Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries. Computers in Libraries v. 25 no. 6 (June 2005)
This is article is an interesting one because I have read other works by Coombs, and this one seems the most complete. User privacy is a very difficult issue because of the fast paced change in the technological world. Software at libraries are usually developed by vendors, and privacy issues are hard to fix quickly and efficiently. Patron records are also at risk at being seen by governmental authorities who believe that they have the right to see any patron information. Librarians must balance between professional ethics for keeping patrons' privacy, and government mandates such as the Patriot Act. The ILS and the servers at a library must be scrubbed periodically in order for information to be securely gotten rid of.
I think that Coombs article brings a lot of patron privacy issues to the forefront, especially in public libraries. Patrons should be able to expect that their records will not be shared with anyone other than the specific people they authorize to view that information. Librarians need to be vigilant in maintaining that security, which is very often difficult. Obviously, librarians cannot control everything, especially all of the aspects of technology used by the library. Yet, they can remain constant in their quest to maintain privacy.
Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
In this article, the author goes on a tirade against Google's digitization projects. Google wants to scan and create digital copies of many books that are still under copyright protection, as well as those that are not. The author argues that this project is counterproductive because they will monopolize the project and not have as high quality digitized materials than if other more qualified people did it. Authors and creators should have the complete rights to their works and those rights should not be infringed upon. Google risks changing the very essence and spirit of copyright, which is guaranteed to every author who obtains a copyright under the law.
I think that while projects like the Gutenberg Project are admirable in trying to make information available to the people, Google's motives appear to be more sinister. Publishers are now digitizing many works themselves, which is legal under the copyright agreement they have when authors sign a contract. Google should not be able to just take and digitize whatever they want. They should have to obey the law just like everyone else.
Question: Google is obviously more visible as a copyright infringer, but should individuals be treated the same way when violating copyright laws?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
11/9/2010 Blog Post
C. Abras, D. Maloney-Krichmar, J. Preece (2004). User-Centered Design. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. (http://www.e-learning.co.il/home/pdf/4.pdf
This article looks at the concept of User Centered Design. They offer four main components to keeping this design in mind: Make it easy to determine what actions are possible at any moment.
• Make things visible, including the conceptual model of the system, the
alternative actions, and the results of actions.
• Make it easy to evaluate the current state of the system.
• Follow natural mappings between intentions and the required actions; between
actions and the resulting effect; and between the information that is visible
and the interpretation of the system state
Users not only need to be able to review designs, but also to involve users in the creation of the design itself. The entire reason for programming any system is so that someone will be able to use it. Otherwise, the system becomes quickly obsolete in favor of a new more user-friendly system. Usability needs to be constantly tested for the system to keep functioning towards the needs of the users.
After reading this article, I just keep thinking about the aspect of customer service that is often neglected in technology. Yes, a design for a system can be groundbreaking and innovative, but it also needs to be optimized for the user. Many systems are developed to match technology rather than the user. It is inevitable that these systems will fail because the users will change over to other, more usable systems.
Zhang et al. (2005). Integrating Human-Computer Interaction Development into the Systems Development Life Cycle: A methodology. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 15. pp. 512-543 Full-text available at http://melody.syr.edu/pzhang/publications/CAIS_05_Zhang_etal_HCI_SDLC.pdf
This article talks about how SDLC models are more geared towards organizational needs rather than human needs. While this model benefits general organization, it does not benefit the user: the human. The human interaction aspect needs to be better integrated into the information system in order for the system to be useful. The four phases of development are: planning and selection, systems analysis, systems design, and systems implementation and operation. Yet, the human aspect does not come into this design until systems design rather than from the start. Also, the process needs to consider how it will benefit organizational and human needs right from the very start.
After reading this article, I think back to the previous article in how the user is considered very late within the development process of informational systems. The purpose of information systems are to serve the user, so it makes little sense to me that users would be considered so late in the process. Programs should be built around the user in order to benefit the user.
My question for this week is: How can the user petition for more thought into their needs when buying or requesting information systems? How do they have their voice heard if designers do not look for their opinions and needs assessments?
