Reading "Indexing the Invisible Web: A Survey" was very disturbing, because I know that so much of that invisible web is made up of valuable library-provided content. Even a Google search for "Daughter of Fortune book Tulsa Library" doesn't return any results indicating whether or not the library owns Daughter of Fortune. I get a few links to the TCCL website, but all to seemingly unrelated pages, like the African American Resource Center. As far as I can tell, this book, nor the author, Isabel Allende, are mentioned anywhere on this page.
Our collection is invisible.
But, there's hope, right? The authors say that some web sites attempt to categorize invisible web sites, and that samples are given in the Appendix (Ru and Horowitz 2005, 251).
I decided to check out some of those sites. Now I'm worried that all hope is lost.
I like the idea behind Digital Librarian, but it's just lists. Good lists, but lists. As far as I can tell, you can't even search the site. So, it's sort of like a group of pathfinders. It's like a web bibliography. (I'm sure someone has already coined the term "webliography," right?) Clicking on several of the organized links, I didn't really see how it aided in access to the invisible web. Digital Librarian provides an expertly chosen list of web sites in an organized structure, but those sites didn't really seem to be "invisible."
Randomly, I chose another site from the appendix: Invisible Web. Sounds promising, but a visit to the home page is immediately greeted by that scourge of the Internet: pop-up adds. Subtract a few credibility points there...Once you get past those, the main part of the window is taken up by sponsored links (eBay, MSN--not exactly "invisible" stuff...). I spent several minutes on this site, and I never came across anything that didn't look like pushed commercial content.
The home page for the Invisible Web Directory simply says that it is being refurbished, check back later.
Those just happened to be the first three I selected, so I felt a little disappointed. I also see that Librarians' Index to the Internet is listed, which is credible and searchable, and even warns you when a suggested site may have pop-ups.
Further into the reading, "technologies for searching invisible web sites in real time" are described (Ru and Horowitz 2005, 257-261). These seem to have much more promise. It reminds me of some of our earlier readings, where we discussed the need to bring the search engines to the content, rather than bring the content to the search engines...you know, instead of trying to bring the mountain to Mohamed. Or did I get that backwards?
"The Terrible Twos," on the other hand, was a fun little summary for the end of our semester. I've been wondering for a long time what Ajax and API were, but just hadn't looked them up yet. This might have also been a good introductory article for the class, since it quickly went over so much of the terminology we have discussed. I found several things in this article that I need to add to AmbientLibrarian.
That reminds me--I knew that the wiki pages created by MediaWiki were dynamic, and that they were more difficult to index. I also knew that the ? contained in the URL could be problematic. Ru and Horowitz have now stressed for me what a potential findability problem this could be for AmbientLibrarian. Searching for other help topics for MediaWiki, I occasionally came across:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_a_very_short_URL
I seem to remember that each time I saw these articles, my thoughts went something like this: "Oh! That's a good idea!" *read, read, "uh....," *read,* "huh?" *read,* "Ouch, my brain." Maybe that's something I'll be able to figure out after the semester. You know, instead of celebrating the Holidays.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Sunday, November 26, 2006
It's nice to be read.
Someone bothered to post about AmbientLibrarian on LISNews!
That's exciting. Glad I had that site on the wiki already.
That's exciting. Glad I had that site on the wiki already.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Learning from the past...the recent past.
"The truth about the information-seeking situation lies within the individual doing the seeking" (Nicholson 2005, 507).
Ain't that the truth? I love those Dervin-inspired quotes.
I also like Nicholson's ideas that libraries can and should create a user-picture based on the information we have available. "Digital Library Archaeology" reminded me of a shorter, simpler article I read for my Information Technology Management class, called "Server Logs: Making Sense of Cyber Tracks," by Darlene Fichter. She basically said that our server logs contained mountains of information about user patterns, which links and menus are used most, how good your navigation is, and when your users leave your site. Both are saying that we can use the information from digital patterns to create an understanding of the user experience for our online services.
Rose reminds us that we can use this information, and all the Information-Seeking Behavior studies of the past several decades, to improve our search tools for users. We need to keep in mind that searches may be performed differently according to different goals, different contexts, and what we learn as we search.
Another thing to keep in mind as we develop search tools brings us back to the quote above: though all of our digital information my paint a picture of user patterns, they cannot tell us exactly how or why the information was used. We know that searching is also an affective process (Thank you Kuhlthau and others). We have to actually talk (face to face or virtually) to our users to get that kind of information.
Fichter, Darlene. (2003). Server logs: Making sense of the cyber tracks. Online 27, no. 5: 47-50. Available through Academic Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed November 20, 2006).
Ain't that the truth? I love those Dervin-inspired quotes.
I also like Nicholson's ideas that libraries can and should create a user-picture based on the information we have available. "Digital Library Archaeology" reminded me of a shorter, simpler article I read for my Information Technology Management class, called "Server Logs: Making Sense of Cyber Tracks," by Darlene Fichter. She basically said that our server logs contained mountains of information about user patterns, which links and menus are used most, how good your navigation is, and when your users leave your site. Both are saying that we can use the information from digital patterns to create an understanding of the user experience for our online services.
Rose reminds us that we can use this information, and all the Information-Seeking Behavior studies of the past several decades, to improve our search tools for users. We need to keep in mind that searches may be performed differently according to different goals, different contexts, and what we learn as we search.
Another thing to keep in mind as we develop search tools brings us back to the quote above: though all of our digital information my paint a picture of user patterns, they cannot tell us exactly how or why the information was used. We know that searching is also an affective process (Thank you Kuhlthau and others). We have to actually talk (face to face or virtually) to our users to get that kind of information.
Fichter, Darlene. (2003). Server logs: Making sense of the cyber tracks. Online 27, no. 5: 47-50. Available through Academic Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed November 20, 2006).
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Who can I tell?
Everyone!
I've been bouncing around for the last half hour, asking "who can I tell, who can I tell?" Then I realized, I can tell everyone who reads my blog! So, now all two of you will know ;)
Jenny Levine, of The Shifted Librarian, registered as user on AmbientLibrarian.org! I have been so amazed at the number of visitors the wiki has had since I posted it to the Web4Lib discussion list. Several contributors have added content, but others have corrected typos or spelling. It's...it's such a warm feeling, to see that people will take the time to collaborate, to make something just a little bit better.
I've been bouncing around for the last half hour, asking "who can I tell, who can I tell?" Then I realized, I can tell everyone who reads my blog! So, now all two of you will know ;)
Jenny Levine, of The Shifted Librarian, registered as user on AmbientLibrarian.org! I have been so amazed at the number of visitors the wiki has had since I posted it to the Web4Lib discussion list. Several contributors have added content, but others have corrected typos or spelling. It's...it's such a warm feeling, to see that people will take the time to collaborate, to make something just a little bit better.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Enlightenment is in the eye of the beholder
Since college, I've thought that I have characteristics of ADD. As it turns out, perhaps I just have "increasing non-linear reading and declining sustained attention" as described by Ziming Liu (2005, 707). In the course of reading this article--which, yes, I *did* have to print out so that I could highlight and annotate--I opened no fewer than 5 tabs on my Internet browser. I would read about how we now are more likely to read more, but in a less concentrated manner, and the little thought bubble would pop up above my head:
Five minutes later, I scold myself for getting distracted, and turn back to the article. Multiply that impulse to check something online by about six, add a few followed links and an email, and...well, now I realize why it takes me so long to read a printed academic article.
Though it sometimes leaves me feeling a little scattered, I think that I synthesize the information better when it inspires me to either check another related resource or actually practice what I've read.
Unfortunately, true to Liu's study, I do have more trouble reading in-depth information now. However, the realm of possibilities just seems so much broader. It's as though everything I read now is just a gateway...too often, I am simply filing the general idea away in my mind, hoping that if I ever need to know about it in the future, I'll be able to remember enough to look it up. Other times, something sparks my interest, and I'm able to skim and browse until I can find a link or book that will give me easily digestible tid-bits, until I feel ready for the in-depth stuff.
This broad realm of possibilities is one of the reasons that I liked the Audunson article so much. Audunson suggests that public libraries serve as an entry way into community participation (2005, 432). When people enter a public library, they usually do so with a specific purpose--e.g. find a book on CD for a car trip, research foundation grants, check out a book on home repair, etc. While there, however, they are exposed to a diverse store-house of ideas, and, even better, a diverse group of people. They walk in for a book on Mac OS, but they also end up browsing the American Indian Resource Center book display. On the walk to the circulation desk, they pass people from all social and economic classes, people of all races and religions, and all ages. As they check out, they pick up an event guide, and notice that the library offers programs such as the Great Decisions lectures.
I feel strongly that such exposure creates a world of opportunity for dialogue and interaction. I'm a modern librarian through and through--that is, I think that "the role of the library is to promote self-realisation by being a cultural animator and by giving people access to a diversity of expressions, not to make judgements and selections" (Audunson 2005, 431). Yet, I feel that promoting self-realisation through access to information inherently creates opportunities for "enlightenment." Am I hoping the library customers will come in for Chilton's Total Car Care and leave with something from the Great Courses series? Hmm...Maybe. Or, maybe I think that fixing your own carburetor can be a step toward enlightenment in its own right.
