iLibris

One Library Network's Mashup

The Ohio Public Library Information Network has been on a search for the perfect federated library, database, and web search engine since the late 1990’s. According to the article “Ohio Web Library Mashup” featured in the 2008 book Library Mashups: Exploring New Ways to Deliver Library Data, the librarians found what they were looking for in the pazpar2 software for Index Data. As the authors state:

“The pazpar2 software is a web-oriented Z39.50 client that can search a lot of targets in parallel and provides on-the-fly integration of the results. It works particularly well with AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) for building a dynamic page displaying search results. It provides record merging, relevance ranking, record sorting, and faceted results. This was the option that seemed to offer the functionality we needed, the features we wanted, and the critical ability to make rapid changes. We identified some features of the MasterKey hosted service which we felt could be improved, looked closely at the pazpar2 code, and came to an agreement with Index Data to install a slightly customized version of pazpar2 on one of our servers to be the engine for our federated search.”

In an effort to provide a search service that was “more like Google” the librarians at OPLIN negotiated interoperability issues, evaluated vendors, prototyped models, and improved usability. The OPLIN’s universal search browser launched in 2008. Here are screen shots of the library network home page, the search bar, and a search example:

Ohio Public Library Information Network: Homepage

OPLIN: Web/Database Search Bar

OPLIN: Example search of "information society"

A couple of interesting things to note are the lists of “Subjects” and “Sources” to the left of the search results list. Another important thing to note is that individual public libraries within the state of Ohio each have their own website. What the OPLIN has developed is a “federated database search mashup” that retrieves authoritative open and closed web resources.

So, why am am I focusing on the OPLIN Web Library mashup? Well, for one, and I am being very honest here, many of the other library mash-up tools fall short of what I believe is helpful for users. Don’t get me wrong, features like mapping library locations or a bookmobile map, or other services that utilize free and open-source data in order to provide novel formats, services, interfaces, and functionalities can provide incredibly useful services to users. However, what I find exemplary and compelling about the specific example of the OPLIN was the ability for library staff to continue to go back and re-test, re-evaluate, and pay attention to what their users were looking for and what they need. Overall it is an excellent example of prototyping and beta testing new information technologies – the right way, and I think that information professionals everywhere can learn from this example.

Despite the great usability and usefulness of the “federated database search mashup” tool, among the few public library websites I checked (and they were only a few) the OPLIN did not seem to be featured as a research tool or resource. With the amount of work put into crafting this search tool, instructing other public libraries on its usability and strengths, as well as integrating the search bar into public library home pages, either by embedding or linking, would help to increase the use and awareness of this tool as an authoritative resource for database and online content.

As much as I am in agreement with authors like Brian Lamb and Duanne Merrill regarding leveraging the power of new Web 2.0 technologies, I do think that the Library 2.0 movement could benefit by collaboration with open source and community informatics proponents. Besides, we all want the same things, but it’s helpful to be aware of some of the various ways and methods that information professionals are making it happen.

Social Networking and Special Library Collections

I find it fascinating that social networking services have become synonymous with online social media platforms. I also find it particularly interesting that so many libraries have been so quick to create their own personal profile pages.

The use of social networking services for libraries, as with other Web 2.0 technologies, has been a contentious issue among librarians. The Librarian in Black offers some helpful pointers on how to leverage social media tools to increase interactivity and visibility of libraries among their communities. However, the Other Librarian states that some insist that “the culture of Libraries clashes with the culture of Facebook” and that if a librarian is going to use Facebook effectively, they will need to build a rapport with members of their community. Meredith Farkas has reminded users that social networking profiles are a two-way communication medium and that profiles can be an effective portal to library information and services. According to a survey of libraries’ uses of Web 2.0 tools in the ALA’s 2010 State of America’s Libraries Report, the greatest uses of social media include: promoting general library services, marketing specific programs/services, quick updates to users, reaching a new audience, and issuing press releases. The report concludes that the “increase in social networking suggests a set of skills that librarians should possess as social networking-literate information professionals capable of implementing library services and using information at social networking sites” and that these skills include “interacting with patrons within the sites, understanding and articulating the nature of social networking sites and their potential roles related to library services, creating presences and content, evaluating and applying information, and being able to help patrons acquire and apply these skills.”