This article looks at the concept of User Centered Design. They offer four main components to keeping this design in mind: Make it easy to determine what actions are possible at any moment.
• Make things visible, including the conceptual model of the system, the
alternative actions, and the results of actions.
• Make it easy to evaluate the current state of the system.
• Follow natural mappings between intentions and the required actions; between
actions and the resulting effect; and between the information that is visible
and the interpretation of the system state
Users not only need to be able to review designs, but also to involve users in the creation of the design itself. The entire reason for programming any system is so that someone will be able to use it. Otherwise, the system becomes quickly obsolete in favor of a new more user-friendly system. Usability needs to be constantly tested for the system to keep functioning towards the needs of the users.
After reading this article, I just keep thinking about the aspect of customer service that is often neglected in technology. Yes, a design for a system can be groundbreaking and innovative, but it also needs to be optimized for the user. Many systems are developed to match technology rather than the user. It is inevitable that these systems will fail because the users will change over to other, more usable systems.
Zhang et al. (2005). Integrating Human-Computer Interaction Development into the Systems Development Life Cycle: A methodology. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 15. pp. 512-543 Full-text available at http://melody.syr.edu/pzhang/publications/CAIS_05_Zhang_etal_HCI_SDLC.pdf
This article talks about how SDLC models are more geared towards organizational needs rather than human needs. While this model benefits general organization, it does not benefit the user: the human. The human interaction aspect needs to be better integrated into the information system in order for the system to be useful. The four phases of development are: planning and selection, systems analysis, systems design, and systems implementation and operation. Yet, the human aspect does not come into this design until systems design rather than from the start. Also, the process needs to consider how it will benefit organizational and human needs right from the very start.
After reading this article, I think back to the previous article in how the user is considered very late within the development process of informational systems. The purpose of information systems are to serve the user, so it makes little sense to me that users would be considered so late in the process. Programs should be built around the user in order to benefit the user.
My question for this week is: How can the user petition for more thought into their needs when buying or requesting information systems? How do they have their voice heard if designers do not look for their opinions and needs assessments?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
10/12/10 Post
Maness, J. (2006). "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries". Webology, 3 (2), Article 25. Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
This article poses that Library 2.0 is evolving out of Web 2.0. They offer a new definition for Library 2.0 as such: “the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections.” Maness states that Library 2.0 will have four main characteristics: user-based, provides multi-media experience, is socially rich, and is communally innovative. Instant messaging, blogging, and other such devices will allow users to have a more rich library experience. Libraries need to adopt these theories in order to remain relevant in the Web 2.0 era. Library 2.0 should be about finding and sharing rather than searching and access.
While I agree that Library 2.0 has definitely evolved into the modern age of libraries, I think that it needs to be recognized that a balance has to be found between Library 1.0 and Library 2.0. Many libraries have already adopted these developments and are using them to reach the younger generations more successfully. I think that these changes have been successful, but many people look to the library as an institution where they can search and access materials. Many people go into the library to find peace and quiet; it is a place where they feel safe. I think that Library 2.0 ignores the physical library, focusing only on the virtual, when the physical library is still a very important community center and refuge for many people.
Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology For Digital Libraries (Aarhus, Denmark, September 14 - 19, 2008). B. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. Castelli, B. Ammitzbøll Jurik, and J. Lippincott, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 5173. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 148-159. Full-text available at http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr/publications/gavrilis/Enhancing%20Library%20Services%20with%20Web%202.0%20functionalities-rev5-chr.pdf
This article shows how people have been trying to integrate OPACs with Web2.0 functions. They have taken the classic OPAC and integrated social tag annotations, user opinions and ranks, and tag-based similarity searches. They put the regulation of the catalog almost entirely into the users' hands; letting them rate features as well as suggest how records should be listed and described within the catalog. Relevance, reliability, format, timeliness, learnability, navigation, information architecture, and aesthetics all being aspects of the OPAC that they tested and evaluated. Overall, they found that their new OPAC was a success with its new functions.