I guess I'll never be an Andrew Carnegie. As a huge supporter of libraries--helping to establish approximately 2,800--he definitely held the enlightenment point of view. In an Economist book review, "The blackened sheep," the author writes that "Carnegie asserted in 1895 that it was quite wrong for a businessman to listen to entreaties for higher wages when profits soared. Nine out of ten employees would simply fritter any extra money away “upon richer food and drink, better clothing, more extravagant living, which are beneficial neither to rich nor poor”. Far better, he said, to direct the profits toward a great educative institution that lasts for all time" (Economist 2006, 93).
How would Carnegie feel about the graphic novel display that we had up for a while? He probably wouldn't think that it was very "educative." I do hope, however, that he'd be in favor of our adult literacy department. Talk about educative. Of course, we aim our instruction toward the student's goals, without judging the "value" of that goal...but, we know that we are creating greater opportunities for that student to participate in the community. Passing the driver's license exam today might mean a better job for tomorrow, a better educated family for the future, and, yes, a more informed group of voters. Audunson says that "one needs structures that allow for a gradual introduction into the community in question," (2005, 432). Libraries can definitely fill that role, but up to 43% of adults in America are in need of reading or English-speaking help as part of that "gradual introduction" (National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 2003).
Hey, that's like a news feed aggregator...It makes it possible for us to cover a lot more information, but you don't always read the whole thing--you skim. Hey, I haven't read any of my RSS feeds today. I wonder if my classmates have blogged yet...*click*
Five minutes later, I scold myself for getting distracted, and turn back to the article. Multiply that impulse to check something online by about six, add a few followed links and an email, and...well, now I realize why it takes me so long to read a printed academic article.
Though it sometimes leaves me feeling a little scattered, I think that I synthesize the information better when it inspires me to either check another related resource or actually practice what I've read.
Unfortunately, true to Liu's study, I do have more trouble reading in-depth information now. However, the realm of possibilities just seems so much broader. It's as though everything I read now is just a gateway...too often, I am simply filing the general idea away in my mind, hoping that if I ever need to know about it in the future, I'll be able to remember enough to look it up. Other times, something sparks my interest, and I'm able to skim and browse until I can find a link or book that will give me easily digestible tid-bits, until I feel ready for the in-depth stuff.
This broad realm of possibilities is one of the reasons that I liked the Audunson article so much. Audunson suggests that public libraries serve as an entry way into community participation (2005, 432). When people enter a public library, they usually do so with a specific purpose--e.g. find a book on CD for a car trip, research foundation grants, check out a book on home repair, etc. While there, however, they are exposed to a diverse store-house of ideas, and, even better, a diverse group of people. They walk in for a book on Mac OS, but they also end up browsing the American Indian Resource Center book display. On the walk to the circulation desk, they pass people from all social and economic classes, people of all races and religions, and all ages. As they check out, they pick up an event guide, and notice that the library offers programs such as the Great Decisions lectures.
I feel strongly that such exposure creates a world of opportunity for dialogue and interaction. I'm a modern librarian through and through--that is, I think that "the role of the library is to promote self-realisation by being a cultural animator and by giving people access to a diversity of expressions, not to make judgements and selections" (Audunson 2005, 431). Yet, I feel that promoting self-realisation through access to information inherently creates opportunities for "enlightenment." Am I hoping the library customers will come in for Chilton's Total Car Care and leave with something from the Great Courses series? Hmm...Maybe. Or, maybe I think that fixing your own carburetor can be a step toward enlightenment in its own right.
I guess I'll never be an Andrew Carnegie. As a huge supporter of libraries--helping to establish approximately 2,800--he definitely held the enlightenment point of view. In an Economist book review, "The blackened sheep," the author writes that "Carnegie asserted in 1895 that it was quite wrong for a businessman to listen to entreaties for higher wages when profits soared. Nine out of ten employees would simply fritter any extra money away “upon richer food and drink, better clothing, more extravagant living, which are beneficial neither to rich nor poor”. Far better, he said, to direct the profits toward a great educative institution that lasts for all time" (Economist 2006, 93).
How would Carnegie feel about the graphic novel display that we had up for a while? He probably wouldn't think that it was very "educative." I do hope, however, that he'd be in favor of our adult literacy department. Talk about educative. Of course, we aim our instruction toward the student's goals, without judging the "value" of that goal...but, we know that we are creating greater opportunities for that student to participate in the community. Passing the driver's license exam today might mean a better job for tomorrow, a better educated family for the future, and, yes, a more informed group of voters. Audunson says that "one needs structures that allow for a gradual introduction into the community in question," (2005, 432). Libraries can definitely fill that role, but up to 43% of adults in America are in need of reading or English-speaking help as part of that "gradual introduction" (National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 2003).
Sunday, November 05, 2006
meta tags and MediaWiki
Ok, it can't just be me.
I am having the hardest time figuring out how to add meta tags to my wiki pages. I want to add some descriptors that might help some search engines, but, alas, I can't figure out *where* to put the tags. I don't mean I can't figure out where to put it in the code--I can't find the code. It has something to do with the fact that it's all in PHP, and there's a big database at work...I just found a wiki entry on WikiMedia about making an RDF interface for MediaWiki sites...At this point, that just sounds magical, and I've read enough about metadata to know that such a framework would be a good thing...but I think that is so far beyond me right now!
Ugh. I'm just going to go back to my little w3schools tutorial on web search engines and submit my URL to a few more sites.
I am having the hardest time figuring out how to add meta tags to my wiki pages. I want to add some descriptors that might help some search engines, but, alas, I can't figure out *where* to put the tags. I don't mean I can't figure out where to put it in the code--I can't find the code. It has something to do with the fact that it's all in PHP, and there's a big database at work...I just found a wiki entry on WikiMedia about making an RDF interface for MediaWiki sites...At this point, that just sounds magical, and I've read enough about metadata to know that such a framework would be a good thing...but I think that is so far beyond me right now!
Ugh. I'm just going to go back to my little w3schools tutorial on web search engines and submit my URL to a few more sites.
Google is not the devil.
Google has webmaster tools to help me make AmbientLibrarian findable!
Here is the most exciting message I've seen all day:
I've just "discovered" Google Webmaster Tools. I was able to add my wiki URL at http://www.google.com/addurl/, and followed links from there to add my site to Google's indexing.
So, now, if someone searches for "ambientlibrarian," my page ranks first! Unfortunately, if someone tries it as two words ("ambient librarian"), my wiki doesn't show up. And, if someone actually searched for something useful, like "library 2.0 wiki," it's still no where to be found. But, I'm getting there.
Here is the most exciting message I've seen all day:
You've successfully verified http://www.ambientlibrarian.org/.
I've just "discovered" Google Webmaster Tools. I was able to add my wiki URL at http://www.google.com/addurl/, and followed links from there to add my site to Google's indexing.
So, now, if someone searches for "ambientlibrarian," my page ranks first! Unfortunately, if someone tries it as two words ("ambient librarian"), my wiki doesn't show up. And, if someone actually searched for something useful, like "library 2.0 wiki," it's still no where to be found. But, I'm getting there.
Favicon
I did it! I added a little favicon to my wiki page! It may seem like such a small thing--and it is. Still, it wasn't easy for me.
First, I used http://www.chami.com/html-kit/services/favicon/ to create my favicon--in this case, a tiny little version of my AmbientLibrarian.org logo. Then, I had to download favicon package to my computer. The favicon instructions then implied that I could just upload the resulting favicon.ico to my file where my web page is, but I found that I had to unzip the file first.
The instructions then said to insert an html tag,
< rel="shortcut icon" href="favicon.ico">, into the header section of my web page.
If my web page were a simple html document, I would have had no trouble. However, my web site is a wiki, and the file structure on the server seems immense to me. I'm hesitant to change too much, because I don't want to ruin everything. At first, I uploaded the favicon to the same file where my logo is--that made sense to me. Then I found an index.html document in a completely different folder. From my past experience with making a web page, I thought this might be where the tag would go, but after inspecting it, I realized this was a generic page from my hosting company--sort of a place holder file until I had my real page up.
I found another index file, but it was a PHP document. This makes sense, because MediaWiki is written in PHP. Still, that made me even more nervous about messing with anything.
I decided to give it a try, and added the html link. I tested it, and nothing happened...but, nothing happening is better than my whole wiki disappearing :) I started thinking about my past experience with uploading images for a web page, and I thought maybe the favicon file should be in the same folder as the index file...so, I uploaded it again, this time to the same folder as my index.php file...and, viola! I have an itsy-bitsy, teeny-tiny logo next to my AmbientLibrarian.org URL, that also appears next to the title of the page in book mark lists. Awesome.
Now, I'm trying to figure out how to add some meta tags to increase findability. I can add them into the index.php file, but I don't know if that will make a difference...