These discussions are all well and good, but what about special collection, libraries? How are they utilizing social networking profiles, and are these profiles effective? According to Amelia Abreu’s “Creating a Community for the Cultural Record: Using Social Software in Special Collections” presentation, the archivist states that “Social software tools have the potential to document institutional knowledge and improve word of mouth referrals by establishing new channels of communication between users.”

Let’s take a look at a few Facebook library profiles pages of (yes, you guessed it) three different libraries: the New York State Library, the San Francisco History Center/Book Arts & Special Collections, and the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library at Duke University. Here are the corresponding Facebook pages:

New York State Library: Special Collections

San Francisco Public Library: History Center

Duke University Library: Special Collections

The first thing to note is that all three libraries provide a Facebook link from their main library information page, and all three Facebook profiles appear to update regularly and have a fair amount of followers. All three profiles offer descriptions of the library in the “General Information” or “Description” area, however the SFPL History Center has considerably less descriptive content. Additionally, none of these libraries delineate the purpose of their Facebook profile.

The SFPL History Center’s profile primarily features historic photos, whereas the NYSL’s profile includes some historic ephemera photos, and some general library photos that feature what sort of information services they offer. The NYSL’s profile also features a plug-in library catalog search bar, and a plug-in sample of their digital collections. The RBMSCL at Duke University also features a some photos from the collection as well as miscellaneous general library photos. There does appear to be a bit more interactivity on the RBMSCL page, but all three seem to be using their Facebook profiles for similar purposes, mainly to market library related information on their network.

I’ll admit that I was interested in viewing Special Library Collections’ profiles to get a sense of whether or not they are effective. Regarding their overall content, I think that all three sites could better utilize the “Events” page, the SFPL History Center could include more information for users, and it’s unclear as to whether or not having a search or digital collection plug-in feature at the NYSL would be useful for users. As a patron, I would much rather go to the NYSL main page in order to better explore the libraries resources. However, all that being said, all three libraries do feature organizational updates and news of a local or historical interest. As a library professional in special collections, I could see a good deal of benefit to networking between organizational profiles, however as a patron, I don’t think that I would really consider using the social media profile service unless I was conducting regular research.

As Terra B. Jacobson concluded in her article on “Facebook as a Library Tool: Perceived vs Actual Use,” from her study it was “found that Facebook would be a better tool for ‘active libraries,’ or libraries that host a lot of events, exhibits, workshops and other activities as its top use is for announcements and marketing. Also, librarians should not get too attached to Facebook, as there is always the next tool or social networking site that people are using. Web 2.0 applications move quickly and the Internet is constantly changing, be prepared to leave your hard work behind to jump to the next tool.”

Usability of Subject Guide Wikis

According to Meredith Farkas in her 2005 article “Using Wikis to Create Online Communities,” there are many ways that libraries and librarians can use wikis, such as for subject guides, annotating the catalog, as a community portal, or as a collaborative tool for colleagues. Brian Lamb discusses the main objections to the use of wikis in his 2004 article titled “Wide Open Spaces: Wikis, Ready or Not,” and these common criticisms include: the lack of security, the lack of privacy, and the overall organizational structure. The main remedies include community-enforced policies, the option of password-protected access, and use of the search box or “recent changes” page in order to orient oneself.

All right, so it seems pretty clear that wikis can be a powerful tool for libraries and librarians. Let’s investigate this theory with subject guide wikis. Before we do, let’s establish some ground rules for what makes a good subject guide. According to the Library Success Wiki page on Subject Guides, “it is important to point out that a subject guide is not a laundry list of every reference book or Internet link related to a topic. Instead, a truly useful subject guide is a list of carefully-selected resources that will help users begin finding the information they are looking for…it is beneficial to include starting points and explain how the resource is formatted…[and the] topic and purpose of the subject guide should be clearly identified.” Additionally, subject guides should include pointers to catalog resources, reference/bibliographies, indexes/databases, journals/magazines, government documents, and web sources, among others.