I think that this change in OPAC has been adopted by many libraries to day, DCPL being an example. They use Sirsi to connect with their users on a larger level and allow for more interaction with and among users. I do think though, that the focus on Web2.0 functionalities are great, but still forget to integrate aspects of the physical library. At the physical library, the library always makes sure to incorporate the Library2.0 aspects by providing computers and Web2.0 service, but I think that developers of Library2.0 services forget that their services need to be integrated within the physical library.
Question: How do librarians as a whole react to Library 2.0? There have been many studies on user opinions, but I would be interested to find out what librarians have to think about them in general.
This article poses that Library 2.0 is evolving out of Web 2.0. They offer a new definition for Library 2.0 as such: “the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections.” Maness states that Library 2.0 will have four main characteristics: user-based, provides multi-media experience, is socially rich, and is communally innovative. Instant messaging, blogging, and other such devices will allow users to have a more rich library experience. Libraries need to adopt these theories in order to remain relevant in the Web 2.0 era. Library 2.0 should be about finding and sharing rather than searching and access.
While I agree that Library 2.0 has definitely evolved into the modern age of libraries, I think that it needs to be recognized that a balance has to be found between Library 1.0 and Library 2.0. Many libraries have already adopted these developments and are using them to reach the younger generations more successfully. I think that these changes have been successful, but many people look to the library as an institution where they can search and access materials. Many people go into the library to find peace and quiet; it is a place where they feel safe. I think that Library 2.0 ignores the physical library, focusing only on the virtual, when the physical library is still a very important community center and refuge for many people.
Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology For Digital Libraries (Aarhus, Denmark, September 14 - 19, 2008). B. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. Castelli, B. Ammitzbøll Jurik, and J. Lippincott, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 5173. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 148-159. Full-text available at http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr/publications/gavrilis/Enhancing%20Library%20Services%20with%20Web%202.0%20functionalities-rev5-chr.pdf
This article shows how people have been trying to integrate OPACs with Web2.0 functions. They have taken the classic OPAC and integrated social tag annotations, user opinions and ranks, and tag-based similarity searches. They put the regulation of the catalog almost entirely into the users' hands; letting them rate features as well as suggest how records should be listed and described within the catalog. Relevance, reliability, format, timeliness, learnability, navigation, information architecture, and aesthetics all being aspects of the OPAC that they tested and evaluated. Overall, they found that their new OPAC was a success with its new functions.
I think that this change in OPAC has been adopted by many libraries to day, DCPL being an example. They use Sirsi to connect with their users on a larger level and allow for more interaction with and among users. I do think though, that the focus on Web2.0 functionalities are great, but still forget to integrate aspects of the physical library. At the physical library, the library always makes sure to incorporate the Library2.0 aspects by providing computers and Web2.0 service, but I think that developers of Library2.0 services forget that their services need to be integrated within the physical library.
Question: How do librarians as a whole react to Library 2.0? There have been many studies on user opinions, but I would be interested to find out what librarians have to think about them in general.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Blog Post #3
"Overview of LIS"
In this article, the author makes the point of stating that since the 1980s, the world of integrated library systems has changed dramatically. Instead of just keeping track of print material, ILS have become a tool for users to access multimedia as well as print materials. They have become necessary to keep track of information that libraries license the rights for, rather than buying them outright. Any type of digital resource is now made available through ILS. This article also provides a list of vendors and the kinds of services they offer on today's market. Many of them focus on web databases and media storage. In the end, the focus is always on the modern library user and how ILS can best serve the user.
I think that while it is necessary for ILS to be dominant in the library field, it is also necessary to make them easier to use and make them more accessible. Many ILS of public libraries are just bought because the vendor had the best price, rather than had what the user needs. If people cannot easily pick up how to use the ILS, then having the resource is pointless.
"Re-integrating the integrated library system"
This article offers an opposing viewpoint to the previous article. The author states that ILS are not being used as much as they once were because of a lack of integration and cohesiveness of the resource. Rather than having software that works well with other packages, libraries have just been buying what is convenient and what is purported to do the job. Customizing a library's online environment is wonderful, but only if it can do its job seemlessly, which most systems can not. Supplements of ILS need to run well enough with the ILS in order for libraries to do their jobs properly.