First, I used http://www.chami.com/html-kit/services/favicon/ to create my favicon--in this case, a tiny little version of my AmbientLibrarian.org logo. Then, I had to download favicon package to my computer. The favicon instructions then implied that I could just upload the resulting favicon.ico to my file where my web page is, but I found that I had to unzip the file first.
The instructions then said to insert an html tag,
< rel="shortcut icon" href="favicon.ico">, into the header section of my web page.
If my web page were a simple html document, I would have had no trouble. However, my web site is a wiki, and the file structure on the server seems immense to me. I'm hesitant to change too much, because I don't want to ruin everything. At first, I uploaded the favicon to the same file where my logo is--that made sense to me. Then I found an index.html document in a completely different folder. From my past experience with making a web page, I thought this might be where the tag would go, but after inspecting it, I realized this was a generic page from my hosting company--sort of a place holder file until I had my real page up.
I found another index file, but it was a PHP document. This makes sense, because MediaWiki is written in PHP. Still, that made me even more nervous about messing with anything.
I decided to give it a try, and added the html link. I tested it, and nothing happened...but, nothing happening is better than my whole wiki disappearing :) I started thinking about my past experience with uploading images for a web page, and I thought maybe the favicon file should be in the same folder as the index file...so, I uploaded it again, this time to the same folder as my index.php file...and, viola! I have an itsy-bitsy, teeny-tiny logo next to my AmbientLibrarian.org URL, that also appears next to the title of the page in book mark lists. Awesome.
Now, I'm trying to figure out how to add some meta tags to increase findability. I can add them into the index.php file, but I don't know if that will make a difference...
Saturday, November 04, 2006
When I grow up, I want to be...
Ok, so, blogging is for sharing your deepest, darkest secrets, because you feel so anonymous writing on your computer, right?
Well, I think I might want to be an Internet Librarian. Ok, it's not such a deep, dark secret, but it's hard for me to say. I've rarely, if ever, specifically named a direction that I was headed with my career or education.
I tried "coming out" to my husband today about the Internet Librarian thing, and he sort of laughed. He thought I was making the title up. Yet, I know, thanks to Meredith Farkas, Jenny Levine, and others, that there is a whole conference devoted to the profession, called...wait for it...yes! The Internet Librarian Conference!
I would have absolutely loved to have gone to this conference. Thanks to the whole Library 2.0 thing, though, at least I can read the notes from people who did attend the workshops. Plus, not to sound like a kiss up here, but I feel really fortunate to have had this class this semester. Reading the IL conference notes on "Information Wants to Be Free" is like reading a list of the material that we have discussed on Desire 2 Learn.
Helene Blowers, who created the 23 Things presented with Michael Stephens, who writes the blog Tame the Web and contributes to the ALA TechSource blog. A workshop called "Innovative Uses of Web 2.0 Technologies" included information on the user as contributor, social tagging, folksonomies, and rich user experiences. More information on the conference can be seen at the links above.
For some reason, as I was working on my wiki project this week, I started thinking about all of this. I've had an interest in technology for a long time, though not much experience with it. I certainly knew that I wanted to "do something" with technology long before I ever thought I'd enroll in library school. I had no idea when I entered grad school that the two things would come together.
The exciting, but scary, thing about technology is that it is a moving target. There is so much I don't know, so much more being developed every day, it's just really easy to feel in over my head. Contemplating these matters, I started drafting a "Professional Development Plan." Well, anyway, I now have a blank page with those words typed at the top...it's a start. Of course, I was thinking "Jeez, how will I ever have time for all of this? I can't keep up with the pile of mail on my desk now as it is! How can I defend reading web sites every day?
With this in mind, I came across David Lee King's "Making Time for Web 2.0", tagged by one of my classmates in Connotea. (I've since gone back to D2L and realized that this was tagged not for the class, but for the tagger. I'm still using it.) I was drawn to this post because I'm trying to figure out how to keep abreast of new trends once this class is over. David Lee King offers tips for front line staff and for library administrators. I also found the comments on this entry very interesting.
And, now, because I think it could be vitally important to my future career, I'm going to go try to figure out how to make that tiny icon (a favicon?) show up next to my www.ambientlibrarian.org URL whenever someone book marks the link of visits the page. Very important stuff. :}
Well, I think I might want to be an Internet Librarian. Ok, it's not such a deep, dark secret, but it's hard for me to say. I've rarely, if ever, specifically named a direction that I was headed with my career or education.
I tried "coming out" to my husband today about the Internet Librarian thing, and he sort of laughed. He thought I was making the title up. Yet, I know, thanks to Meredith Farkas, Jenny Levine, and others, that there is a whole conference devoted to the profession, called...wait for it...yes! The Internet Librarian Conference!
I would have absolutely loved to have gone to this conference. Thanks to the whole Library 2.0 thing, though, at least I can read the notes from people who did attend the workshops. Plus, not to sound like a kiss up here, but I feel really fortunate to have had this class this semester. Reading the IL conference notes on "Information Wants to Be Free" is like reading a list of the material that we have discussed on Desire 2 Learn.
Helene Blowers, who created the 23 Things presented with Michael Stephens, who writes the blog Tame the Web and contributes to the ALA TechSource blog. A workshop called "Innovative Uses of Web 2.0 Technologies" included information on the user as contributor, social tagging, folksonomies, and rich user experiences. More information on the conference can be seen at the links above.
For some reason, as I was working on my wiki project this week, I started thinking about all of this. I've had an interest in technology for a long time, though not much experience with it. I certainly knew that I wanted to "do something" with technology long before I ever thought I'd enroll in library school. I had no idea when I entered grad school that the two things would come together.
The exciting, but scary, thing about technology is that it is a moving target. There is so much I don't know, so much more being developed every day, it's just really easy to feel in over my head. Contemplating these matters, I started drafting a "Professional Development Plan." Well, anyway, I now have a blank page with those words typed at the top...it's a start. Of course, I was thinking "Jeez, how will I ever have time for all of this? I can't keep up with the pile of mail on my desk now as it is! How can I defend reading web sites every day?
With this in mind, I came across David Lee King's "Making Time for Web 2.0", tagged by one of my classmates in Connotea. (I've since gone back to D2L and realized that this was tagged not for the class, but for the tagger. I'm still using it.) I was drawn to this post because I'm trying to figure out how to keep abreast of new trends once this class is over. David Lee King offers tips for front line staff and for library administrators. I also found the comments on this entry very interesting.
And, now, because I think it could be vitally important to my future career, I'm going to go try to figure out how to make that tiny icon (a favicon?) show up next to my www.ambientlibrarian.org URL whenever someone book marks the link of visits the page. Very important stuff. :}
Sunday, October 29, 2006
"Ontology" has more syllables than "tag," and therefore makes you sound smarter.
First of all, "Ying Ding" should definitely be the name of the next big Web 2.0 site ;)
I think that after reading these two articles, I should be able to describe how user tagging is like or unlike ontologies. However, "A Review of Ontologies with the Semantic Web in View" simply left my brain blank. I don't think this should have been the case. I thought I had a general understanding of ontologies. In a metaphysical sense, I "believe" in ontologies. I don't think my brain-blankness is a reflection on the article, but rather on the state of my brain after trying to create a MODS record.
Needing a better understanding of ontologies, I turned to my trusty friend Wikipedia. For anyone else whose brain is still reeling, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
I admit, I began reading the article on computer science ontology, and heard a sigh come from between my ears. Indeed, ontologies are what I thought they were. There is even a picture in the Wikipedia article.
To visualize an ontology, think of something that looks like your standard organizational chart. You've got the director at the top, followed by lots of lines and lots of boxes, showing the relationships from the lowest peon all the way to the highest paid executive. By looking at the organizational chart, you can identify different categories (divisions, classes, or concepts) as well as specific objects (individuals, in Wikipedia article). An ontology is basically a hierarchy. Keep this in mind as Ding describes it as "a term used to denote the shared understanding of some domains of interest, often conceived as a set of classes (concepts), relations, functions, axioms and instances" (Ding 2001, 378).
I think perhaps my mind works in a hierarchical--or ontological--fashion. I love del.cio.us, but often find myself trying to create relationships rather than tags. That is, I imagine little Windows folders, parceled out like the c:/articles/cats/africa example given by Golder and Huberman (2006, 199). I think "this website is part of," or "this website would come under..." Reading Golder and Huberman has encouraged me, though, because they identify seven kinds of tags, most of which I have used.
As I read, I started thinking of new and better ways to categorize my bookmarks and tags. Perhaps for each bookmark, I'll try to include a set of Golder and Huberman's tag functions: 1) "identifying what (or who) it is about;" 2) "identifying what it is;" 4) "refining categories;" and occasionally 7) "task organizing." Up until now, I've just been tagging haphazardly, sometimes using one tag, sometimes five.
Maybe it's not so much that my mind works in an ontological fashion, but that it has been conditioned that way. As I said, I picture Windows folders. However, the more I use tagging, the more that I wish I could tag everything in my life--especially all those old documents stored in my Windows folders. Both tools--tagging and ontologies--are simply part of sense-making. Our little human minds struggle to organize and track information so that it might be useful to us.