I’ll be looking at three different wiki subject guides: the subject guide wiki of St. Joseph County Public Library in Indiana, the subject guide wiki of Champlain College Library in Vermont, and the Health Librarianship Wiki originally part of the 2006  Health and Information Sources and Services course at the School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies a the University of British Columbia. Already we can assume that there is a discrepancy between these resources regarding access. Both the Subject Guide Wiki for St. Joseph County Public Library and the Subject Guide Wiki for the Champlain College Library are easily accessible from each library’s’ main page, under “Research & Information” for the former, and under “Find resources by subject” drop down menu for the later. The HLWIKI, on the other hand, is only accessible via a course link, UBC library website search, or an open web search.

Here are screenshots of the front page of each subject guide wiki:

HLWIKI: Health Librarianship Wiki

Champlain College Library: Subject Guide Wiki

St. Joseph County Public Library: Subject Guide Wiki

One noticeable difference between the three wikis is the layouts of the main pages. We have broad academic subject categories for Champlain College Library, broad library and community topic categories for SJCPL, and broad subject columns on health librarianship, social media, and e-health related topics for the HLWIKI. Additionally, HLWIKI and SJCPL are powered by MediaWiki, an open-source wiki software package, and CCL Subject Wiki is supported by PBWorks, a primarily commercial wiki software package that offers a free basic personal account.

Some similar functionality and usability issues involve the left sidebar navigation links. In both the HLWIKI and the SJCPL, there are some nonfunctional links, including “Community Portal,” “Current Events,” and in the case of SJCPL the “Browse by Category” option needs to be fixed. These could be the result of lack of content or lack of use, but more information could be provided so that users aren’t left hanging. The pages of the HLWIKI and the SJCPL seem akin to pathfinders, informative pages of organized links to helpful resources. The CCL Subject Guide Wiki is similar, but offers some contrasting functionalities. Here is an example their “Digital Forensics and Information Security Page”:

CCL Subject Guide Wiki: Example Subject Page

Some of the subject pages feature a search bar, allowing users to search journal databases, or the library catalog books and e-book collections. Additionally, the CCL Subject Guide Wiki provides links to specific course pages and thus functions like a kind of integrated course and subject pathfinder tool.

The SJCPL home page offers a rich organization of community resources, including a “Community Connection” search portal to local organizations. Because the subject guide includes a “Community Organizations & Resources” page, it’s difficult to determine where I would search first for information on community organizations. Although, I imagine that librarians at the SJCPL are aware of the differences between these resources, a reference from the “Community Organizations & Resources” subject page to the “Community Connections” search interface might help users. In the case of the CCL Subject Guide Wiki, it’s difficult to assess the overall usability without access to the library database pages. As the subject guides consist of pretty bare-bones links, as a potential user I would be concerned about whether or not additional general information on the indexes and databases is provided by the library.

The HLWIKI appears to be a highly informed online tool for health librarian professionals. The pages are comprehensive and informative, and the wiki is informed and moderated by over a dozen librarians. Overall, the resource is very helpful for general Library 2.0 topics as well as those that are more relevant to e-health and health librarianship. My only suggestion would be to include a link to the HLWIKI from the Library, Archival, and Information Studies library subject guide and either remove the “Community Portal” and “Current Events” navigation links, or at minimum, offer more information for users as to why these pages are without content.

As with other Web 2.0 tools, part of the appeal of Wikis is the decentralized content and user participation. All three wikis restrict access to users’ contributions, although requests for contributions and providing feedback to librarians is permitted. The strength of decentralized content allows multiple librarians to contribute, edit, and modify pages, therefore speeding up the publication process. Whereas community participation might be beneficial to the HLWIKI and the SJCPL Subject Guide Wiki, the CCL Subject Guide Wiki might benefit from allowing faculty members to edit content, particularly as it relates to course resource pages. Lastly, more information about the best way to use each guide and what type of resources to expect may aid the overall findability of resources when searching and browsing is limited to the wiki content.

Tag: Using it in Library Catalogs

Folksonomies and tagging is a relatively new occurrence in library catalogs. Although the integration of tagging features seems to have caught on quite well within public and community libraries, the implementation of tagging software in academic and special library collections seems to be moving at a bit of a slower rate.

