TechEssence.info

Yes, the server was hacked recently, and as soon as I discovered it to be the case I backed up the data, wiped it, and reinstalled all the software.

We are ALL busy. Yesterday for example, I had a plan of what I was going to accomplish at work, but then I came in to an e-mail from a student asking for articles about the Second Anglo-Afghan War (for which we had next to nothing in the databases so I really had to hunt), and after that I found out about some dead links I needed to fix on a Web page, and then I got a call from a professor whom I needed to talk through some database searches, and then I had a reference shift all afternoon. So by the end of the day, I was shocked to find that I'd barely gotten any of the things I'd wanted to accomplish done. Imagine, if this is going on every day, how I, or anyone else in our profession, can actually make time for any sort of continuing education work?

I was at a meeting of librarians and library staff recently in which the topic of how to involve more individuals in technology projects was raised. One individual made a particularly salient point – that librarians and library staff be given opportunities and encouraged to participate in technology projects, rather than being given a timed ultimatum to do so.

This article discusses how Netflix and similar services are shaping expectations about product delivery, which in turn are driving libraries to rethink how items are delivered to their customers. Library Delivery 2.0 refers to the idea of delivering library materials into the user’s hands in a way that is personalized, convenient and fast. Library Delivery 2.0 builds on the concept of Library 2.0, a concept of a very different library service that operates according to the expectations of today’s library users. In this vision, the library makes information available wherever and whenever the user requires it” (Chad and Miller). Similarly, Library Delivery 2.0 is a concept of a very different library delivery service that operates according to the expectations of today’s users. In this vision, the library delivers information wherever and whenever the user requires it and in whatever format the user needs it.

Many libraries employ usability testing to assess new or updated online services, such as database listings, catalogs, and digital collections. A popular model is observing a small number of potential users perform prescribed tasks using the service, and noting where those users encounter problems. This model, when used as the sole method for gaining user data, requires that the service be relatively well-developed before testing is done, increasing the risk that the fundamental design of the service does not meet user needs.

Whether we want to admit it or not, none of us is completely objective when it comes to choosing technology, or anything else for that matter. We attempt to collect and analyze an unbiased portrayal of the facts, but there are always outside influences which affect and shape our decisions. While carefully researched recommendations by respected publications go a long way to helping us with our decisions, one arresting tale from a colleague about terrible customer service and frequent down-time will send most of us into a 180° spin. How can we make solid decisions about technology for our organizations? One way is to keep in mind some common “soft spots” that people have when making these choices.

The tangle of cords under the printer station has gotten out of hand. The server keeps crashing, and you can't get it fixed fast enough. You want an institutional repository, and someone to run it. Your web page is a disaster. Whatever the reason, you want a systems librarian.

Or do you?

Grants offer attractive opportunities for carrying out technology initiatives that might not otherwise be possible for libraries. But grant money isn’t truly free money. The additional opportunities for libraries afforded by grants require time, effort, and commitment. In most respects, planning and implementing technology grants are no different than any other type of grant a library may seek and receive.

When I look at the really innovative things that some libraries are doing with technology (Casey Bisson’s WPOPAC, what the Hennepin County PL has done with its catalog, and the Ann Arbor District Library’s amazing Web site being just a few notable examples) I am thrilled to see that these libraries had the vision and forethought to hire individuals with serious coding skills. Sadly, not every library can afford to do so. With budgets stretched thin, some libraries have enough trouble trying to provide the same basic services they always have. Libraries often hire young librarians for blended librarian positions expecting that a librarian can somehow do nearly full-time public service work as well as the tech projects they feel will take them where they want to go. At my library, there are many things I would like to accomplish that I just don’t yet have the skills to do. However there is no one else at my library that can help me accomplish those things. I think this is a very common problem at libraries. We all want a usable and dynamic Web presence. We want to improve the usability of our OPAC. We want to make our Web site more “social.” But we don’t have staff with the tech knowledge to take us all the way there.

Over the past couple of years, a number of Web sites and initiatives have sprung up that can help bridge the tech gap. These offer the ability to ask questions and get help from people who are willing to share their expertise with others. Most of these “expert locator” sites are designed for all sorts of questions, but one of the following sites is designed specifically for librarians with IT issues:

Concerns about online privacy have recently surfaced again in the news, fueled this type by the meteoric rise of social networking sites like MySpace and disclosure (intentionally or unintentionally) of potentially sensitive information such as that recently by AOL. Libraries have historically been strong advocates of their patrons' right to privacy, as evidenced by the following text appearing as #3 in the ALA Code of Ethics: