Sharing from Charlotte: Part 1

Charlotte Re-examined Openly #aasl2009, aasl2009

Tech Chick Tips

Podcasts are a great way to expand learning beyond the classroom or library. Here are more recommendations from Tech Chicks Anna Adam and Helen Mowers, following up their Dec. 2007 article Listen Up!

Test Drive: Zonbu

Jeffrey Hastings, our gearhead, considers the Zonbu, a $99 open-source desktop computer.

Test Drive: Public Web Browser 2.10

SLJ columnist Jeffrey Hastings reviews the search utility Public Web Browser.

I Heard it from Alice Zucchini: Poems about the Garden by Juanita Havill

I Heard it from Alice Zucchini: Poems about the Garden, written by Juanita Havill, illustrated by Christine Davenier (Chronicle Books, 2006).

Halloween Poetry podcast series: Bobbi Katz

Illustrator Hilary Knight Donates Eloise, Other Works to NYPL

School Librarians Lead the Social Networking Pack Among Educators

AASL National Conference Focuses on 21st Century Learning

What Are They Reading for Fun?

Uncorking New Libraries, One Bottle At a Time

Library 2.0 Gang 11/09: The Cataloguing Services Landscape

More...

Until fairly recently it has been all quiet on the shared cataloguing front. Cataloguing departments taking records from the Library of Congress, other National libraries, or one of many other libraries that share their Z39.50 connections. Many libraries also being members of an organisation to share the cataloguing load, such as OCLC, or Talis Base in the UK.

About a year ago dust started to stir on the surface of this stable landscape, when OCLC caused a curfuffle with their move to redefine their record reuse policy. Then in January, open source library system vendor announced ‡Biblios.net, a free cataloguing service in which you can share with other libraries. In the last few weeks we have had SkyRiver arrive on the scene. Not much visible on their site yet, but according to press releases they hope to deliver quality at a lower costs - so things are a changing.

Unfortunately nobody was available from OCLC, ‡Biblios, or SkyRiver, to help talk through what these moves might mean. Nevertheless Gang members Marshall Breeding and Frances Haugen were on hand to explore the ramifications of these moves and what a more competitive landscape might mean for the players in this market.

Library 2.0 Gang 10/09 [40:11m]:Download

Is the Nook a Crook?

Everything I read and hear about the forthcoming Nook portable eReading device from Barnes & Noble (http://www.nook.com), including Jason Griffey’s post here on the TechSource blog, indicates that the Nook will be a significant new development in the burgeoning portable eReader device market.  It may become the much-anticipated Kindle Killer.  

The Nook clearly is not a crock, but earlier this week, a news release raised another question:  Is the Nook a Crook?

On November 2, 2009 a small company based in Fremont, California called Spring Design, Inc. issued a news release stating that Barnes & Noble has misappropriated trade secrets and violated a non-disclosure agreement into which the two companies had entered.  As a result, Spring Design has filed a lawsuit against Barnes & Noble. At issue is the similarities in design and functionality between the Nook and the Alex, a dual-screen, Android-driven portable eReading device that Spring Design has been designing since 2006. Both were publicly announced within a few days of each other last month. 

It’s not just a happy coincidence, Spring Design asserts.  Throughout most of 2009 Spring Design and B&N have had ongoing conversations and meetings about a dual-screen portable eReading device.   Representatives from Spring Design thought the conversations and meetings might lead to a business partnership.  They say they were completely surprised and flabbergasted when the Nook was announced.

  The news release from Spring Design states, “Since the beginning of 2009, Spring and Barnes & Noble worked within a non-disclosure agreement, including many meetings, emails and conference calls with executives ranging up to the president of Barnes and Noble.com, discussing confidential information regarding the features, functionality and capabilities of Alex. Throughout, Barnes & Noble's marketing and technical executives extolled Alex's "innovative" features, never mentioning their use of those features until the public disclosure of the Nook.” 

The damages sought through this lawsuit and the jurisdiction in which it was filed were not specified in the new release, but a PC Magazine article posted on Tuesday (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355246,00.asp) states that Spring Design has asked the court to stop production of the Nook and award damages to Spring. While the Google Books Settlement may be a much bigger fish frying in the pan of the emerging portable eReading culture, society, and economy, this smaller lawsuit provides further validation of my short list of key indicators that something significant is happening in some new technological, um, nook (small n) or cranny.  Here’s my list:

• Obligatory Format War:  PDF versus ePub, check
• Lots of big players rushing into the market:  Amazon, Sony, Google, Barnes & Noble, check
• Lots of media coverage, perhaps verging on hype:  check
• Lots of lawsuits and general saber rattling:  check
   

Commenting on the merits of this lawsuit here and now would be fruitless.  It is too soon to tell which party, if either, is at fault.  We can only hope that eventually justice will prevail, and that lawsuits, which often crop up as new technologies take root, will not choke the new growth and permanently mar the landscape.   