At any rate, let’s take a look at some library catalogs that are implementing folksonomies. I’ll be comparing a university/college union catalog, a city public library catalog, both of which are using tags from LibraryThing, and a law school library catalog that is implementing the rather popular Encore library search tool.

TOPCAT is a union catalog of the SWITCH Library Consortium of universities and colleges in Wisconsin. According to TOPCAT Features, the “tags are from LibraryThing, a book cataloging site that features a database of over 22 million titles. Public members of LibraryThing contribute tags describing the contents of each item. Tags are viewable within the full record of many TOPCAT titles although they are not in all records.” Additionally, according to the What are Tags? page the university library users cannot add their own tags, and tags may be “irrelevant or not quite ‘right’.” Once a user clicks on a tag to look for related resources, a Tag Browser appears.

Here is an example of a library catalog description with “Tags” and LibraryThing’s “Similar Titles” feature:

Mary Daly's Beyond God the Father

Mary Daly: Similar Titles and Tags

Having read Daly’s work, and having completed a minor in Gender and Women’s Studies, I find several things to be interesting about the tags for this catalog entry. One is the absence of the term “radical feminism” which we can see referenced in the title of one of her other works. The other is that once I start to explore the Tag Browser, I find only related works on “feminist theology” or “feminist theory” that take me to other related authors, but that do not privilege Mary Daly’s other works as relevant. The relationships between terms are associative rather leading me to greater degrees of specificity.

Of course, there isn’t anything necessarily wrong or bad about this, but if I wanted to be able to browse from the broader term of “feminist theory” or “feminism” to a specific kind of theory, such as “radical feminism,” these tag features do not allow me to do so. All that being said, as an exploration and discovery tool that brings together variously associative works, the tag feature works quite well.

The Danbury Public Library, is the city library of Danbury, Connecticut. The Danbury Public Library Catalog also integrates some LibraryThing’s features, mainly tags and a list of similar books without thumbnail icons. Here is another example of a catalog entry and tags:

Ursula K. Le Guin: The Birthday of the World and Other Stories

Ursula K. Le Guin: Similar Books and Tags

The catalog description also features an excerpt of the works provided by Syndetic Solutions. In this case, it’s interesting to note that one of the tags includes the name of the author, and (possibly) where the work is published (i.e., USA). Also, we have terms with a much greater degree of specificity that are unique to Le Guin’s world building, namely “Ekumen” and “hainish.” As expected, broader terms like “speculative fiction” and “feminism” yield a larger variety of associative works.

The Mendik Library, the New York Law School’s library switched to Encore library discovery search a couple years ago, according to product website. Additionally, according to the product website, both library staff and users can add tags and includes specialized terms. One noticeable difference between the tag feature in Encore, as opposed to LibraryThing, is the presence of a Refine Searches tag cloud at the bottom of a retrieved search list and a Refine by Tag cloud to the immediate right of a retrieved search list. Here are examples with a search on “anarchism”:

New York Law Library: "Anarchism" refine tag cloud

New York Law Library: "Anarchism" related search tag cloud

The “Established Terms” to the left of the related searches tag cloud are terms “chosen by librarians to ensure consistency in organizing library materials.” In addition to librarian-recommended search terms, the associated “anarchism” tags offer a very rich variety of associated topics, people, events, times, historical movements, and places, offering greater degrees of specificity or generality of related terms. Looking at a specific catalog entry may reveal an absence of “Community Tags,” however, the option to Add a Tag is clearly available to patrons:

Emma Goldman: Community Tag option

What’s particularly interesting about the use of tags in a special library like the Mendik Library, is that its overall usefulness seems unclear. Tag searches work quite well as a general discovery tool for those who are just beginning to familiarize themselves with the topic; however, the use of tags for highly specific and specialized research would also be useful. Additionally, the inability to add or modify tags within the systems that utilize LibraryThing, seems like a bit of a moot point.

As a public library patron, I would be much more inclined to use Encore’s tagging system for discovery, as well as utilize the option of being able to contribute my own personal tags to a work. From the perspective of an academic library patron, I would most likely view the integrated LibraryThing tags as a limited discovery tool that may become less useful once a greater familiarity with the subject and research topic is acquired. Additionally, I would view inability to add or modify links as pretty significant limitation to being able to leverage the power of tagging within a participatory academic and scholarly community. Overall, I would suggest that other libraries consider the usefulness of having tags as a discovery tool and a means of refining one’s search, and I would also suggest that other libraries do not integrate tags without the option of user participation. As others have explained, the greatest appeal of tagging, folksonomies, and social bookmarking is the ability leverage user participation and community knowledge.

How Academic Libraries are Tweeting

Twitter seems to be the brand name that has become commonplace for micro-blogging in general. Now, I’ll admit that I’ve had difficulty assessing Twitter’s overall value as a technology. With a restriction to 140 characters, the technology really seems much more useful for mobile devices with data packages, for information quickies on the go, rather than an in-depth representation of services. All that being said, Phil Bradley offers some worthwhile uses of Twitter for libraries:

• General Information Updates
• Staff Information
• New Resources
• General Information
• Countdowns for Library Events
• Links to Images About the Library
• News Alert Service
• Notify Patrons About What the Library is Doing
• Conversations About the Library or Subject Area of Interest
• Awareness for Specific Subjects or Specific Groups of People
• Update News RSS Feed on Library Webpage
• Share Best Practices with Other Libraries

…and some instances when using Twitter misses the mark:

• Tweeting without following anyone
• Tweets aren’t open to the general public (i.e. you can’t see their Tweets until you commit to following them)
• If you don’t see a value in it, don’t use it, and come back later to try it again

All right, but what about the academic context? How are university libraries implementing micro-blogging? Let’s take a look at three university library Twitter accounts to get a sense of how they’re using the technology: UC Berkeley Library Technology Training, Harvard Library, and Koerner Library at University of British Columbia.

The first notable comparison is that not all three websites offer links to their corresponding Twitter accounts, but all of the Twitter accounts link to relevant pages for further information. Here are the screenshots of each Twitter account, with a corresponding screenshot of their homepage:

UC Berkeley Library Technology Training: Twitter Account

UC Berkeley Library Technology Training: Homepage

Some of the UC Berkeley Libraries are utilizing Twitter, some examples include the Bancroft Library, or the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Library. However, the UC Berkeley Libraries, the main Doe Library at UC Berkeley, and the undergraduate Moffitt Library at UC Berkeley, only have corresponding Facebook accounts. Instead, there is a Twitter account for Doe and Moffitt Library technology training (i.e. dmtech) as a resource for colleagues to remain up to speed on latest technologies. The About page states that the goal of the sessions “is to provide an environment for staff to learn technologies that have practical applications and would help them in their day-to-day jobs.” The fact that there are no links readily available to the Twitter account from the main UC Berkeley Library page, as well as the UC Berkeley Library Technology Training page, that the followers only amount to around two hundred, and that many of the Tweets are Re-Tweets, does indicate the intended purpose of the account is a communication tool between library professionals.

Harvard Library: Twitter Account

Harvard Library: Homepage

The Harvard Library Twitter account, however, seems to have more of a general patron audience in mind. The Tweets are all very clearly related to Harvard Library events, resources, and news with little to no information Re-Tweets, and the account has well over 2,000 followers. Additionally, the Library News link from the Harvard Library homepage is a direct link to the Twitter account feed, and interesting media choice for broadcasting library related news, rather than utilizing RSS feeds.

Koerner Library at UBC: Twitter Account

Koerner Library at UBC: Homepage

The Koerner Library Humanities and Social Science Library at UBC offers an interesting comparison. Despite the rather small following, the library very clearly represents their Twitter feed on the main page, with a very clear articulation of purpose: we’re here to answer your questions and here of some of the kinds of questions we get. The research help information in the background of the Twitter account can be quite helpful for students who are seeking research help; however, it might also be a good idea to include a disclaimer about Tweeting reference questions, or to possibly expand the use of the Twitter account to include news about Koerner Library in general. UBC students might not be as interested in following only random reference questions, unless they believe that it will help them with their own research or studies. For example, it might help to include one link to the relevant subject research guide or one link to a good resource with each question.

