Hi Folks!
Just starting to dig through the readings, but had to laugh at the very apt description of "continuous partial attention" in Roush's article. This seems to be the norm: clearly it is impossible not to check your email or Facebook if you have your laptop in class, or to ignore the incoming text message just because you are speaking to someone...if there is any doubt of how ubiquitous social software has become, try to think of the last time you were together while a group of people and a funny email, youtube video, Facebook picture, blog post, etc. didn't get brought up in conversation. I might even say that it is a rare evening with friends if some one doesn't boot up the computer at some point to show everyone something...and I think that I am on the older, less tech-savvy side of this trend. I can only imagine that this is even more pronounced with teens, where few interactions would happen without some SS reference or involvement.
This seems to beg the question of how libraries can expect to service and interact with a population that is increasingly involved with SS. Blyberg makes a pretty good argument for the move to a Library 2.0 concept. What struck me is his comment that there can be a transition to more interactivity to remain relevant to younger users without affecting the current services being offered to populations (i.e. seniors, retiring boomers) who may be happy with the library as is. Qingyi offers a good example of this in action on an actual library site on his blog.
Somewhat related....many of you are likely aware of this, but there is a great site called LibraryThing that is basically a site where you catalogue your own personal collection and interact with other users. Some cataloguers are keeping on eye on this as a potential clue to how users may prefer to use and access library catalogues. Interesting. (Any cataloguing maniacs out there? Note how it seems to conform to FRBR ideals!) Wikipedia's article does a better job of describing it than I could...
I also like the challenge that 2.0 makes to the current conception of the lesser value of "non-authoritative" sources. I love my Wikipedia, and definitely think it is a much more valuable resource than traditional resources much of the time! The lack of authority and official expertise is, in my mind, is often countered by the multiple viewpoints or collaboration on a definition that may even create more accuracy sometimes. (ok, ok - stopping short of ranting over the political economy of info!! But seriously, if anyone can add to something or publish thoughts, it certainly makes the importance of your opinion much less closely tied to your economic power. Ok, seriously - back on topic now).
Right. Now back to focusing a greater portion of my partial attention to the rest of the readings!
Joanne
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Joanne! Interesting insights. Your comment about more interactivity (in regards to the Blyberg article) made me ponder…it did make me think that of a silly analogyof a road system.
You obviously need roads in a metropolitan city. However, other important elements to be added are pedestrian pathways and bikeways; each serve different needs of the city's population. This is how I think of the library – different demographics and needs that make up a community. Regardless of the demographic, I think everyone is looking for simplicity, value and satisfaction. I think that a library will still function with a catalog (road), however, the ability for build on this and add additional services would be added value for different users. This could take the form of more advanced search and browse features, virtual chat, or more interactive services such as blogs, etc for their readers. Like the pathways and bikeways, they may not be absolutely required, however, they provide a direct response to keep things simple and keep different each segment of the population satisfied.
What does this have to do with your original posting? Hmmm…I’m not sure anymore! Other than to say that I think that the transition you spoke about towards this move will affect everyone (regardless of demographic). However, I think if this is the trend that a segment of the library’s population is moving towards (eg younger online users), then the library must respond to this need – or face the possibility of these users finding other solutions to keep them satisfied (which may be outside of the library).
Post a Comment