The Sacred Cows of Library Technologists

Hearing Rick Anderson's recent KLA talk, titled "The Five Sacred Cows of Librarianship: Why They No Longer Matter, and Why Two of Them Never Did,"  made me wonder what "sacred cows" exist in the field of library technology.  I posed the question, "What are the sacred cows of library technology?" in Google Wave.  What followed was a discussion about digital technology among library technologists that generated many ideas and was a great way to try out this new communication tool.  Some of the ideas offered up were "sacred cows" to those in the field, but others challenged ideas held more widely in librarianship.

"Our users haven't asked for that." 

Some libraries do not experiment with offering services and resources digitally because the patrons in the building say that they do not want them.  Matt Hamilton writes, "When I asked our Reference staff if they'd consider IM reference I was told 'Well, our patrons haven't asked for that.' However the university up the hill actually tried it--and it was so popular they had to readjust staffing for it."

A good way to estimate whether a digital service will be successful is to ask users of your website, though even users of your digital spaces may not know right away whether they would use a service if offered digitally.  For example, users might tell you now that they are not interested in asking information questions via Twitter or SMS, but when those same people get into Twitter because their friends do, your library will be there to met their needs.  "A question is a question is a question," writes David Lee King, "in-person services should not be weighted as more important than using a similar service digitally."

"Library technology=Windows or Mac."

While the majority of the use of digital library services and resources takes place via desktop or laptop computers, mobile use is rapidly increasing.  Computers are everywhere—our DVRs and cable boxes are computers, as are our in-car GPS units. Perhaps most widespread, our cell phones and other small-screen devices that can access the web, like Apple's iPod Touch and eBook readers like Amazon's Kindle, are computers.

What does your library website look like on these devices?  Can your users send call numbers or phone numbers to themselves via a text message?  Can your users chat with a librarian via SMS? Do you provide directions via Google Maps?  Event information via Google Calendar, iCalendar or RSS?  Is your library's Facebook page mobile-friendly?  Is there an iPhone app that searches your library's catalog? 

There is an important lesson here for library administrators, and it's not that every library MUST have all of these things, but rather that technology budgets must be nimble enough to arm your technology staff with the tools and training required to create mobile-friendly services. Robert McDonald asserts that libraries must "look at new communication tools and how we can partner with vendors to be viable in this area."

"Right now," he writes, "I am talking about SMS text and mobile devices—soon I guess I will mean wave or some other technology. Email and Chat are for old people like me, not for our current users."

"Cutting-edge is better; bleeding-edge is best."

Just because a shiny gadget or tool is available, it doesn't mean that there is a need for it in each library. "Anytime we fetishize the container over the information we're creating a golden idol," writes Joshua Neff, extending the "sacred cow" metaphor. Amy Buckland agreed, writing, "I'm always amazed that libtechs are so enamored of tools long before they come up with uses for them.  Then we try to shoehorn library services into a tool just so we have it."  Experimenting with low-cost or no-cost tools like Twitter will only cost staff time, but implementing expensive (think federated search) or complex-but-free technologies (think Drupal) because it's the cool thing to do can be a very costly lesson for a library to learn, in terms of budget, staff time, morale and user satisfaction.

"<insert your favorite software or vendor here> is the only way to go." 

This is a many-horned "cow" that deserves quick and painless slaughter.  Roy Tennant was quick to offer open source software as one of our sacred cows, "Not that it isn't important and useful," he says, "I've been involved with open source projects myself, but it also is not our total salvation. We need to get beyond a religious-like fervor and view all possible solutions more rationally."  David King offered the idea from a different angle: "Having a 'complete Microsoft shop,' meaning those IT departments that are proud of the fact that their server room only has Microsoft products, Microsoft operating systems, etc." Jason Griffey chimed in with the "belief that dealing with 'library vendors' for services is the way to go. I'm trying to find ways to get away from that, and go wherever the best stuff is (often NOT library vendors)."  Whatever goes in that blank, it's important to realize that it's ok to diversify.  Not all library systems HAVE to be open source.  Not every server HAS to be Microsoft.  Libraries can partner with vendors outside libraryland for tools and services.  There is an awful lot of content delivered directly to users via Netflix, iTunes, Amazon—how can libraries become integrated into what Jason Griffey calls these "patron-level content distribution systems"? Should we be trying?  Will libraries as we know them survive if we don't?

"Technology is the domain of the few."

Library staff who are comfortable with using and experimenting with technology are no longer solely in the Systems Department.  The "technology-minded" can have a role in every department.  A library organization whose librarians and staff are empowered to experiment with technological solutions or who are given tools to create their own digital content will be more nimble and able to respond to the changing technology needs of users.  Ideas for meeting information or collection needs with a technological tool will be more widely accepted—and therefore more successful among staff—if those ideas originate in the departments that will use those tools. It's a wiser use of staffing dollars to allow technology staff to focus on programming, hardware, web design and systems administration expertise instead of figuring out how to day-to-day uses of Database X or Software Program Y.  Of course, it's important for library staff and administrators to realize that technology staff time is finite; that systems and services that requiring technology staff time add up fast; and that thoughtful and strategic technology planning is more important than ever.

Open Source Newbie Tells All

TechSource has a long tradition of insightful posts about Open Source Software. I am always mindful that I write for the blog that hosted Karen Schneider's IT and Sympathy, which introduced much of libraryland to the idea that OSS is free as in kittens, not free as in beer. As I am about to embark on an OSS adventure (which sounds like the name of a ship to me: The OSS Adventure), I thought I'd add my lack of insight to the fray.

My open source experience has been largely limited to WordPress installs, Firefox downloads, and some recent excitement over Drupal's form module. As I prepare to immerse myself in an Evergreen conversion project, I'm starting with beginner's mind. I will (I hope) lose my beginner's status at some point, but I want to retain as much as I can of my beginner's mind. Beginner's mind, in Buddhism, is about keeping yourself open to possibilities--Shunryu Suzuki's book Zen Mind Beginner's Mind tells the reader that "in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few."

Beginner's mind is a pretty abstract thing. How do we wipe away what we know and look at things with fresh eyes? As we gain subject knowledge or organizational history, how do we step back and see things as if we were looking at them for the first time? Meditation is one option, but if you're not looking for an existential solution, you might want to check out Peter Bromberg's post about using new employees as a way to see your organization through fresh eyes--a way to regain some of your beginner's mind. I have found that looking through my sent mail to see what kinds of questions I asked is also helpful ("Oh yeah, I thought that was confusing too"). As our understanding of a topic or place evolves, it's easy to forget how things looked at first.

In the spirit of Beginner's Mind (and also in the spirit of hilariously wrong technology predictions), I'm going to post my current observations about libraries and OSS. Right now, I'm transitioning from public library reference work to a consortium about to embark on a conversion to Evergreen. Hopefully, my beginner's observations will prove to be useful (or at the very least, amusing).

By now, most librarians are familiar with the term "open source". The general sentiment is that it's good, but the harder sell is why it's good. The whys and wherefores of open source are fairly abstract: "it's good because anyone can get at the code" isn't all that meaningful to most people. Librarians on the front line are also burdened with the obligation to explain any system upheaval to the public. The beauty of, say, GNU licensing is likely to be lost in a "why is the catalog down when I want to renew my books now?" conversation.

When it comes to moving to an open source system, librarians need concrete information about why the move is worth the stress of an ILS conversion. Cost savings are an easy way to pique interest, but it's not the most interesting or even useful part of open source, plus it's complicated by the kittens versus beer issue. I don't mean to dismiss the issue of cost,  but rather to reiterate that "free" is not the easy answer it seems to be, nor is it even accurate. Perhaps the most celebrated benefit to an open source ILS is the ability to make changes to the system without elaborate work-arounds.

Paradoxically, there seems to be concern that librarians will not actually use of all the very real advantages of an open source system. There is tremendous comfort in the familiar, and as every Facebook redesign has shown, most people get frustrated when familiar buttons move around, change names, change shapes, or disappear entirely. The learning curve, no matter how worthy, is not always welcome. Most library staff spend a good portion of their day using their ILS. Technical Services folks probably spend the most time using their system and are often the most familiar with its inefficiencies and weaknesses. Their use is very different from the circulation staffer who may only do three or four tasks in the ILS, but they're all performed with the added pressure of waiting patrons. When given a blank slate, will librarians simply remake their old tools? I am hopeful that we won't, but the natural starting point is always the system you know. Finding those fresh eyes is tricky and may require cross-expertise collaboration. Why not ask a reference librarian what she thinks would be an efficient process for importing records? Or ask a cataloger to think about the best way to design circ functions? An outsider's perspective can offer ideas for a workflow that makes more sense.

My favorite aspect of both Evergreen and Koha is their user focus. The design process started with the online catalog and worked its way back. Library products so frequently seem to pit the needs of the patrons against the needs of librarians. It's heartening to see that changing and to see a large scale shift to a user-centric process. Of course, library staff are users of their ILS as well, but we have the advantage of daily use. While a learning curve may be frustrating for staff, it's a deal-breaker for many users.