I think that after reading these two articles, I should be able to describe how user tagging is like or unlike ontologies. However, "A Review of Ontologies with the Semantic Web in View" simply left my brain blank. I don't think this should have been the case. I thought I had a general understanding of ontologies. In a metaphysical sense, I "believe" in ontologies. I don't think my brain-blankness is a reflection on the article, but rather on the state of my brain after trying to create a MODS record.
Needing a better understanding of ontologies, I turned to my trusty friend Wikipedia. For anyone else whose brain is still reeling, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
I admit, I began reading the article on computer science ontology, and heard a sigh come from between my ears. Indeed, ontologies are what I thought they were. There is even a picture in the Wikipedia article.
To visualize an ontology, think of something that looks like your standard organizational chart. You've got the director at the top, followed by lots of lines and lots of boxes, showing the relationships from the lowest peon all the way to the highest paid executive. By looking at the organizational chart, you can identify different categories (divisions, classes, or concepts) as well as specific objects (individuals, in Wikipedia article). An ontology is basically a hierarchy. Keep this in mind as Ding describes it as "a term used to denote the shared understanding of some domains of interest, often conceived as a set of classes (concepts), relations, functions, axioms and instances" (Ding 2001, 378).
I think perhaps my mind works in a hierarchical--or ontological--fashion. I love del.cio.us, but often find myself trying to create relationships rather than tags. That is, I imagine little Windows folders, parceled out like the c:/articles/cats/africa example given by Golder and Huberman (2006, 199). I think "this website is part of," or "this website would come under..." Reading Golder and Huberman has encouraged me, though, because they identify seven kinds of tags, most of which I have used.
As I read, I started thinking of new and better ways to categorize my bookmarks and tags. Perhaps for each bookmark, I'll try to include a set of Golder and Huberman's tag functions: 1) "identifying what (or who) it is about;" 2) "identifying what it is;" 4) "refining categories;" and occasionally 7) "task organizing." Up until now, I've just been tagging haphazardly, sometimes using one tag, sometimes five.
Maybe it's not so much that my mind works in an ontological fashion, but that it has been conditioned that way. As I said, I picture Windows folders. However, the more I use tagging, the more that I wish I could tag everything in my life--especially all those old documents stored in my Windows folders. Both tools--tagging and ontologies--are simply part of sense-making. Our little human minds struggle to organize and track information so that it might be useful to us.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Dr. Schoogle: or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Google
Google, schmoogle...shoogle. "Optimising Metadata to Make High-value Content More Accessible to Google Users" by Alan Dawson and Val Hamilton show how shaking up your metadata just a bit can lead to impressive results in your Google ranking. I know, there are those librarians who would quickly retort "But, Google page ranking isn't everything!" True. But, in our profession, access to information is.
Dawson and Hamilton could not have used a more apt metaphor than moving mountains. Libraries and other collections of cataloged information are sitting on mountains of gold that are currently buried in the invisible layer of the web. In reading about metadata, interoperability, digital libraries, and such, it seems that we are always thinking of new ways to carve tunnels through these mountains, or shave off sides to make a new highway...or even providing free helicopter rides to the mountains, if users will only just come visit.
Yet, we are wary of Google. We have a love/hate relationship with it. We seem to be on the defense whenever it is mentioned. "Oh, sure, it's super-fast and takes you right to what you need, but is it reliable? Is it scholarly? How relevant are the other 199,999 results that came up after number 1? Your librarian can do better than that...it just takes a little more time and effort."
Does it have to be this way? When I read "the alternative strategy is to get Google to come to this mountain and do justice to it by indexing it fully and effectively" (Dawson and Hamilton 2005, 311), I felt relieved. Let's make even better use of all that metadata and content we have, and add a few simple pieces that will make it Google (or any search engine) friendly.
Dawson and Hamilton offer some great tips on making becoming Google-friendly. But, there is still talk of the illusive Google algorithm used to rank search results. Librarians want to know. Google answers: http://www.google.com/librariancenter/articles/0512_01.html. Here, Google answers "How does Google decide what result goes at the top of the list?" And, let's admit it: We all want to be on top.
However, I think it is important to note here that getting Google to come to the door doesn't mean we can toss out the metadata. Dawson and Hamilton consistently refer to the metadata in the Glasgow Digital Library. In "Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes," Jane Greenberg provides an overview of metadata, metadata schemes, and the proposed MODAL framework. This rich, structured information is still valuable for collections. Greenberg explains that "Frameworks are useful for understanding complex topics: they help divide, categorize, and analyze concepts..." Metadata makes this possible. This is part of the value that we add to our content and collections, the reason we want Google to find us.
Dawson and Hamilton could not have used a more apt metaphor than moving mountains. Libraries and other collections of cataloged information are sitting on mountains of gold that are currently buried in the invisible layer of the web. In reading about metadata, interoperability, digital libraries, and such, it seems that we are always thinking of new ways to carve tunnels through these mountains, or shave off sides to make a new highway...or even providing free helicopter rides to the mountains, if users will only just come visit.
Yet, we are wary of Google. We have a love/hate relationship with it. We seem to be on the defense whenever it is mentioned. "Oh, sure, it's super-fast and takes you right to what you need, but is it reliable? Is it scholarly? How relevant are the other 199,999 results that came up after number 1? Your librarian can do better than that...it just takes a little more time and effort."
Does it have to be this way? When I read "the alternative strategy is to get Google to come to this mountain and do justice to it by indexing it fully and effectively" (Dawson and Hamilton 2005, 311), I felt relieved. Let's make even better use of all that metadata and content we have, and add a few simple pieces that will make it Google (or any search engine) friendly.
Dawson and Hamilton offer some great tips on making becoming Google-friendly. But, there is still talk of the illusive Google algorithm used to rank search results. Librarians want to know. Google answers: http://www.google.com/librariancenter/articles/0512_01.html. Here, Google answers "How does Google decide what result goes at the top of the list?" And, let's admit it: We all want to be on top.
However, I think it is important to note here that getting Google to come to the door doesn't mean we can toss out the metadata. Dawson and Hamilton consistently refer to the metadata in the Glasgow Digital Library. In "Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes," Jane Greenberg provides an overview of metadata, metadata schemes, and the proposed MODAL framework. This rich, structured information is still valuable for collections. Greenberg explains that "Frameworks are useful for understanding complex topics: they help divide, categorize, and analyze concepts..." Metadata makes this possible. This is part of the value that we add to our content and collections, the reason we want Google to find us.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
If it ain't about the user, it ain't gonna work.
I had studied Nielson and Usability before encountering Kuhlthau in my Information Users and the Knowledge Society class. As I read about the many theories and models in that class, I remember thinking that those models seemed to form a foundation upon which Usability could have been based. Maybe what I'm saying is, librarians were doing usability before usability was cool.
Perhaps, however, we forgot about the lessons Dervin taught us about Sense-making when we started making our digital libraries and our library websites. Or, maybe the introduction of any new technology requires first the idea that it could work, then making it work, then (hopefully sooner rather than later) realizing that just because it technically works, that doesn't mean it works for the user.
This was definitely the discovery that Ferreira and Pithan made of the InfoHab digital library. By combining Kuhlthau's notions that information searches involve physical, affective, and cognitive states, with Nielson's "big five" (learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction), the authors created a study that should offer a pretty reliable and valid assessment of a digital library's goodness (I want to say usability here, but I think it needs to incorporate more than that, since we have added affective and cognitive aspects, as well.).
Judy Jeng also used a combination to try to develop an evaluation tool for digital libraries. She uses several techniques to create a more complete picture of the user experience. She suggests using formal usability testing, questionnaire, interview, think aloud, etc. She uses quantitative and qualitative measures. Satisfaction is the qualitative measure. I think this is where Kuhlthau's identification of the affective and cognitive aspects of searching are most prevalent. Kuhlthau tells us that users will experience some uncertainty during their search,. If the site has good usability, the uncertainty should be limited to "Is this really a topic I want to pursue? Does this fit my need?" rather than "Which button do I click now? How do I refine my search? Where am I, and what just happened?" This last question relates to user-lostness, identified by Jeng, as well.
People don't like feeling lost. In Don't Make Me Think, Steve Krug uses this to explain why web navigation must be good (2006, 54-60). Good navigation is one of the most important things designers of digital libraries can keep in mind.
Or, at least, that's what I would have thought six months ago. As I wrote that sentence, however, I started wondering about the importance of good metadata, that would allow the contents of the digital library to be found using a search engine like Google. If a user were looking for something specific, via Google, and found a link to the item deep within a digital library, would they need or want to navigate around the digital library after finding what they came for?
And, what about the whole social aspect that we've been discussing all semester? One of my least favorite things about wikis is the lack of good navigation, yet their popularity is undeniable. Wikipedia has an excellent search tool, and a fun random page feature, but browsing by categories (or basic topics) is really overwhelming. That's one of the things that concerns me about my own wiki. Yet, if people now just go straight for the search box, does it matter?
