TechEssence.info

My response to that question would depend on who your audience is. The tagline on TechEssence says it is for library decision-makers. The articles have all been top-notch quality, no quibble there, and they are useful, accurate, and appropriate for a number of audiences. But I'd disagree that most of these articles comprise "simple, easy to understand information about information technology."

So again, what decision-makers are you targeting? That will guide my answer.

Roy, perhaps you'd weigh in?

Well, Karen, I'm actually a bit surprised. We are certainly trying to make this information understandable to library decision-makers, and I don't have any particular "flavor" of such in mind, so I would be interested in some examples or descriptions of how we are failing. We would certainly want to address any problems with readability or understandability if it is in our power to do so.

Your various pieces on metadata standards & such have been excellent, but I'd like to see a broader overview -- specifically comparison of different flavors of metadata, and what a library might use each for to get the most "bang for the buck"

I'll weigh in here

To give "simple, easy to understand information about information technology," to decision makers, I would offer the following advice:

• Pyramid-style writing. For example, with the UTF-8 article, you offer dense technical information and then get to the "so what?" But the average decision maker wants the "so what" first, and then, might look into the detail later.
• Standard headings. My favorites are "background" (3 lines, no more) "problem statement" (1 line) "evidence / criteria" (a para or two) "discussion" (a para or two) and "conclusion."
• More decision support, less advocacy. For example, the "Librarian-ese" document had me lost up until I got the link to the "Library Terms Users Understand" link. I can read Meredith's blog (which I love) for all the advocacy and "shoulds", but I feel TechEssence should get me to the yes/no stuff really fast.
• Problem-oriented articles. I personally am less interested in the technology than I am in how technology can help solve basic library problems. I find articles on the three-letter acronyms have me overwhelmed.

To answer Dorothy Salo's request as well, here are some desires:
how about some sample

• Website Architecture Design Documents
• Cost/benefit estimates for basic technologies
• Lists of best practices for implementing a technology
• Broad service targets/objectives and how to approach them via tech.
  

Ooo, this is a toughie - worthy of a whole book! :-) But I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, here are some presentation slides and handouts in that neighborhood.

Oops... I don't get an update in my aggregator when new TechEssence comments appear; I will have to investigate if I'm on the right feed.

Roy, again, there's some good stuff on this blog. Please don't take this as a put-down. But Ryan's points were particularly apropos for my question, which was sincere. If you're trying to reach people who don't understand these technologies well enough to make decisions, be more concrete ("A significant percentage of your patrons already are [tagging]"--can you give me an idea of how many?) and specific (" in a variety of environments" should lead to more than listing a few social software sites; show them the money, with genuine examples, including pictures if need be--Thomas Dowling's post on UTF had very clear examples of when bad things happen to good entities).

I also like the idea of a suggested formula for these technologies. That wouldn't fit for every post, but it might help as a guide. Just ideas... though again, and there's nothing up my sleeve, I'm wondering who your target audience is.