As a casual observer of the library open source movement, I think the initial nervousness expressed by many librarians has subsided. So too, has the "gee whiz" enthusiasm, replaced by a more mellow excitement and commitment to the work of promoting, creating, and maintaining open source solutions for libraries. Uncertainty, however, persists the most strongly among those who have limited ILS experience. As I have cut my teeth on a few different ILS's, I've learned that no matter how differently they function, excel, and fail, all ILS's perform certain tasks. After all, open source or no, ILS packages are all meant to provide the same abilities to libraries. Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that librarians who have worked with a single ILS express the most concern about a migration and the most doubts about the capabilities of the open source system they're moving to, though it stands to reason that those same people would be concerned about any migration.

I am looking forward to that "full brain" feeling of learning a lot of new stuff all at once and I hope this post will help me keep my beginner's mind about open source. I'm thrilled by the potential the open source movement has to advance libraries and allow them to meet the needs of their communities. At this summer's ALA Annual conference, Dan Freeman, TechSource's editor, asked the bloggers where we saw libraries in 50 years. I have no idea what libraries will look like in 20 years, never mind 50. My best guess, though, is that the most successful libraries will be entirely different from each other. Libraries have always adapted to their communities, but I think we'll see that specialization accelerate. A flexible and user-friendly ILS that allows staff to easily access their data is a tremendously useful tool that has the potential to change a library's relationship with its patrons.

We'll see if I can keep my shiny optimism through multiple conversions! Stay tuned...

Barnes and Noble's Nook Steps into the Ring with Kindle

The Amazon Kindle's first real competitor saw the light of day for the first time this week, and it looks very, very impressive. The Barnes & Noble Nook launched Oct 20th, and it stands toe-to-toe with the standard that has been set by the Kindle, even exceeding it in many ways.

The important bits: The Nook has the same 6-inch eInk screen as the Kindle, and is $20 cheaper (the Nook preorders for $259, while the Kindle 2 is still $279). The Nook also has a remarkable navigation system: a secondary color touchscreen display, directly under the eInk. It's a great-looking innovation, and one that gives the reader's interface flexibility that the Kindle just doesn't have. In my opinion, as you go through the specs, the comparison seems to favor the Nook over the Kindle. Here's the quick rundown of the things I get asked about the most when I talk about eReaders:

• The Nook will handle PDF's natively, while the Kindle 2 won't (the Kindle DX does, but it's really a specialty device compared to these two).

• The Kindle ostensibly supports Word files, but only through an email conversion process. The nook does not support word files at all. On the other hand, the Nook supports the open epub standard for electronic texts, which means that converting your Word files locally should be trivial.

• Nook has a replaceable battery, which is still a big deal for some people given the amount of comments on the topic that still show up around the web. Given that both will run for over a week on a single charge if you switch the wireless connection off, and the lifetime of recharge cycles for a modern battery is longer than you're likely be using the device, I don't see this as a huge issue. Still, some people do, so to reiterate: the Nook has a replaceable battery and the Kindle 2 doesn't.

• Both devices have 2 gigs of internal storage, but the Nook brings back the possibility of expanding that up to 16 gigs via SD card. Considering that 2 gigs is about 1500 books, that's a ton of storage for text. You could probably hold every book you've ever read on a single card.

• Both have cellular data connectivity with the Kindle relying on the Sprint network, and the Nook on AT&T. The massive advantage here goes to the Nook, as it also includes WiFi connectivity, with a business model built around allowing you to use WiFi in B & N stores to shop virtually on the nook. WiFi is a huge leg up, but unlike the Kindle, it doesn't look like the Nook actually has a web browser built in, which limits the connectivity to shopping for books. The lack of a browser is a huge disappointment on the Nook, especially since it's running the Android operating system from Google, and could leverage that browser pretty easily.

The B&N device has another leg up on the kindle with it's new LendMe offering, which allows you to "lend" an eBook you purchased to someone else for their reading. They get it for 14 days and it gets "disabled" on your device so that you can't read it during the lend, then shows up once again on your device after the 14-day period. The other advantage here over the Kindle is that the B&N books will be "lendable" to anyone using a wide range of devices: Blackberries, iPhones, PC's and Macs. The Kindle only "shares" between the iPhone and the Kindle, and even then only on the same account; there is no lending to friends.

The language that B&N is using is cagey enough to make me wonder about this service, though. The webpage describing this clearly says that "most" eBooks are lendable, which means that some aren't going to be. I'm assuming that this is a publisher-by-publisher decision, but unless they disclose up-front which books are lendable and which aren't, in my opinion, this is a very limited feature.

It's an interesting model, and I'm curious to see if it is sufficient in meeting people's desire to share their favorite books.

There's a ton more to say about the Nook. While it's not available immediately (Barnes & Noble is taking pre-orders for a November ship date now) it should be in every Barnes & Noble retail location well before the holiday shopping season. It is by far the most interesting eReader to launch since the original Kindle almost 2 years ago. If you have questions about the device, leave them in the comments and I'll answer them there.

It's an exciting time for eBooks, and I know we're all curious to see how the Nook holds up.