Yes, of course it does. Good navigation within digital libraries is just as important as good navigation within physical libraries. We don't just throw all the books in a big pile and make people dig through them. We sort them, we shelve them, we put them in a findable order. Then, on top of that, we provide lots of good signage (ideally) and friendly experts (hopefully) to help people be successful in their search. So, as I just think through my keyboard here, I'd say that these same tools--clear labels, helpful guides, help when you need it--are essential for ensuring usability and user satisfaction within digital libraries.
Perhaps, however, we forgot about the lessons Dervin taught us about Sense-making when we started making our digital libraries and our library websites. Or, maybe the introduction of any new technology requires first the idea that it could work, then making it work, then (hopefully sooner rather than later) realizing that just because it technically works, that doesn't mean it works for the user.
This was definitely the discovery that Ferreira and Pithan made of the InfoHab digital library. By combining Kuhlthau's notions that information searches involve physical, affective, and cognitive states, with Nielson's "big five" (learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction), the authors created a study that should offer a pretty reliable and valid assessment of a digital library's goodness (I want to say usability here, but I think it needs to incorporate more than that, since we have added affective and cognitive aspects, as well.).
Judy Jeng also used a combination to try to develop an evaluation tool for digital libraries. She uses several techniques to create a more complete picture of the user experience. She suggests using formal usability testing, questionnaire, interview, think aloud, etc. She uses quantitative and qualitative measures. Satisfaction is the qualitative measure. I think this is where Kuhlthau's identification of the affective and cognitive aspects of searching are most prevalent. Kuhlthau tells us that users will experience some uncertainty during their search,. If the site has good usability, the uncertainty should be limited to "Is this really a topic I want to pursue? Does this fit my need?" rather than "Which button do I click now? How do I refine my search? Where am I, and what just happened?" This last question relates to user-lostness, identified by Jeng, as well.
People don't like feeling lost. In Don't Make Me Think, Steve Krug uses this to explain why web navigation must be good (2006, 54-60). Good navigation is one of the most important things designers of digital libraries can keep in mind.
Or, at least, that's what I would have thought six months ago. As I wrote that sentence, however, I started wondering about the importance of good metadata, that would allow the contents of the digital library to be found using a search engine like Google. If a user were looking for something specific, via Google, and found a link to the item deep within a digital library, would they need or want to navigate around the digital library after finding what they came for?
And, what about the whole social aspect that we've been discussing all semester? One of my least favorite things about wikis is the lack of good navigation, yet their popularity is undeniable. Wikipedia has an excellent search tool, and a fun random page feature, but browsing by categories (or basic topics) is really overwhelming. That's one of the things that concerns me about my own wiki. Yet, if people now just go straight for the search box, does it matter?
Yes, of course it does. Good navigation within digital libraries is just as important as good navigation within physical libraries. We don't just throw all the books in a big pile and make people dig through them. We sort them, we shelve them, we put them in a findable order. Then, on top of that, we provide lots of good signage (ideally) and friendly experts (hopefully) to help people be successful in their search. So, as I just think through my keyboard here, I'd say that these same tools--clear labels, helpful guides, help when you need it--are essential for ensuring usability and user satisfaction within digital libraries.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
More on the Hive Mind of Wikipedia
I finally finished the Schiff article. I learned a lot about the origins of Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, just as I'm coming around to treating Wikipedia with ample skeptism, I read something like this. Initially, the article is pretty even-handed.
But then, the Wikipedia-bashing: "Wikipedia remains a lumpy work in progress. The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss." I can't help it; I just have an emotional response to this kind of thing. It's probably related to the analogy that Jimmy Wales uses about Wikipedia being rock and roll, and Britannica being easy listening. It's certainly a teen-age angst voice that wells up in me and wants to yell, "You just don't understand, man--it's about the people. It's, like, cool, and fast, and easy to use. You just use the good stuff in Wikipedia--don't use the stupid stuff. Phfft, anybody knows that." I know, it's a very intelligent retort.
I think you just have to know your tool. If you're trying to start a new, healthful, organic, all-goodness diet, don't go to McDonald's. But, if you're on the turnpike early in the morning, and you'd like some tasty hash browns, it's not the end of the world. Just don't tell yourself that they're the nutritional equivalent of whole-grain cereal and grapefruit.
Brace yourself. Here it comes: the "good enough" argument. It *is* good enough for some things. For example, reading the Schiff article, Felix Unger came up in connection with OCD. It seemed to be part of a witty remark, but I couldn't think of who that might be. So, I jump on over to Wikipedia, do a quick search for Felix Unger, and viola, my memory is jogged back to watching "Odd Couple" reruns as a child. I get the reference, and I'm back to reading the New Yorker article in less than thirty seconds.
So, reading that Schiff article had the exact opposite of the intended effect. I may never get a job as a librarian after posting this, but...well, if loving Wikipedia is wrong, I don't want to be right. *sigh*
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Unfortunately, just as I'm coming around to treating Wikipedia with ample skeptism, I read something like this. Initially, the article is pretty even-handed.
But then, the Wikipedia-bashing: "Wikipedia remains a lumpy work in progress. The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss." I can't help it; I just have an emotional response to this kind of thing. It's probably related to the analogy that Jimmy Wales uses about Wikipedia being rock and roll, and Britannica being easy listening. It's certainly a teen-age angst voice that wells up in me and wants to yell, "You just don't understand, man--it's about the people. It's, like, cool, and fast, and easy to use. You just use the good stuff in Wikipedia--don't use the stupid stuff. Phfft, anybody knows that." I know, it's a very intelligent retort.
I think you just have to know your tool. If you're trying to start a new, healthful, organic, all-goodness diet, don't go to McDonald's. But, if you're on the turnpike early in the morning, and you'd like some tasty hash browns, it's not the end of the world. Just don't tell yourself that they're the nutritional equivalent of whole-grain cereal and grapefruit.
Brace yourself. Here it comes: the "good enough" argument. It *is* good enough for some things. For example, reading the Schiff article, Felix Unger came up in connection with OCD. It seemed to be part of a witty remark, but I couldn't think of who that might be. So, I jump on over to Wikipedia, do a quick search for Felix Unger, and viola, my memory is jogged back to watching "Odd Couple" reruns as a child. I get the reference, and I'm back to reading the New Yorker article in less than thirty seconds.
So, reading that Schiff article had the exact opposite of the intended effect. I may never get a job as a librarian after posting this, but...well, if loving Wikipedia is wrong, I don't want to be right. *sigh*
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Is the Hive Mind so bad?
When I started reading "Digital Maoism," it really struck home to me that one little error in Wikipedia can really be so...well, wrong. Sure, Wikipedia isn't for scholarly work, but for a quick fact, or some background knowledge, isn't it great?
Well, maybe not, if the subject of a biography, such as Jaron Lanier, can't correct his entry to what he knows to be true, and have it remain so. In his Edge essay, he explained that he is not a film director, yet Wikipedia says he is. Everytime he corrects it, someone else--who, truth be told, probably knows less about Jaron that Jaron himself--changes it back.
At this point, I was ready to cast off Wikipedia for good (well, I probably couldn't stop cold turkey), when I thought, "I wonder if his entry still says film director?"
So, I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier. He's no longer a film director! I realized, of course, that he could have just tried again to fix it five minutes before got to the site, so I visited the history of revisions page. Around August 16, someone had tried to add film maker again. However, this time, it was immediately corrected--not by Jaron--and the editor added a "see talk" note.
In the talk near the top of the page, there was some interesting, intelligent conversation going on. Wikipedia contributors were referencing Lanier's online "Digital Maoism" essay. Less informed people might post questions or complaints here, but all argument seemed to be level-headed. Answers were given clearly, and the "winning" side used good sources.
My favorite part, however, was Lanier's comments, and the responses to them, lower on the page. At this point, things just got weird. A commenter made a good point, that the subject of the biography might be biased about some interpretations, or might prefer to have some details highlighted and others hushed, even if they are all true. Sure.
Then, however, I just got a little freaked out. In June, someone named Fabian wrote: "lanier simply complains that his private point of view on his person differs from the public perception, that's why i say: who cares. undoubtly it is a rare luxus to have somebody to comment his or her own legend, but i think it is quite naive and self-overestimated to believe he or she has the "authors rights" on how his or her public personality is finally perceived by public." While the point is still that a public person might want to hide certain facts (I'm sure we could all insert a scandal involving a politician here), this gets a little creepy. Yes, when the facts are checked and undeniable proof exists about a certain person, that public person can't necessarily refuse to let it be discussed. However, just because 100, or even 1000, Wikipedia contributors say it's true, that doesn't make it true, or noteworthy. Suddenly images from Lord of the Flies jumped to mind.
Fortunately, voices of reason (those with good sources) prevailed. Still, I'm sure there will be people trying to offer hear-say and/or conspiracy websites as sources for the next proposed change. In one of my past LIS classes, someone discussed an idea of librarians somehow partnering with Wikipedia. I think the idea involved having librarians give the resources, or monitor the content, or something. It seemed to rob Wikipedia of a bit of its magic. However, maybe Wikipedia should consider making its users do an online Information Literacy tutorial before they are allowed to become contributors...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html
Well, maybe not, if the subject of a biography, such as Jaron Lanier, can't correct his entry to what he knows to be true, and have it remain so. In his Edge essay, he explained that he is not a film director, yet Wikipedia says he is. Everytime he corrects it, someone else--who, truth be told, probably knows less about Jaron that Jaron himself--changes it back.
