Computers in Libraries 2016

Today I stopped by the Computers in Libraries 2016 Exhibit Hall, located in the Washington Hilton.  I must have arrived between sessions, and during a popular snack break, as the exhibit hall was crowded with attendees, the vast majority of whom were gathered at the back of the exhibit hall ostensibly watching a presentation, but mostly eating popcorn, chatting, and guzzling free soda.  Conference perks!

Some of the vendors at CIL provide technologies I encounter as both a LIS graduate student and in my internship at a federal government agency, such as ProQuest and EBSCO.  But most vendors offered services that I had not (knowingly) utilized in my library experience, which to me demonstrated the sheer breadth of information services libraries in all areas provide, and how technology supports these services.  Exhibitors displayed a wide range of services, from research service, to library management platforms, to language services, and even library employment contracting services.

Given the time I am currently spending in a federal library, one exhibitor that caught my eye was FEDLINK.  FEDLINK offers a number of functions for federal libraries, including managing acquisitions, technical services, and interlibrary loan.  It seems to handle many of the functions of a typical Integrated Library System (ILS), but takes into account the special needs of government agencies who must comply with government contracting regulations.  I am curious about how the system works in practice, as I have found that federal agency systems are not always well integrated, which makes sharing resources, and sometimes even communicating, across libraries difficult. 

I also noticed that none of the vendors at CIL attended the American Association of Law Libraries conference, which I attended last summer in Philadelphia.  We have talked in this course (and others) about the importance of understanding your users and their needs when designing systems and determining how best to provide them service.  The exhibitors at CIL seemed mostly to serve academic and public libraries, and this made me consider the ways in which law libraries, and other special libraries, are different and have different systems requirements.  Security requirements are one special issue in government and firm law libraries as attorneys, ethically, have stringent confidentiality obligations to their clients.  Legal information is also quite specialized and making it available and accessible is difficult, and a service for which vendors charge top dollar.  These factors and more create specialized markets for library technology in these settings...or maybe special libraries just like to feel "special"!

Reflections on Weeks 5 & 7 Readings

In Weeks 5 & 7 we discussed two closely related topics:  Human Computer Interaction (HCI), and the means of determining how well said humans and computers interact, Usability Testing.  I probably would not have thought of HCI as a "discipline" until I read Rachit Gupta's introduction to the field, but it made perfect sense to me that this is a field of study unto itself when Gupta discussed how we are in the area of ubiquitous computing, with many computers to one person.  As I sit in my home office typing on my relatively new laptop, iPhone buzzing next to me, and a desktop computer, old laptop, and iPad all within reach, it is easy to see that HCI is an important aspect of modern daily life!  Though Gupta uses some terminology that feels clunky to lay-folk like myself (adaptive, configuration, unimodal), the concepts he describes make sense to anyone who uses computing devices daily.  For example, his discussion of visual (ex. facial recognition), audio (speech recognition), and sensor-based (mouse) HCI easily recall for users the many ways we interact with computers. 

Moving beyond the theoretical, usability testing examines how users (or potential users) interact with a particular system as designed.  As a librarian-in-training, I found Nancy Turner's study of librarian and student users of the Syracuse University Library Web Portal to be particularly interesting.  Turner found, not surprisingly, that librarians were able to find the materials requested with greater speed and accuracy than the student users, and were more likely to look beyond their initial results and use tools other than the basic search box tool.  Though it would be easy to conclude that "librarians do it better," Turner instead characterized her findings as "librarians do it differently," and rather than condemn students as lazy or unfocused, Turner avoids value judgments and describes the two groups as working from different "mental models."  This strikes me as important for anyone designing an information system.  Forcing users to adopt a system that does not comply with their expectations may mean that users avoid the system, or burden designers with their difficulties.  Of course, the fact that different library users (librarians vs. patrons) have different expectations seems to be one of the greatest challenges of designing library systems!

Sources:

Gupta, R. (2012). Human computer interaction: A modern overview. International Journal of Computer Technology and Applications, 3(5), 1736-1740.
Turner, N. B. (2011). Librarians do it differently: Comparative usability testing with students and library staff. Journal of Web Librarianship, 5(4). 284-298.

Reflections on Week 3 & 4 Readings

One of the topics we discussed (online) in Week 3 of LSC 555 was digital librarianship, and I particularly enjoyed reading the aptly titled, "What to expect when you're digitizing," which describes the challenges faced by solo librarians engaging in digitization projects.  Author Jane Monson's writing is refreshingly "plain English," as she avoids discussing any particular systems or platforms, avoids highly technical language, and cites to interesting examples from her own experience.  Points such as recognizing hidden costs of free software, seeking outside funding sources, and seeking help from experts are advice that librarians at any level of experience and with any level of technical ability can understand.  Her discussion of project management reminded me of my days practicing law, and how essential the litigation technology staff were to my daily practice, which involved a great deal of document management. 


Another article that provided practical feedback, assigned in Week 4, was Marshall Breeding's profiles of major discovery product profiles.  Breeding covers a lot of ground, discussing 12 different products, including their history and development.  This article would certainly be useful to libraries considering one of these platforms, and wishing to compare and contrast them.  However, Breeding uses a great deal of print publishing user comments regarding these products.  Some of these are interesting, but it is difficult to determine how useful they are out of context, and they overwhelm his other material.  I would have included the comments in an appendix, and summarized their content in a more succinct way for users (say, "mixed reviews on design," "better for academic libraries," "comments regarding customer service all positive").  I also did not have a good sense of what some of the products actually do, and in some cases Breeding merely restates the vendor's profile of the product.  Screenshots would have been a useful addition to the article--I love a good screenshot!


Sources:


Breeding, M. (2014). Major discovery product profiles. Library Technology Reports, 50(1), 33-52.


Monson, J. (2011). What to expect when you're digitizing: A primer for the solo digital librarian. Computers in Libraries, 31(1), 16-20.

Reflections on Week 1 & 2 Readings

The choice between using print and digital materials is one that anyone who consumes information--which is EVERYONE--makes on a regular basis.  A few of the many factors that may inform this decision include:  (1) How voluminous is the material?  You may not want to waste ink and paper printing the 80 page article assigned by the professor, or pack four books in your suitcase for that two week business trip.  (2) Is it easier to consume in print or electronic form?  Material that provides links to other information, or that you are merely browsing, may be easier to consume online.  Material that requires focus may be easier to consume in print (at least it is for me, so long as I keep my electronic devices out of hand).  (3)  Cost.  Digital is often, but not always, less expensive.  In Library Services in the Digital Age, the Pew Research Center examined how modern library users are making these decisions in the context of libraries (Zickuhr, Rainie, & Purcell, 2013).  Like much research in library and information science, the study was geared towards public library use, and as a student concentrating on law librarianship, I would be eager to read similar articles focused on law library users, but the research is no doubt useful to librarians in all specialties.  The key findings?  People use both print and digital resources.  And people like using new technologies, but there is still a role for traditional library services.  This is good for librarians, job security! 

But it also means that librarians should play an important role in designing systems for their libraries that meet patron expectations and needs.  Now I feel comfortable jumping in and using well-designed technologies, but the thought of developing them turns me to stone--I went to law school to avoid just such things.  So when I picked up A Software System Development Life Cycle Model for Improved Stakeholders' Communication and Collaboration (Cohen, Hann, & Dori, 2010), well, I could feel my eyes glaze over just reading the title.  I was pleasantly surprised to find the article accessible to the lay person and though it did not specifically discuss library software, felt it provided an overview of the software lifecycle (specified, developed, acquired, implement), and analysis of important factors for success (expertise, teamwork, experimental culture, and real time information and communication), that would aide any librarian involved in adopting new technologies in their institution.  Given how much value librarians can add to their organizations by contributing to these processes, it is important that we gain a basic understanding of these concepts, even when the jargon is scary!

Sources:

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, V(1), 20-41.

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2013). Library services in the digital age. Pew Research Center.  Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/.