Between the three Twitter feeds, I would be more inclined to use the dmtech feed as a library professional, the Harvard_Library feed as a formal library news/update resource, and KoernerRef for general intellectual enrichment. The Doe and Moffitt Libraries at UC Berkeley could potentially benefit from a Twitter account aimed at library patrons, to promote library resources, and library events. The Harvard Library might want to consider an overall better integration of social media services, including the use of RSS feeds and an announcement page for library related news and services. Lastly, KoernerRef could expand their Twitter feed to include links to library resources, as well as include library related news and announcements. Out of the three Twitter feeds, the Koerner Library’s Homepage is the best example of a well integrated use of Twitter.

I can’t say whether or not I’ve been won over by Twitter. The medium does offer certain social networking and informative benefits. However, whenever I think about trying it out, I think about the Futurama episode “Attack of the Killer App”. The episode is basically a parody of all the hype that happens around the “EyePhone” and “Twitcher” applications. Yes, I know it’s pretty silly to base one’s trepidations on a popular cartoon comedy show, but the main moral of the episode was to think before jumping on the next new technology trend. I think that we can all agree about the importance of having clear, consistent, and strategic goals for implementing new technology tools in order to enhance library and information services.

Web 2.0 Technologies in California Public Libraries

The status of libraries in California has been pretty grim over the last decade. Budget cuts, the rising recession and unemployment rate have had a tremendous impact on state, county, and city libraries in California. A recent article in Education-Portal.com, “Libraries in Crisis: What Budget Cuts Mean for CA Libraries” by Meghan Driscoll summarizes that “Since the early 2000s, over 75% of funds for the programs listed above have been eliminated. This latest round of cuts will mean yet another loss of library staff, a potentially deep reduction in library hours and limited availability of books and other materials.” According to a Library Journal article by Michael Kelley the budget cuts will lead to a collapse of a 30-year-old resource-sharing network, such as interlibrary loan services. Whether or not such decisions constitute a “shock and awe” budgetary approach, the goal of which “is to inspire middle class voters to come out in June to vote for a revenue-raising ballot proposal,” as Driscoll states, is ultimately beside the point. What does matter is how California’s libraries will be able to maintain certain levels of services.

Some of you may recall an earlier 2004 California public library crisis, the closure of the Salinas public libraries. Here is an American Library article by Pamela A. Goodes and an ALA 2004 press release that presents a refresher. Lots of changes have happened to the Salinas Public Libraries since 2005. With the help from private contributions and the passage of a local tax measure, the library now features a Digital Arts Lab (as of 2007), a Bookmobile (as of 2009), as well as a new and improved web interface. Whether or not the state of California will rally to the aid of libraries, schools, and universities, is a discussion that is beyond the scope of this entry. However, as a former Californian, I find the issue of what sorts of services are available or provided through local libraries to be of particular interest.

Let’s take a comparative look at a few libraries that feature Web 2.0 services: the San Francisco Public Library, the San Jose Public Library, and  the Los Angeles Public Library. Here are some screen shots of their homepages:

Los Angeles Public Library : Homepage

Access points to mobile services and e-Media, such as LAPL podcasts and vodcasts. It’s interesting to note that social media applications are not accessible anywhere on the main page.

San Jose Public Library : Homepage

All Web 2.0 applications are accessible from the icons at the bottom of the page. Out of the three public libraries, this interface features the best and most straight forward access points.

Here is a comparative breakdown of the different services that each public library offers:

San Francisco Public Library	Los Angeles Public Library	San Jose Public Library
RSS feeds	RSS feeds	RSS feeds
IM service	IM service	IM service
Mobile interface	Mobile search application	Mobile search application
Podcasts	Podcasts	Podcasts
Vodcasts	Vodcasts	Vodcasts
Blogs		Blogs
Facebook		Facebook
Twitter		Twitter
Delicious		Flickr
LibraryThing
GoodReads