At this point, I was ready to cast off Wikipedia for good (well, I probably couldn't stop cold turkey), when I thought, "I wonder if his entry still says film director?"
So, I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier. He's no longer a film director! I realized, of course, that he could have just tried again to fix it five minutes before got to the site, so I visited the history of revisions page. Around August 16, someone had tried to add film maker again. However, this time, it was immediately corrected--not by Jaron--and the editor added a "see talk" note.
In the talk near the top of the page, there was some interesting, intelligent conversation going on. Wikipedia contributors were referencing Lanier's online "Digital Maoism" essay. Less informed people might post questions or complaints here, but all argument seemed to be level-headed. Answers were given clearly, and the "winning" side used good sources.
My favorite part, however, was Lanier's comments, and the responses to them, lower on the page. At this point, things just got weird. A commenter made a good point, that the subject of the biography might be biased about some interpretations, or might prefer to have some details highlighted and others hushed, even if they are all true. Sure.
Then, however, I just got a little freaked out. In June, someone named Fabian wrote: "lanier simply complains that his private point of view on his person differs from the public perception, that's why i say: who cares. undoubtly it is a rare luxus to have somebody to comment his or her own legend, but i think it is quite naive and self-overestimated to believe he or she has the "authors rights" on how his or her public personality is finally perceived by public." While the point is still that a public person might want to hide certain facts (I'm sure we could all insert a scandal involving a politician here), this gets a little creepy. Yes, when the facts are checked and undeniable proof exists about a certain person, that public person can't necessarily refuse to let it be discussed. However, just because 100, or even 1000, Wikipedia contributors say it's true, that doesn't make it true, or noteworthy. Suddenly images from Lord of the Flies jumped to mind.
Fortunately, voices of reason (those with good sources) prevailed. Still, I'm sure there will be people trying to offer hear-say and/or conspiracy websites as sources for the next proposed change. In one of my past LIS classes, someone discussed an idea of librarians somehow partnering with Wikipedia. I think the idea involved having librarians give the resources, or monitor the content, or something. It seemed to rob Wikipedia of a bit of its magic. However, maybe Wikipedia should consider making its users do an online Information Literacy tutorial before they are allowed to become contributors...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Barriers to writing a paper
1) Your two year-old likes your iPod a little too much.
2) You think it's a good idea to make a "barriers to writing a paper" post on your blog.
3) You can't find any appropriate research. Either it has nothing to do with yor subject, or it's so jargon-filled you can't understand it.
4) Seriously considering making a list of pro-paper-writing music (suggestions, anyone?).
5) Listening to the book jPod. How do those tech people get anything done?
6) EMAIL.
7) Running out of coffee.
8) Your husband and "Little Superstar" in the same room where paper is being written.
9) Lack of sleep.
2) You think it's a good idea to make a "barriers to writing a paper" post on your blog.
3) You can't find any appropriate research. Either it has nothing to do with yor subject, or it's so jargon-filled you can't understand it.
4) Seriously considering making a list of pro-paper-writing music (suggestions, anyone?).
5) Listening to the book jPod. How do those tech people get anything done?
6) EMAIL.
7) Running out of coffee.
8) Your husband and "Little Superstar" in the same room where paper is being written.
9) Lack of sleep.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Discussing attributes, postmodernism, reason and rationality, Ross Atkinson’s “Transversality and the Role of the Library as Fair Witness” took me back to philosophy classes I had as an undergrad. Beyond bringing me a bit of nostalgia, the article also encapsulates libraries’ reasons for existence. By reducing what libraries “are” down to two attributes, plurality and authority, Atkinson pinpoints the tension felt within libraries being pulled in two different directions. We want to simultaneously provide all information to all people, while maintaining accuracy and trustworthiness of our resources.
As I read about transversality, I started thinking about how libraries have to work to transcend all of the political bullarky in order to be a fair witness. It's a big challenge. Speaking of challenges, Atkinson says that "It is a primary capacity of reason, therefore, to create connections among concepts or positions that do not, in fact, connect well, providing the ability (or tolerance) to live and work in the presnece of even irreconcilable contradictions" (2005, 181). This quote helps me realize that I am definitely reason-challenged right now, and therefore having difficultly making the connection between ...Fair Witness and Attention Web Designers.
Both are great articles. I found the Lindgaard, et. al., article to be very interesting. First impressions of websites certainly do make a big difference. When I first visit a web site, I have an immediate reaction to it, and the little web surfer in my head says either "this is going to be good," or "move on, this is worthless!" However, Lindgaard seems to imply that aesthetics is more important than usability. For me, usability is part of the visual appeal. Usability is beautiful. From what I understood of the study described, the experiment was performed with a program to make the pages look as though they were displayed with IE, though the users weren't actually clicking through the Internet. I wonder, does this affect download time? I want pleasing colors, but I also want clear content and speed of information over snazzy, distracting animations and graphics. Jakob Nielson says that your page should load quickly: "The one-second response-time limit is required for users to feel that they are moving freely through the information space" (Nielson 2000, 48). Lindgaard's study showing that you have 50 ms to make a good impression rings true...and, part of that first impression is presenting your information quickly. Your site should be attractive (Great Guru Neilson's website--not so attractive in my opinion), but not by sacrificing downloading time.
Nielson, Jakob. 2000. Designing web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
As I read about transversality, I started thinking about how libraries have to work to transcend all of the political bullarky in order to be a fair witness. It's a big challenge. Speaking of challenges, Atkinson says that "It is a primary capacity of reason, therefore, to create connections among concepts or positions that do not, in fact, connect well, providing the ability (or tolerance) to live and work in the presnece of even irreconcilable contradictions" (2005, 181). This quote helps me realize that I am definitely reason-challenged right now, and therefore having difficultly making the connection between ...Fair Witness and Attention Web Designers.
Both are great articles. I found the Lindgaard, et. al., article to be very interesting. First impressions of websites certainly do make a big difference. When I first visit a web site, I have an immediate reaction to it, and the little web surfer in my head says either "this is going to be good," or "move on, this is worthless!" However, Lindgaard seems to imply that aesthetics is more important than usability. For me, usability is part of the visual appeal. Usability is beautiful. From what I understood of the study described, the experiment was performed with a program to make the pages look as though they were displayed with IE, though the users weren't actually clicking through the Internet. I wonder, does this affect download time? I want pleasing colors, but I also want clear content and speed of information over snazzy, distracting animations and graphics. Jakob Nielson says that your page should load quickly: "The one-second response-time limit is required for users to feel that they are moving freely through the information space" (Nielson 2000, 48). Lindgaard's study showing that you have 50 ms to make a good impression rings true...and, part of that first impression is presenting your information quickly. Your site should be attractive (Great Guru Neilson's website--not so attractive in my opinion), but not by sacrificing downloading time.
Nielson, Jakob. 2000. Designing web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Metadata of mega-importance?
First, what is the RFD tag for "dang, you, Amanda!"? I followed her suggestion to checkout bloglines.com, even though I really should have been writing my own blog. I quickly got sucked into that world and completely lost track of the time. Sometimes with this class I feel like I'm beginning an addiction. It starts with just a little bit, just something you do on the weekends (not class, but the interesting links you visit related to class). Then, you need a little more, a little mid-week pick-me up. Soon, you're doing it every day, every chance you get, trying to hide it from your family. I only realized how long I had been reading RSS Feeds--feeds of sites that I never visit, by the way, but just subscribed to because they were a quick option during registration--when my husband walked through. First, it was the image generators, then the anuice site...Now he no longer even asks, "this is what you're doing for your MLIS?"
Of course, he doesn't walk by when I'm reading the Gradman article, so that I could say, "Gee, have you ever thought about how much expertly-analyzed information is hidden in library catalogs everywhere, inaccessible to the myriad of search engines available? Wouldn't it be truly amazing and wonderful if someone searching for information on the Internet for, say, gardening, also got links to several books available at their local library?"
Unfortunately, much of the information housed within library catologs remains part of the "hidden web," as Gradman refers to it. Making those bibliographic records more accessible to the WWW would be an excellent move for libraries. We still hear those "why do we need libraries, now that we have the Internet?" comments; making our resources more findable would be a new way to market to those thinkers. A simple Google search for The Life of Pi of course pulls up links to Amazon, Powells.com, and several review sites. However, if I were interested in reading this book, I might also like to know that Tulsa City-County Library has over 20 copies of this book, at least eight of which are currently available, and that I could reserve online tonight and pick it up before online booksellers could possibly deliver it to me.
I think we must start working toward ways to escape the "golden cage," of which Gradman speaks. His proposal for FRBR seems reasonable, but I don't know enough about cataloging to really understand all of the multitude of issues involved. Undoubtably, translating all those records would be a chore. Also, I know that there are many metadata schemas currently being used and developed, and I certainly don't have the experience to say that FRBR would work better than any others. I've read about RDF, XML, TEI, EAD, DC, and others, but I think this is the first time I've heard of FRBR.
After reading his article, I did go straight to Amazon and add some XML tutorial books to my wishlist :}
With visions of magical metadata swimming in my head, I began reading Mohamed's "The Impact of Metadata in Web Resources Discovering," only to learn that his study shows that metadata has no significant effect on the rank order of web pages in certain search engines! How can this be possible? If you were to ask me what I remembered most from my Organization of Information class, I would have to say "the word METADATA!" I have to wonder if perhaps the importance of metadata goes beyond search engine rank order. Maybe it has more to do with our taking baby-steps ever closer to the Semantic Web. Or, maybe Mohamed should have just used Google, like the rest of us ;)
Of course, he doesn't walk by when I'm reading the Gradman article, so that I could say, "Gee, have you ever thought about how much expertly-analyzed information is hidden in library catalogs everywhere, inaccessible to the myriad of search engines available? Wouldn't it be truly amazing and wonderful if someone searching for information on the Internet for, say, gardening, also got links to several books available at their local library?"
Unfortunately, much of the information housed within library catologs remains part of the "hidden web," as Gradman refers to it. Making those bibliographic records more accessible to the WWW would be an excellent move for libraries. We still hear those "why do we need libraries, now that we have the Internet?" comments; making our resources more findable would be a new way to market to those thinkers. A simple Google search for The Life of Pi of course pulls up links to Amazon, Powells.com, and several review sites. However, if I were interested in reading this book, I might also like to know that Tulsa City-County Library has over 20 copies of this book, at least eight of which are currently available, and that I could reserve online tonight and pick it up before online booksellers could possibly deliver it to me.
I think we must start working toward ways to escape the "golden cage," of which Gradman speaks. His proposal for FRBR seems reasonable, but I don't know enough about cataloging to really understand all of the multitude of issues involved. Undoubtably, translating all those records would be a chore. Also, I know that there are many metadata schemas currently being used and developed, and I certainly don't have the experience to say that FRBR would work better than any others. I've read about RDF, XML, TEI, EAD, DC, and others, but I think this is the first time I've heard of FRBR.
After reading his article, I did go straight to Amazon and add some XML tutorial books to my wishlist :}
With visions of magical metadata swimming in my head, I began reading Mohamed's "The Impact of Metadata in Web Resources Discovering," only to learn that his study shows that metadata has no significant effect on the rank order of web pages in certain search engines! How can this be possible? If you were to ask me what I remembered most from my Organization of Information class, I would have to say "the word METADATA!" I have to wonder if perhaps the importance of metadata goes beyond search engine rank order. Maybe it has more to do with our taking baby-steps ever closer to the Semantic Web. Or, maybe Mohamed should have just used Google, like the rest of us ;)
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Where is my "handy personal memory extension"?
For years, I have been asking when I would be able to buy a flash drive that I could plug directly into my temple, as a memory extension. Now, reading "Memex at 60: Internet or iPod?," by Richard Veith, I learn that this idea has been around for over 60 years. I admit it--I'm spoiled by my laptop with wi-fi, my iPod, my PDA, my flash drive, and my high speed Internet connection at home, work and school. Therefore, I'm taking this news a little bit like I took the news that flying cars have been possible for a long time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car), but I just can't have one--that is, I feel a bit betrayed.
Yes, I have all these other gadgets, but they don't make up for my poor memory. I almost never delete email, just so I can go back and try to remember the strands of digital conversations. That is not, however, "an extension of one's own memory," as Veith calls the idea of the Memex (2006, 1239). What I need is the working version of Gordon Bell's MyLifeBits (see http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mediapresence/MyLifeBits.aspx), that attempts to store everything he sees or hears (Veith 2006, 1240).
I guess until I can buy a MyLifeBits device on Amazon for $19.99, I'll have to make do with my latest memory-extension tool: Google Desktop (http://127.0.0.1:4664/&s=r_07j9cPamQVuUuKgeqd4zb1IkA&q=). I really just started trying to use it within the last week or so, and so far it seems to have promise. Basically, you have a little Google search bar on your desktop. When you want to find something, you just start typing in the search bar, and it finds it with the speed of a Google Internet search. This is perfect for quickly finding papers that I wrote two semesters ago. If it doesn't locate your word or phrase on your computer, it offers to search the Web. It's a great tool, but it still doesn't make up for an operator's failing memory. For instance, I just spent 10 minutes being very angry that Google desktop wasn't finding anything about Veith or Vaidhyanathan...then I remembered that I was on a different computer when I viewed those.
Consider that my segue into Vaidhyanathan. Like pieandaphasia, I found "the better they are, the more dangerous libraries can seem," to be a powerful quote (Vaidhyanathan 2004, 118). Reading "The Perfect Library," Chapter 8 of The Anarchist in the Library (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465089852/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/103-0961424-3623008?ie=UTF8), I appreciated the insight that cooler heads don't make the news or inspire rallying cries. When libraries in Oklahoma came under attack for certain books in the children's collections, the fact that the libraries offer hundreds of thousands of "mainstream" children's books wasn't really newsworthy. It was only the extreme voices that were heard, though I think the majority of staff and patrons had the enlightened Vaidhyanathan response of "Slow down. Think this through. Talk this out. Don't rush to judgment" (2004, 115). In this case, what I like to think of as the "better" libraries were offering a variety of children's books, with a broad collection that attempted to serve as many segments of the community as possible. Unfortunately, this made those libraries seem more dangerous. For those already inclined to think so, the whole situation only fueled public libraries' reputation as "dens of terrorists and pornographers" (2004, 119).
Though such attacks are discouraging, maybe we in the profession need the opportunity for righteous outrage occasionally, to help us keep our purpose in sight, to inspire us to be "heroes." Without the USA PATRIOT act, would we have the rallying cry of being radical, militant librarians? I mean, would we have buttons (https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlinks/radicalbutton.htm)?
Yes, I have all these other gadgets, but they don't make up for my poor memory. I almost never delete email, just so I can go back and try to remember the strands of digital conversations. That is not, however, "an extension of one's own memory," as Veith calls the idea of the Memex (2006, 1239). What I need is the working version of Gordon Bell's MyLifeBits (see http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mediapresence/MyLifeBits.aspx), that attempts to store everything he sees or hears (Veith 2006, 1240).
I guess until I can buy a MyLifeBits device on Amazon for $19.99, I'll have to make do with my latest memory-extension tool: Google Desktop (http://127.0.0.1:4664/&s=r_07j9cPamQVuUuKgeqd4zb1IkA&q=). I really just started trying to use it within the last week or so, and so far it seems to have promise. Basically, you have a little Google search bar on your desktop. When you want to find something, you just start typing in the search bar, and it finds it with the speed of a Google Internet search. This is perfect for quickly finding papers that I wrote two semesters ago. If it doesn't locate your word or phrase on your computer, it offers to search the Web. It's a great tool, but it still doesn't make up for an operator's failing memory. For instance, I just spent 10 minutes being very angry that Google desktop wasn't finding anything about Veith or Vaidhyanathan...then I remembered that I was on a different computer when I viewed those.
Consider that my segue into Vaidhyanathan. Like pieandaphasia, I found "the better they are, the more dangerous libraries can seem," to be a powerful quote (Vaidhyanathan 2004, 118). Reading "The Perfect Library," Chapter 8 of The Anarchist in the Library (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465089852/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/103-0961424-3623008?ie=UTF8), I appreciated the insight that cooler heads don't make the news or inspire rallying cries. When libraries in Oklahoma came under attack for certain books in the children's collections, the fact that the libraries offer hundreds of thousands of "mainstream" children's books wasn't really newsworthy. It was only the extreme voices that were heard, though I think the majority of staff and patrons had the enlightened Vaidhyanathan response of "Slow down. Think this through. Talk this out. Don't rush to judgment" (2004, 115). In this case, what I like to think of as the "better" libraries were offering a variety of children's books, with a broad collection that attempted to serve as many segments of the community as possible. Unfortunately, this made those libraries seem more dangerous. For those already inclined to think so, the whole situation only fueled public libraries' reputation as "dens of terrorists and pornographers" (2004, 119).
Though such attacks are discouraging, maybe we in the profession need the opportunity for righteous outrage occasionally, to help us keep our purpose in sight, to inspire us to be "heroes." Without the USA PATRIOT act, would we have the rallying cry of being radical, militant librarians? I mean, would we have buttons (https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlinks/radicalbutton.htm)?
Monday, September 04, 2006
Image Generators are Cool.
The blog, Learning 2.0, http://plcmcl2-things.blogspot.com/, recommended by Doctor Martens, suggested a little continuing education via image generators. Fun stuff--I wish I had more clever things to say on tarot cards!
To create your own 'fortune,' visit the link below to make a tarot card:
http://www.signgenerator.org/tarot/cards.asp
Thursday, August 31, 2006
"Big Mother" is watching you...
I'm thoroughly enjoying reading Ambient Findability, by Peter Morville. I am a huge fan of being able to find things easily, when you need them, and then finding them usable once you get there. The more I read about usability, findability, and the other things that make library (and other) services user-friendly, the less patience I have for things that aren't user friendly.
I'm not sure, however, how I feel about making *people* easily findable. The idea of fitting your young child with a locator while in a theme park (Morville 2005, 80) seems like a terrific idea. However, tracking your teenager with a GPS device as they drive to school, work, and social outings seems a little like spying. I read about this in Morville, and it did make me think about the length I would go to in order to protect/monitor my child.
By odd coincidence, this week I heard Technology Lets Parents Track Kids' Every Move on NPR <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5725196>. This story provides a profile of a family that is actually using this technology.
It just makes me feel old. I generally think that I am a technophile. Then, I hear a story like this, and I hear myself saying things like "back in my day..."
Such parental tracking brings up all sorts of issues about trust, independence, privacy, psychology, and security in our modern society. It also makes me feel paranoid, even though Morville warns against it at this point (2005, 74).
I'm not sure, however, how I feel about making *people* easily findable. The idea of fitting your young child with a locator while in a theme park (Morville 2005, 80) seems like a terrific idea. However, tracking your teenager with a GPS device as they drive to school, work, and social outings seems a little like spying. I read about this in Morville, and it did make me think about the length I would go to in order to protect/monitor my child.
By odd coincidence, this week I heard Technology Lets Parents Track Kids' Every Move on NPR <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5725196>. This story provides a profile of a family that is actually using this technology.
It just makes me feel old. I generally think that I am a technophile. Then, I hear a story like this, and I hear myself saying things like "back in my day..."
Such parental tracking brings up all sorts of issues about trust, independence, privacy, psychology, and security in our modern society. It also makes me feel paranoid, even though Morville warns against it at this point (2005, 74).
Link
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Gaming...education...nanotechnology...
Is it possible for technology and information access to help compensate for disadvantages caused by neglect, poverty, and/or general lack of opportunity?
Perhaps. What we know about childhood development and emergent literacy is this: positive, stimulating interaction creates and strengthens essential connections within the brain. Every experience that a child has affects the development of those connections. Such connections are being made at an astounding pace in an infant's brain...but through interactive, lifelong learning, they can continue to be developed and strengthened as an adult.
So, what does all this have to do with Learning by Design: Good Video Games as Learning Machines by James Paul Gee and We Live Here: Games, Third Places and the Information Architecture of the Future by Andrew Hinton?
As I reflected on the readings, I remembered a book I read several years ago that resonated deeply enough with me that I am still trying to get other people who "don't read science fiction" to read it. It's called The Diamond Age: or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, by Neal Stephenson. This is science fiction, so it is set in the future. The story evolves around what nanotechnology could make possible, so it's not something we're going to see on our laptops for Christmas '06. The character I remember most in this book is Nell, a young girl who lives extreme poverty, doing her best to avoid abuse by her mother and her mother's string of loser boyfriends. Nell really doesn't stand a chance. Her older brother survives by belonging to a gang, and looks out for Nell as much as possible. She is not being sent to school, not being cared for, certainly not being valued or educated. Yet, her brother happens to rob a man who is carrying a special "book," which he gives to Nell. Nell's salvation through this book is what I remember. Of course, other characters played major parts and had parallel story lines...but those didn't really stick with me.
Gee has created a checklist of learning principles that are built into good games. He speaks of co-design, customization, identity, well-ordered problems, and cycles of expertise, sandboxes, and much more. Nell's "book" incorporated all of these. It's as though Gee read The Diamond Age (actually, I would bet that he has). Nell is not getting any positive interaction from any caring adult, and before she gets the book, she'd be lucky to survive to grow up to be a part-time prostitute like her mother. Yet, when she opens the book, a whole new world opens up to her--literally. We've talked about Second Life being an escape or another reality; this book goes far beyond all that. Based on nanotechnology, the book can create worlds to teach different skills, as though the reader were walking into a fairy tale or a textbook. Nell doesn't have to be able to read yet: the book adapts to match her current abilities and needs. It changes as she learns, and it works with her to develop essential survival skills in addition to intellectual skills. Of course, it's not the drill and practice that we see in so much educational technology currently available. It draws her into to various "games," in which she learns reading, writing, arithmetic, martial arts, and more. The book also gives Nell an identity and a relationship to a teacher within the game worlds that offer more stability, respect, and caring than anything she is likely to encounter in her home.
To bring us around to Hinton, Nell does basically begin to live within this book world as much as she can. Unfortunately for Nell, it is not her "third place," where she goes to have fun or socialize. It's really her first place, and her only safe place. Still, it offers the environment that Hinton recommends, creating the right conditions for Nell to give life to her education. The book offers sort of an "open architecture" that allows Nell to change the "reality" as she goes.
I think that one reason I was so intrigued by this book was the idea--the hope--that our advancing technology might in some way equalize the disparities in opportunity between rich and poor, educated and uneducated. Of course, the digital divide may only exasperate the disparities; that is the outcome most often discussed. However, if access to technology is made equitable, then the learning principles in games (listed by Gee) could be especially beneficial to different learning styles, to those with LD, and those labeled "at-risk." No, the warm glow of a a computer screen shouldn't (and couldn't) replace the kind, loving hug of a care-giver. I do think, however that development of technology in this area can lead to advancements beyond letting people live out the wish-fulfillment fantasies of choosing a particular body size or hair style, as in Second Life.
And there you have my slightly tangential musings on gaming and education.
Perhaps. What we know about childhood development and emergent literacy is this: positive, stimulating interaction creates and strengthens essential connections within the brain. Every experience that a child has affects the development of those connections. Such connections are being made at an astounding pace in an infant's brain...but through interactive, lifelong learning, they can continue to be developed and strengthened as an adult.
So, what does all this have to do with Learning by Design: Good Video Games as Learning Machines by James Paul Gee and We Live Here: Games, Third Places and the Information Architecture of the Future by Andrew Hinton?
As I reflected on the readings, I remembered a book I read several years ago that resonated deeply enough with me that I am still trying to get other people who "don't read science fiction" to read it. It's called The Diamond Age: or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, by Neal Stephenson. This is science fiction, so it is set in the future. The story evolves around what nanotechnology could make possible, so it's not something we're going to see on our laptops for Christmas '06. The character I remember most in this book is Nell, a young girl who lives extreme poverty, doing her best to avoid abuse by her mother and her mother's string of loser boyfriends. Nell really doesn't stand a chance. Her older brother survives by belonging to a gang, and looks out for Nell as much as possible. She is not being sent to school, not being cared for, certainly not being valued or educated. Yet, her brother happens to rob a man who is carrying a special "book," which he gives to Nell. Nell's salvation through this book is what I remember. Of course, other characters played major parts and had parallel story lines...but those didn't really stick with me.
Gee has created a checklist of learning principles that are built into good games. He speaks of co-design, customization, identity, well-ordered problems, and cycles of expertise, sandboxes, and much more. Nell's "book" incorporated all of these. It's as though Gee read The Diamond Age (actually, I would bet that he has). Nell is not getting any positive interaction from any caring adult, and before she gets the book, she'd be lucky to survive to grow up to be a part-time prostitute like her mother. Yet, when she opens the book, a whole new world opens up to her--literally. We've talked about Second Life being an escape or another reality; this book goes far beyond all that. Based on nanotechnology, the book can create worlds to teach different skills, as though the reader were walking into a fairy tale or a textbook. Nell doesn't have to be able to read yet: the book adapts to match her current abilities and needs. It changes as she learns, and it works with her to develop essential survival skills in addition to intellectual skills. Of course, it's not the drill and practice that we see in so much educational technology currently available. It draws her into to various "games," in which she learns reading, writing, arithmetic, martial arts, and more. The book also gives Nell an identity and a relationship to a teacher within the game worlds that offer more stability, respect, and caring than anything she is likely to encounter in her home.
To bring us around to Hinton, Nell does basically begin to live within this book world as much as she can. Unfortunately for Nell, it is not her "third place," where she goes to have fun or socialize. It's really her first place, and her only safe place. Still, it offers the environment that Hinton recommends, creating the right conditions for Nell to give life to her education. The book offers sort of an "open architecture" that allows Nell to change the "reality" as she goes.
I think that one reason I was so intrigued by this book was the idea--the hope--that our advancing technology might in some way equalize the disparities in opportunity between rich and poor, educated and uneducated. Of course, the digital divide may only exasperate the disparities; that is the outcome most often discussed. However, if access to technology is made equitable, then the learning principles in games (listed by Gee) could be especially beneficial to different learning styles, to those with LD, and those labeled "at-risk." No, the warm glow of a a computer screen shouldn't (and couldn't) replace the kind, loving hug of a care-giver. I do think, however that development of technology in this area can lead to advancements beyond letting people live out the wish-fulfillment fantasies of choosing a particular body size or hair style, as in Second Life.
And there you have my slightly tangential musings on gaming and education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
