourcing Tay talks about is the use of comments. Allowing comments and suggestions in your OPAC can mimic Amazon reviews -- a popular element of that website.  They give voice to your community and make it feel like a conversation has started.  But there are major disadvantages to this as well.  One only need look at a handful of poorly designed products on Amazon to discover that sometimes manufacturers, authors, and publishers post their own misleading reviews.  Furthermore, these kinds of reviews are typically only written when the customer is very satisfied or very disappointed (just look at a site like Ratemyprofessors.com to see an example of the way in which including only the most effusive and most vitriolic reviews can skew one's perception of an instructor); they don't actually benefit from the aggregation present in typical crowd sourcing -- like the Google rating algorithm -- because they aren't drawing groups that are actually representative of your constituency.  Finally, Amazon reviews are useful for one reason: they help buyer's beware.  Libraries have less need of this.  Our patrons aren't spending hard earned cash.  They can take more chances.  If the book they pick up at the library doesn't catch their interest after the first 50 pages, they can bring it back and pick up another at no cost.  Granted, sensitive patrons might care to know if a book is particularly gruesome or sexually explicit, and these reviews could provide that kind of information, but, for me at least, libraries are about discovery and about being exposed to new ideas.

There are two major problems with the types of crowd sourcing Tay discusses.  First, as Derek Powazek suggests in his article The Wisdom of Community, the best crowd sourcing is done by reducing the task to its simplest parts.  He warns

Conversational inputs are too complex for Wisdom of Crowds systems. Online discussion systems do not lead to wisdom on their own.

And he goes on to explain exactly why:

One of the reasons discussions do not lead to wise results is that there’s no aggregation—the conversation just happens. But WOC systems are there to produce a result. This requires an aggregator (like you) and an algorithm.

The benefits of crowd sourcing, he argues are only visible after aggregation.  Folksonomies and comments resist aggregation.  Even a site like rottentomatoes.com, which attempts to aggregate subjective movie reviews is only helpful to a point.  Skyfall, Lincoln, and A Royal Affair (all movies which came out this week) received a 91%, 91%, and 90% respectively.  But that doesn't suggest that people who enjoy the new James Bond movie will also like the romantic costume drama of A Royal Affair.  These kinds of qualities resist being made objective.

A further problem with crowd sourcing is the possibility that it can become crowd surfing.  Kristina Grifantini, in her article Can You Trust the Crowd Wisdom?, cites evidence from Vassilis Kostakos from the University of Madeira in Portugal that suggests that small numbers of users can distort the overall pictures.  While you may think a whole crowd is working on your projects, it may in fact be a handful of web savvy patrons.  If you put a lot of stock in the crowd sourced material, you may unwittingly be raising the profile of just one or two web savvy patrons.  They now surf above the surging masses (your other patrons) like a kid at a Pearl Jam concert in 1996 (or two young girls at Relient K.  You know, whatever you can find on youtube.)

Here's a screen cast I made touting the benefits of LinkedIn.com's profile page.  The video shows my clear ignorance of how to use most of the rest of the site.  [Please note: I actually do recognize how interesting and important it is that my extended network includes people who work on the Kindle; my comments are meant to suggest that knowing that I am somewhat connected to this critical content provider and knowing how to make use of this network are different things.  My ignorance comes in knowing how to use these network contacts.  Clearly the Kindle and the digital content loaded onto the Kindle are of utmost importance to libraries and librarians.  Working with the people who provide this content could be hugely beneficial to libraries everywhere.  I just don't know yet how to leverage my LinkedIn extended network to bring about such an effort.  Maybe I should be talking to my cousin more often.]

Skokie Public Library Screencast

tag= blogposting week 11

I'm trying to get away from always looking at New York Public Library on my blog, so this week I've decided to take a look at a screencast done at the Skokie Public library in Skokie, IL.

I decided to comment on the library's screencast on finding obituaries precisely because it was their shortest video -- best practice dictates that a screencast ought to be short.  (In fact, 4 and 1/2 minutes is pushing it a little bit.)  I felt that looking at a shorter video would provide me with a better list of best practices. 

The video definitely starts off well.  The opening screen has a clear logo for the library and features both the name of the narrator/librarian and his email address.  This is an appropriate way to begin because it clearly shows the librarian's enthusiasm about following up with patrons.  The narrator/librarian Toby Greenwalt also has a clear and pleasing voice.  This is important not just for understandability, but also approachability.  If the narrator sounds bored or speaks too quietly, it sends the message that s/he is not really that interested in the topic.  (Greenwalt does clip somewhat on his plosives -- especially "p"s and "t"s.  I don't know what kind of microphone he had access to, but perhaps a pop guard would have helped eliminate those brief moments of harsh sound.)

The tutorial begins at the library homepage.    It's interesting (and I choose this word precisely for its ambiguity) that the homepage is so colorful.  This doesn't seem like an aesthetic choice on the part of Greenwalt; he's clearly using the page as it existed at the time he shot his video.  It has many colorful rectangles for navigation and a happy looking ginger bread man peeking out of the lower right hand corner.  The choice may seem overly positive to some looking for obituaries or it might set a welcome uplifting tone. Either way, it's a good choice to begin at the homepage; it's important to start your screencast somewhere your patrons can easily navigate to.  Also, starting at the homepage can give a user who's not familiar with the library's web presence a sense of where else they might be able to go once on the homepage (in the case that perhaps the video has been emailed to a patron using email or text reference).

I also applaud the choice to make the video real time as opposed to a narrated series of screen shots.  In this way the video can serve a dual purpose as a bit of information literacy for patrons not familiar with web tools.

As Greenwalt navigates, he is careful to point out the other options available on the website.  This may be an unnecessary tangent for the patron desperate to get to the obituaries, but for the casual patron a brief explanation of the other genealogical resources is likely welcome -- perhaps their obituary search is merely the beginning of an exploration of an entire family genealogy.  Knowing what other resources the library site offers may bring them back to the site later.  Greenwalt discusses icons showing three main types of resources outlined on the site: web resources available to anyone with an Internet connection, resources that require a library card (but which can be accessed remotely), and sources available only in the library.  Again, this is important for giving patrons a sense of what the library provides and possibly drawing them into the physical location.

Greenwalt's choice of search term is masterful.  He selects a former mayor long dead.  This connects the library to the local community and to local history.  It also makes the process less emotionally charged than it could be (using a recent death could have been seen as too macabre or insensitive).  It highlights the library's collections of local Skokie newspapers.  Finally, because the newspapers are held on microfilm, it highlights a library resource, welcomes patrons into the library, and allows Greenwalt to show off the fact that, via the Ask a Librarian link, patrons can request items on microfilm and have them emailed to them.  This is a wonderful service that some patrons may not be familiar with.

Greenwalt also shows off a resource that has an electronic version of the obituary, which is useful for patrons not willing to wait for an email or a trip to the library.

The presentation ends with Greenwalt's email again.  This is the best way to end the screencast -- as it reaffirms Greenwalt's interest in following up with patrons.

It's hard to fault any aspect of the library's screencast.  There appears to be a rather long list of resources, so a person might be disappointed that Greenwalt doesn't cover more sources, discussing strengths and weaknesses.  But, the video is already 4 minutes long and provides a hurried or impatient patron with enough information to get started.  Also, because it encourages emails, the video can get away with not explaining every single source; interested or lost patrons can email Greenwalt.

Greenwalt is clear, concise, and hits all the right notes.  His is a fine model for any screencast.