Couple of contrasting points worth mentioning. One point is the surprising lack of social media software utilized at the Los Angeles Public Library. Out of all Web 2.0 features offered, the mobile search application was the most prominent and easiest to find, with podcasts and vodcasts following second. RSS feeds could only be found after a thorough website search. The San Jose Public Library on the other hand had RSS feeds for practically everything, and nearly all Web 2.0 services are accessible from the Get Updates page. Additionally, between the three library sites, the San Francisco Public Library utilized more social bookmarking tools geared for reader advisory services. A last point of interest, is the technology service focus of the San Jose Public Library, exemplified by the device format listing on the FAQs About Digital Content page:

 

Device/Format Chart for Digital Content

 

Let’s take a closer look at podcasts and vodcasts, since all three libraries utilizes these services. The SFPL offers very limited podcasting in comparison to the SJPL and the LAPL. SFPL podcasting spans from 2007-2009, featuring local readings, spoken word, discussions, and performances. SJPL podcasts span from 2010-2011 and are mainly composed of poetry readings and staff pick recommendations. The LAPL features three different podcast programs, Children’s podcasts from 2008-2009, interviews and talks on Richard Neutra the architect, and the ALOUD at Central Library speaker series. The ALOUD series has been a part of the LAPL since 1993 and features “leading figures in the worlds of literature, the arts and ideas. These dynamic programs are designed to contribute to an informed, engaged, and democratic community and to foster life-long learning in a welcoming environment. The great majority of ALOUD programs are presented free of charge to the people of Los Angeles” (from ALOUD at Fora.tv). Between the three libraries, the LAPL offers a strong variety of podcast topics, spanning over a 10+ year period. The utilization of vodcasts also offer an interesting comparison. The SFPL, again seems to offer surprisingly little in terms of diverse topics and readings. SJPL, on the other hand, has a wide variety of vodcasts centered on community events, story times, staff picks, library tours, and overall community participation all featured on the library’s blip.tv channel. Again, the LAPL’s vodcasting exclusively features ALOUD talks, lectures, and discussions.

The use of podcasting and vodcasting offers an interesting snapshot of how each library frames their services. The lack of user-centered social media services at the LAPL and the overall top-down podcast and vodcast programing, frames the LAPL as a kind of cultural mecca. The SJPL on the other hand, utilizes vodcasting as an archival and broadcasting tool for community events and participation, offering a very clear picture of the kind of communities these libraries serve. The SFPL seems to be situated somewhere in-between, offering some forms of top-down programming but with some awareness of the importance of having some user-centered services, albeit with inconsistent application. However, it is important to keep in mind that these differences may have more to do with funding and budgetary constraints, rather than mere variations in community or user orientation.

Between these three libraries, I would probably be more inclined to use the SJPL vodcasting services if I were a new local patron wanting to get a sense of my local community, and the LAPL podcasting and vodcasting for cultural enrichment. For SFPL, I might be inclined to utilize their social media applications for reader advisory purposes, but I would be less drawn to their limited podcast and vodcast programming. I do think that the SFPL and LAPL could learn from SJPL website interface, user-centered focus, and overall usability regarding Web 2.0 applications and I think that the SFPL would benefit from re-evaluating their social media strategies, goals and purposes in support of local communities, local writers and authors, or local issues within California generally.

…and on that note, I’d like to end with a reference to a SFPL video talk with Stacy Alderich, California’s State Librarian, and her discussion of the California budget crisis and where libraries are heading. What I find particularly interesting is her focus on technology trends rather than on the overall statewide trend of slashing funding for public services and the plateaued unemployment rate. Again, it does seem as though California has been facing larger structural issues that go beyond the question of “How can we offer the same level of services for less?”

OK, I’m off of my soap box.

 

Introduction

This blog focuses on some of the 23 Things that public, academic, and special libraries can do to leverage Web 2.0 technologies in the service of their communities and organizational goals and missions. Each post will consider:

• How locatable is the technology/service from the library’s homepage.
• How usable is the technology/service for those who have never encountered the service before.
• How well the technology/service fits with other library services.
• Provide a personal evaluation of the technology/service.
• How can the technology/service be improved for future use.

Here is a video mashup of the Library 2.0 Manifesto by Soren Johannessen: