Technology is changing the way that libraries operate, as Coombs and Gambles note, however different the focus. While Coombs describes her experience in working to safeguard patrons' privacy in a digital age, Gambles focuses on the opportunities for libraries using mobile technology. Both, however, point to timeless principles of librarianship that undergird the changes being undertaken by librarians today.
Coombs details the efforts she made to identify and safeguard the information her university library was collecting from its user base of students. It was a time-consuming and painstaking process, as she had to examine each system individually to determine what information was being captured and stored. While some of the information was necessary for library operations--such as whether students were accessing the library from on or off campus--other information, such as social security numbers of students and exact IP addresses where they were logging on, was decidedly not needed.
Coombs was able to de-link identifying information from students, or wash it away altogether, in most systems. However, she discovered that other systems the library used were not under the library's control, and she therefore had to present a proposal to a university administrative office to make the same changes to safeguard students' privacy.
Necessitating these changes by Coombs are the ALA Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Rights, both of which have been governing librarians' work since 1939. Indeed, while the technology has changed, and will continue to change, the underlying ethos of the profession--including maintaining the privacy of users--will remain the same.
Gambles alludes to this connecting thread in his description of the opportunities for the new Library of Birmingham. He notes that mobile technology--whether phones or tablets--has increased not only in number but also in sophistication and function in a very short amount of time, but the Library of Birmingham is embarking on a new endeavor to exploit this technology to "rewrite the book for public libraries in the 21st century."
Among the changes to be implemented in the new Library of Birmingham are augmented reality, for example users with a mobile device can find their way in the library using both their actual location and a program on their phone that shows where they are and where they need to go. Gambles also notes the largely untapped resource that is librarians: their extensive knowledge is only sporadically put to use, one user at a time. Instead, the Library of Birmingham would use podcasts to create an "iTunes U," where they can reach many more people at a time.
The common thread in Gambles's description is a user-centric focus: all of these changes are being implemented to enhance the user experience. Just as with Coombs's examination of user data, Gambles's focus on the new library of the 21st century underscores the tenets of librarianship agreed upon decades ago: in this case, "providing the highest level of service to all users" (ALA Code of Ethics Artice I).
Although Coombs and Gambles are writing about changes brought on by ever-evolving technology, both are also illustrating the timeless ethics that guide librarians. Whether it is what books they have borrowed or what items they have searched online, users expect and deserve privacy, and the library's mission is to ensure that that privacy is kept. And whether it is a smiling face behind a reference desk or a helpful wayfinder for a user's mobile phone, the librarian's goal is to provide excellent service to users. While technology will always change, the ethics will remain the same.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Adaptive Technology at DCPL
The Worldwide Web is a marvel of technology and has made access to information as simple as a click of a mouse or a stroke on a keyboard--that is, as long as you have no visual, hearing, mental, or physical impairments. For those who fall in this camp, all is not lost, however: HTML coding and assistive technology allow those with disabilities to access the web. And those who become disabled later in life--that is, who do not learn to use such assistive technologies in a school setting--have an invaluable resource in the public library.
The DC Public Library is at the forefront in offering assistive technology to its users. As the DC regional library for the blind and physically handicapped, it offers braille-print materials and playback machines for audio materials. But, as exhibited by Patrick Timony, Chris Corrigan, and Janice Rosen during a site visit November 7, the DCPL's Adaptive Services Division offers so much more.
As Timony explained, libraries have the mission of bridging the gap between those who have information and those who don't; this becomes more challenging when some patrons have special needs, but the DCPL achieves its mission by offering an array of programs and services for people with mental and physical disabilities.
For example, every day Corrigan teaches a class on how to use the JAWS screen readers available at the library: this software allows computers to read aloud the content of web pages for users with low or no vision. And Rosen, who has worked at DCPL since 1992 as a librarian for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, described the many services for this group: American Sign Language (ASL) classes, ASL interpreting, tactile ASL for the deaf and blind, assistive listening devices and systems in the library, and captioning of all films shown at the library.
However, the services are not just technical, but social: DCPL hosts a monthly book club, a game night, and gaming stations through a partnership with the AbleGamers Foundation, as well as monthly Accessibility Meetups; weekly technology training sessions; and a DIY (Do it Yourself) Fair for people with and without disabilities. By bringing together vendors and users in this community, the library facilitates an ongoing conversation about the users' needs, and how technology can be developed to address them.
This last example illustrates what the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) calls essential in achieving web accessibility for all: collaboration among the different components. That is, in order for a site to be web accessible, the content of the site--both the words and images and the markup language that structures it, the users, developers, authors, evaluators, and technology all must work together. Another example: the JAWS screen reader program. As explained by Corrigan, this software relies on HTML code to structure the web page content in headers and supply alternative text for images and links. If the author of the page has done his or her part in the HTML code, and the user knows how to use the software, the screen reader will voice the headings and subheadings on the page and allow the user to navigate the site with keyboard commands.
Corrigan cited the sobering statistic that 90% of blind people who can read braille are employed, while 70% of blind people who cannot read braille are unemployed. This fact makes all the clearer the importance of technology--whether low-tech ASL or braille or hi-tech JAWS readers--in helping bridge the gap among the disabled between those who can work and those who cannot. But as the WAI points out, technology is not the only answer. It is people working together: users, authors, developers, and evaluators, who build and use this technology and share successes. And the DCPL is doing its part on all fronts.
Photo: Northwest Regional Spinal Cord Injury Center
The DC Public Library is at the forefront in offering assistive technology to its users. As the DC regional library for the blind and physically handicapped, it offers braille-print materials and playback machines for audio materials. But, as exhibited by Patrick Timony, Chris Corrigan, and Janice Rosen during a site visit November 7, the DCPL's Adaptive Services Division offers so much more.
As Timony explained, libraries have the mission of bridging the gap between those who have information and those who don't; this becomes more challenging when some patrons have special needs, but the DCPL achieves its mission by offering an array of programs and services for people with mental and physical disabilities.
For example, every day Corrigan teaches a class on how to use the JAWS screen readers available at the library: this software allows computers to read aloud the content of web pages for users with low or no vision. And Rosen, who has worked at DCPL since 1992 as a librarian for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, described the many services for this group: American Sign Language (ASL) classes, ASL interpreting, tactile ASL for the deaf and blind, assistive listening devices and systems in the library, and captioning of all films shown at the library.
However, the services are not just technical, but social: DCPL hosts a monthly book club, a game night, and gaming stations through a partnership with the AbleGamers Foundation, as well as monthly Accessibility Meetups; weekly technology training sessions; and a DIY (Do it Yourself) Fair for people with and without disabilities. By bringing together vendors and users in this community, the library facilitates an ongoing conversation about the users' needs, and how technology can be developed to address them.
This last example illustrates what the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) calls essential in achieving web accessibility for all: collaboration among the different components. That is, in order for a site to be web accessible, the content of the site--both the words and images and the markup language that structures it, the users, developers, authors, evaluators, and technology all must work together. Another example: the JAWS screen reader program. As explained by Corrigan, this software relies on HTML code to structure the web page content in headers and supply alternative text for images and links. If the author of the page has done his or her part in the HTML code, and the user knows how to use the software, the screen reader will voice the headings and subheadings on the page and allow the user to navigate the site with keyboard commands.
Corrigan cited the sobering statistic that 90% of blind people who can read braille are employed, while 70% of blind people who cannot read braille are unemployed. This fact makes all the clearer the importance of technology--whether low-tech ASL or braille or hi-tech JAWS readers--in helping bridge the gap among the disabled between those who can work and those who cannot. But as the WAI points out, technology is not the only answer. It is people working together: users, authors, developers, and evaluators, who build and use this technology and share successes. And the DCPL is doing its part on all fronts.
Photo: Northwest Regional Spinal Cord Injury Center
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Usability Testing of Web Sites
Both Thomsen-Scott and Tolliver, et al. detail the process of performing usability testing for library websites. While Thomsen-Scott focuses mainly on the process of the testing (and the importance of the user from beginning to end), Tolliver discusses the testing through the lens of help from consultants.
I found Thomsen-Scott's article a very accessible introduction to the world of usability testing. She explained in thorough detail the steps the University of North Texas libraries took to perform usability tests on their "Ask a Librarian" and home pages: formal usabililty tests, focus groups, and cognitive walkthroughs.
The formal usability tests involved direct observations of users as they navigated the website, peforming tasks pre-assigned by the testers. This method included sophisticated video-capture software to track users' movements throughout the website, as well as the more low-tech thinkaloud method, which had users speaking their thoughts out loud as they worked. Thomsen-Scott made sure to note that participants were given chocolate or candy after the testing, both as a reward and as encouragement for those who had difficulty using the site. Acknowledgement in the form of sweets goes a long way!
Another low-tech method, focus groups were used to gather participants together to discuss issues with the libraries' website in an open, free-flowing manner. Again, the comfort of the participants was on the minds of the testers: when one focus group did not communicate as openly as expected, the next group was hosted in a more welcoming room and conversational format to encourage discussion.
Although UNT did not use cognitive walkthroughs as part of its usability testing, Thomsen-Scott helpfully explains this method for librarians who might find it useful in their own testing.
Thomsen-Scott's focus on the users extended from the very rationale for the usability testing--making sure the web sites deliver what the users want--to the methodology of the testing: treats of candy were given to test participants; focus groups were held in welcoming rooms to encourage discussion; and pizza is suggested for librarian friends who volunteer to help with cognitive walkthroughs. Thomsen-Scott shows awareness of the needs of others, not only with her examples of her libraries' usability tests, but also with her clear, accessible tutorial on usability testing. As she points out, with the increase in online courses and other offerings from university libraries, websites constantly need to be updated to meet users' needs. Librarians have a good model to follow in Thomsen-Scott's example.
Meanwhile, Tolliver, et al. focus on the testing itself as experienced with the help of a consultant affiliated with the University of Michigan libraries. Whereas Thomsen-Scott performed the usability review as an update to an existing system, Tolliver describes a complete overhaul of the UM website, the scale of which necessitated usability tests in the design and development phase of the project, which illustrates the flexibility of usability tests: they may be conducted at any time in the development life cycle, and the timing of the testing is most likely determined by the scope of the project.
Tolliver states that the benefits of using a consultant for testing, rather than existing library staff, are the expert experience a consultant brings; a neutral, outsider perspective; and the time saved from librarians' not having to teach themselves how to conduct tests. This latter argument is not convincing, however: as Tolliver notes, usability testing is important, especially with the need to keep revising web sites as services and expectations change. Rather than pay a consultant each time a library performs usability testing, it would be more cost-effective in the long run for librarians to learn the skills themselves. Certainly this would take time upfront, but the economic savings over the longer term would justify this. Also, Tolliver notes that the consultants, while "expert" at testing, were not so expert at creating the content for the testing; rather, they had to defer to the librarians on what usability tasks needed to be tested. Finally, the consultants played a small role during follow-up testing, giving feedback to librarians but not much else.
The scope of the two library systems' projects differed vastly, and perhaps that is why a consultant might be necessary, but Tolliver does not use this reason in his own argument. Both Tolliver and Thomsen-Scott do agree, however, on the importance of usability testing on library web sites.
I found Thomsen-Scott's article a very accessible introduction to the world of usability testing. She explained in thorough detail the steps the University of North Texas libraries took to perform usability tests on their "Ask a Librarian" and home pages: formal usabililty tests, focus groups, and cognitive walkthroughs.
The formal usability tests involved direct observations of users as they navigated the website, peforming tasks pre-assigned by the testers. This method included sophisticated video-capture software to track users' movements throughout the website, as well as the more low-tech thinkaloud method, which had users speaking their thoughts out loud as they worked. Thomsen-Scott made sure to note that participants were given chocolate or candy after the testing, both as a reward and as encouragement for those who had difficulty using the site. Acknowledgement in the form of sweets goes a long way!
Another low-tech method, focus groups were used to gather participants together to discuss issues with the libraries' website in an open, free-flowing manner. Again, the comfort of the participants was on the minds of the testers: when one focus group did not communicate as openly as expected, the next group was hosted in a more welcoming room and conversational format to encourage discussion.
Although UNT did not use cognitive walkthroughs as part of its usability testing, Thomsen-Scott helpfully explains this method for librarians who might find it useful in their own testing.
Thomsen-Scott's focus on the users extended from the very rationale for the usability testing--making sure the web sites deliver what the users want--to the methodology of the testing: treats of candy were given to test participants; focus groups were held in welcoming rooms to encourage discussion; and pizza is suggested for librarian friends who volunteer to help with cognitive walkthroughs. Thomsen-Scott shows awareness of the needs of others, not only with her examples of her libraries' usability tests, but also with her clear, accessible tutorial on usability testing. As she points out, with the increase in online courses and other offerings from university libraries, websites constantly need to be updated to meet users' needs. Librarians have a good model to follow in Thomsen-Scott's example.
Meanwhile, Tolliver, et al. focus on the testing itself as experienced with the help of a consultant affiliated with the University of Michigan libraries. Whereas Thomsen-Scott performed the usability review as an update to an existing system, Tolliver describes a complete overhaul of the UM website, the scale of which necessitated usability tests in the design and development phase of the project, which illustrates the flexibility of usability tests: they may be conducted at any time in the development life cycle, and the timing of the testing is most likely determined by the scope of the project.
Tolliver states that the benefits of using a consultant for testing, rather than existing library staff, are the expert experience a consultant brings; a neutral, outsider perspective; and the time saved from librarians' not having to teach themselves how to conduct tests. This latter argument is not convincing, however: as Tolliver notes, usability testing is important, especially with the need to keep revising web sites as services and expectations change. Rather than pay a consultant each time a library performs usability testing, it would be more cost-effective in the long run for librarians to learn the skills themselves. Certainly this would take time upfront, but the economic savings over the longer term would justify this. Also, Tolliver notes that the consultants, while "expert" at testing, were not so expert at creating the content for the testing; rather, they had to defer to the librarians on what usability tasks needed to be tested. Finally, the consultants played a small role during follow-up testing, giving feedback to librarians but not much else.
The scope of the two library systems' projects differed vastly, and perhaps that is why a consultant might be necessary, but Tolliver does not use this reason in his own argument. Both Tolliver and Thomsen-Scott do agree, however, on the importance of usability testing on library web sites.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Rethinking the ILS
Marshall Breeding in "Re-Integrating the Integrated Library System" and Sai Deng in "Beyond the OPAC" both cite Google in explaining the need to improve library information systems, and, although they differ in how they approach the problem, both offer compelling solutions.
Breeding takes a broader view, looking at the ILS as a whole and describing its history from the 1970s, when it offered a near-complete automation of library functions. But as Breeding notes, the ILS came of age when libraries only had print materials, and it was never really updated to account for the ever-increasing number of digital materials in a library's collection. This has necessitated numerous add-ons such as link resolvers, metasearch products, and electronic resource management applications. While these are all adequate to meet the need of processing digital content, and in fact allow for customization of an ILS, Breeding notes that constructing this patchwork of ILS plus assorted add-ons requires "a lot of planning, design, and coordination"--that is, it is labor-intensive.
The obvious solution--creating an ILS that incorporates the functionalities of all of these add-ons--is cost-prohibitive, Breeding concedes. Rather, he envisions an improvement to the ILS-plus-add-on framework: indeed, as these supplements are still fairly new, it will just take some time and adjustments before it is more workable. Either way, as Breeding notes, users will demand improvement, and with Google and Amazon's simple interfaces just one click away, libraries have no choice but to comply.
Deng agrees that Google's interface is much better than most libraries', and approaches improvement strictly with regard to the OPAC: while Breeding looks at the ILS as a whole, Deng examines only the OPAC component, and uses the example of Google and Yahoo's personalization of interfaces and a case study of a collection web site to argue for more personalization of OPAC interfaces.
Deng describes the process of creating a web site for specialized data within an ILS--in this case faculty-produced literature at Wichita State University. While the steps to create an initial web site are numerous and complicated, Deng notes that once the initial site has been constructed, altering it to create yet another tailored site is much simpler. These subsequent sites can be customized by language, user type, library type, author, subject, or topic. The advantages--"better web presentation, easier discovery, and greater user attention"--are hard to dismiss.
Both Deng and Breeding offer solutions to the challenges Google, Amazon, and Yahoo have posed for libraries, and both have merit: while Breeding's argument to keep improving what we have works on the large scale, Deng's suggestion to do what we can to enhance the OPAC is a more focused approach.
Breeding takes a broader view, looking at the ILS as a whole and describing its history from the 1970s, when it offered a near-complete automation of library functions. But as Breeding notes, the ILS came of age when libraries only had print materials, and it was never really updated to account for the ever-increasing number of digital materials in a library's collection. This has necessitated numerous add-ons such as link resolvers, metasearch products, and electronic resource management applications. While these are all adequate to meet the need of processing digital content, and in fact allow for customization of an ILS, Breeding notes that constructing this patchwork of ILS plus assorted add-ons requires "a lot of planning, design, and coordination"--that is, it is labor-intensive.
The obvious solution--creating an ILS that incorporates the functionalities of all of these add-ons--is cost-prohibitive, Breeding concedes. Rather, he envisions an improvement to the ILS-plus-add-on framework: indeed, as these supplements are still fairly new, it will just take some time and adjustments before it is more workable. Either way, as Breeding notes, users will demand improvement, and with Google and Amazon's simple interfaces just one click away, libraries have no choice but to comply.
Deng agrees that Google's interface is much better than most libraries', and approaches improvement strictly with regard to the OPAC: while Breeding looks at the ILS as a whole, Deng examines only the OPAC component, and uses the example of Google and Yahoo's personalization of interfaces and a case study of a collection web site to argue for more personalization of OPAC interfaces.
Deng describes the process of creating a web site for specialized data within an ILS--in this case faculty-produced literature at Wichita State University. While the steps to create an initial web site are numerous and complicated, Deng notes that once the initial site has been constructed, altering it to create yet another tailored site is much simpler. These subsequent sites can be customized by language, user type, library type, author, subject, or topic. The advantages--"better web presentation, easier discovery, and greater user attention"--are hard to dismiss.
 |
| Wichita State University's Faculty Research Showcase |
Both Deng and Breeding offer solutions to the challenges Google, Amazon, and Yahoo have posed for libraries, and both have merit: while Breeding's argument to keep improving what we have works on the large scale, Deng's suggestion to do what we can to enhance the OPAC is a more focused approach.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Reflections on SDLC
I found both Zhang et al. and Cervone's articles on Systems Development Life Cycle to be quite informative introductions to SDLC, if also serving different purposes.
Per the order in the syllabus, I read Zhang first, then Cervone, but I found it more helpful to go back to Zhang having read Cervone first. Cervone--for me, anyhow--was a more accessible, broad overview of SDLC and offered a clear idea to newcomers of what SDLC is. Zhang, meanwhile, was a more dense, tightly-focused argument for how to approach SDLC.
At first glance, the two articles are similar: while they differ in number of steps, they both emphasize the importance of planning and testing in the design process. That said, I found the juxtaposition of Cervone and Zhang interesting: Cervone explains SDLC solely from a business standpoint, while Zhang stresses the need to address human-computer interaction in any system--Cervone's approach is an illustration of just what Zhang criticizes: a business-only perspective, with scant, if any attention paid to the user.
Both articles have merit. Cervone's is a good introduction to the concept, while Zhang builds on it and argues for a specific focus. Zhang's emphasis on the user mirrors the message in several other courses I've taken thus far: the technology may have changed, but library science is indeed a service profession, and it is always important to keep the user in mind, whether you are conducting a reference interview, cataloging a material to be found, or designing a marketing strategy for your library. Know your audience, and serve them as best you can.
image from foter.com
Introduction
This blog is part of a course requirement in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the Catholic University of America. It will contain postings relevant to course materials and discussions.
image from slis.cua.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)