I think that this article does a good job of noting how people tend to grab at new technologies without seeing if they are the best option or how they will work in the future. Libraries need to think ahead and anticipate users' needs and build ILS for those needs rather than just buying ILS because it is the most up to date version. Libraries need to offer more simple interfaces that are more coherent, or else they will lose their users.
In this article, the author makes the point of stating that since the 1980s, the world of integrated library systems has changed dramatically. Instead of just keeping track of print material, ILS have become a tool for users to access multimedia as well as print materials. They have become necessary to keep track of information that libraries license the rights for, rather than buying them outright. Any type of digital resource is now made available through ILS. This article also provides a list of vendors and the kinds of services they offer on today's market. Many of them focus on web databases and media storage. In the end, the focus is always on the modern library user and how ILS can best serve the user.
I think that while it is necessary for ILS to be dominant in the library field, it is also necessary to make them easier to use and make them more accessible. Many ILS of public libraries are just bought because the vendor had the best price, rather than had what the user needs. If people cannot easily pick up how to use the ILS, then having the resource is pointless.
"Re-integrating the integrated library system"
This article offers an opposing viewpoint to the previous article. The author states that ILS are not being used as much as they once were because of a lack of integration and cohesiveness of the resource. Rather than having software that works well with other packages, libraries have just been buying what is convenient and what is purported to do the job. Customizing a library's online environment is wonderful, but only if it can do its job seemlessly, which most systems can not. Supplements of ILS need to run well enough with the ILS in order for libraries to do their jobs properly.
I think that this article does a good job of noting how people tend to grab at new technologies without seeing if they are the best option or how they will work in the future. Libraries need to think ahead and anticipate users' needs and build ILS for those needs rather than just buying ILS because it is the most up to date version. Libraries need to offer more simple interfaces that are more coherent, or else they will lose their users.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
9/21 Post
C. N. Mooers (1960). “Mooers’Law or, Why Some Retrieval Systems Are Used and Others Are Not. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1996 vol:23 iss:1 (via ProQuest database)
This article encapsulates a lot of different reasons on why users tend to use certain systems, whether or not those are the types of systems that would benefit the most. Mooers basically states that users are kind of lazy, and that they are more likely to use a system that will give them less information, because less information means less work. Supervisors will also prefer getting less information because it gets them a result more quickly, rather than getting a result that is well researched. Librarians like the systems that will get them the most information, and have it be accurate information, but this also means that they must spend a lot of time trying to find it and then sift through it in order to analyze the information.
This point that I took away from this article is that people are more likely to use a system like Google, which will get them a concise amount of information quickly, rather than search with more reliable sources for better information. As a future librarian, this is difficult to understand from a personal viewpoint, as I have always sought out the best information using the best resources that I can find.
K. Antelman,
This article follows the journey of a school to find a better online catalog. They use the Endeca IAP application which solves the problems of a lot of existing catalogs. Many online catalogs are difficult to use because they are not intuitive for the user. This application tries to better itself by adding spellcheck, returning relevant ordered keyword searches, and improving subject heading access. The end result of the study on this new catalog proved that the Endeca IAP application provides more accurate and relevant search results and is overall a better fit for this institution.
I think that online catalogs are one of the biggest problems that libraries have to work with. At my own public library, our catalog does not return results based on relevancy at all, it is hard to find the location of the item, and it holds a lot of inaccurate information. If more institutions were to carefully consider the catalog for its users, they might be able to deliver better service.
Question for class: Should librarians try to change the way people search for information and the systems they use? Or should they develop systems that are more targeted to how the user searches?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Blog Post #1
Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Ch.1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. In Library Information Systems pp.3-12.
In this article, the authors discuss the start of LIS and the technologies that helped spur on this informational revolution since the 1930s. Four different eras have encompassed the span of ILS existence: the Systems Era, the Era of Functionality, Focus on the End User, and the Globalization of Information Resources. In the Systems Era, software and hardware were being developed to help process this information, putting technology at the forefront of informational studies. The Era of Functionality focused on getting the most out of newly developed softwares in order to make the library a more efficient machine. Focus on the End User put the patron at the head of the list of priorities when developing new technologies. What does the customer need? How can we deliver the product to the customer more efficiently? The Globalization of Information Resources has erupted with the globalization of the internet. People all over the world have access to the internet, so information is at our fingertips at any moment.
I think that the biggest idea that I took away from the article is that the library world and its technologies are constantly evolving. In the last 70 years we have seen technology develop more quickly than any other time in history, and libraries have gone under dramatic changes because of it. I think that this means that librarians need to be ahead of the game in following the development of new technologies that will directly impact library functionality, rather than wait for new technologies to develop and see what happens.
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
This article addresses the different issues that arise in the library world as new technologies re developed and accepted into general use by the public. With the recent downfall of the world economy, people's ideas about what is important are changing. Along with Generation Y, people put more value behind technology and have different expectations about information gathering than in the past. Privacy is becoming easier to violate because we put more information out there, but we do not know how to protect it. Mobile computing is becoming the main way people access information online. Generation Y puts a different value on the library as an institution because of the evolution of e-books and online texts. The library needs to understand its new functionalities as a physical space and in the virtual world.
What I have taken away from this article is that the younger generations actually think differently than previous generations of library users. Because of technological resources, we now process information differently than our predecessors. I think that university and public libraries need to become more adaptable to the technologies that are developing so rapidly, but they also need to realize that there are some ways of doing things that are still tried and true. I love thinking of the library as a quiet sanctuary for books and people who want to learn, but this definition is changing, and I am going to have to adapt with each new definition in order to remain relevant as a professional.
My question for this week is: will there be a backlash against all of these changes based on technological developments? Will people experience a digital overload and want to return to older ways of processing information?
In this article, the authors discuss the start of LIS and the technologies that helped spur on this informational revolution since the 1930s. Four different eras have encompassed the span of ILS existence: the Systems Era, the Era of Functionality, Focus on the End User, and the Globalization of Information Resources. In the Systems Era, software and hardware were being developed to help process this information, putting technology at the forefront of informational studies. The Era of Functionality focused on getting the most out of newly developed softwares in order to make the library a more efficient machine. Focus on the End User put the patron at the head of the list of priorities when developing new technologies. What does the customer need? How can we deliver the product to the customer more efficiently? The Globalization of Information Resources has erupted with the globalization of the internet. People all over the world have access to the internet, so information is at our fingertips at any moment.
I think that the biggest idea that I took away from the article is that the library world and its technologies are constantly evolving. In the last 70 years we have seen technology develop more quickly than any other time in history, and libraries have gone under dramatic changes because of it. I think that this means that librarians need to be ahead of the game in following the development of new technologies that will directly impact library functionality, rather than wait for new technologies to develop and see what happens.
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
This article addresses the different issues that arise in the library world as new technologies re developed and accepted into general use by the public. With the recent downfall of the world economy, people's ideas about what is important are changing. Along with Generation Y, people put more value behind technology and have different expectations about information gathering than in the past. Privacy is becoming easier to violate because we put more information out there, but we do not know how to protect it. Mobile computing is becoming the main way people access information online. Generation Y puts a different value on the library as an institution because of the evolution of e-books and online texts. The library needs to understand its new functionalities as a physical space and in the virtual world.
What I have taken away from this article is that the younger generations actually think differently than previous generations of library users. Because of technological resources, we now process information differently than our predecessors. I think that university and public libraries need to become more adaptable to the technologies that are developing so rapidly, but they also need to realize that there are some ways of doing things that are still tried and true. I love thinking of the library as a quiet sanctuary for books and people who want to learn, but this definition is changing, and I am going to have to adapt with each new definition in order to remain relevant as a professional.
My question for this week is: will there be a backlash against all of these changes based on technological developments? Will people experience a digital overload and want to return to older ways of processing information?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)