Thing 2 - Library 2.0 and Web 2.0

Ever since attending the MLA session on 2.0 tools for Readers Advisory, I have been experimenting with some of these tools and appreciate the sequential linear approach of the 23 Things to continue my individual learning and "immersion" in some of these tools and technology.

I very much embrace the concept of staying relevant to our users and believe that this has been one of my core professional values since the beginning of my library career -- long before the Internet even became a player in how we deliver information services.

I very much agree that our best way to learn Web 2 and other emerging technologies is to immerse ourselves in them. However, I chuckle at the the concept of taking 15 min. a day to do this. My observation on this is a bit of a rant -- BANDWIDTH, BANDWIDTH, BANDWIDTH.

I started at 11:00 am to watch the video. It finally downloaded to my computer to where the video would start to play at 11:25. Then I needed to pause the video and get to lunch so I could be back in time for a meeting. By 2:09, I had finally finished the video that I started at 11 - with a break for lunch and the other immediate demands of my job. This is at a library were we have two T1 lines but the demands on the bandwidth continue to grow -- games, video, graphics etc. Despite our technology that keeps any one user from hogging the bandwidth by equalizing the access, we still struggle. Not just for this exercise but for using many of the library 1.0 and the 2.0 technologies.

For example, I loved when we were able to add supplemental content with Syndetics to our library catalog. As Abrams mentioned, now patrons can see the book covers and have a new on-line browsing experience. However, we have found this feature also slows down how long it takes search results to load which often makes it less efficient in accomplishing its original function. It seem we are always needing to balance competing demands.

The more bells and whistles and enhanced content our tools and resources provide, the more time it takes for them to load and this often make them unusable. There are some communities where dial-up is the only option for Internet access. We have to make sure that our products are not exceeding the infrastructure of our users. We also have to be aware of the inequity of technology access and include this in our equation as we evaluate the services we deliver.

Yes, there are some marvelous opportunities with more participation in content development. Enhancing authority work or re-examining it is very necessary. So often what we do is in archaic and hard to understand language. On the other hand, I am firmly rooted in the idea that we need to maintain information that is accurate and authoritative. I would not want fashion and expediency to compromise the confidence of the public in our resources.

In addition, I really appreciate Diane Fichter's definition:
Library 2.0 = (books 'n stuff + people + radical trust) x participation.

I personally embrace the books n' stuff, the people and even the participation. However, I struggle with the concept of radical trust. I have continually seen where bad manners, people with axes to grind and even over communication has brought to a halt useful on-line communities and conversations.

And finally, I reiterate that we need to be where our patrons are. Some of them are in them are in the virtual world and demanding of electronic resources, tools, etc. On the flip side, we also have a population that doesn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole and refuses to learn/use many of the library's technological products. We need to continually find the balance in reaching all our our users and walk the fine line of allocating the funds for services and products with that balance in mind.

ke