This is is the hardest question asked this quarter.  How do we take these great, forward-thinking usability ideas and implement them in the libraries we work in?

Since I don’t currently work in a library, this is a hard one for me to answer.  I know the culture is different, but where I work now as a computer lab assistant at John Stanford International School, I can say that when I have ideas and present them in fully realized form, these ideas are often used by the teachers.  Sometimes I get to teach “my ideas” to the kids, and this is really rewarding.  I know that just having ideas and presenting them doesn’t always get the instant adoption you want.  But when you present the ideas in such a way that colleagues or management can clearly see the “value-add”, I know this reduces friction to new ideas.

I think the more easily adopted ideas would be low budget ones like using better design principles with library signs.  The harder sells would be the big revamps, like adopting Bibliocommons as an OPAC or going with a new paradigm like roving.

Increasing library usability is a worthy goal but can be quite a battle ground (i.e. Dewey versus Subject Browsing Neighborhoods).  Being someone who is more interested in seeing both sides of an argument rather than becoming entrenched in one position- I find myself not the best of “salespersons” when the stakes are high.  I just don’t get that invested in drama.  But I do care, very deeply, about libraries sustainability, growth and usability.  My interest in sci fi has me always dreaming and speculating about the ways libraries could go in the future.  Wish I had a better answer for this, but I’m a dreamer, not a builder.  But I don’t know, maybe that’s ok.  Maybe the passion and ideas and the dreams can originate from one place, and the implementation in another.  I know it happens that way in web development groups.  One person does not wear all the hats.  Everyone plays a different role.  Guess I’m content to be the dreamer.

I’d like for libraries to be all things to all people.  I want the brick and mortar location because lots of people still desire that (including me).  A real place is a satisfying thing.  Even if you hardly ever go there.  For instance, I never go in the UW Engineering Library (ok, I did once, but I was lost).  But I’m extremely glad to know it’s there.  I know it satisfies a need for those who desire to know about engineering.  This pleases me.  Need for information or engineering congregation-may ye be filled.

And I’d like the virtual model too.  I’d like for every home in every community to be able to access their library’s OPAC, be able to chat live or video conference with their librarian.  And as 3D environments like Croquet, and online communities like Second Life grow and expand- I’d like to take advantage of that technology and meld it with what libraries do.  Walking virtual patrons down the halls of virtual Congress and whatnot.  Maybe giving informational tours through virtual 15th century France, through the court of Mad King Charles. I don’t know how or when that could happen.  I’m just sayin.  I’d like it to.  And soon.  Sounds like a good time to me.  And oh, we’d all be learning!

And I want roving community librarians who go out to senior centers and teach the residents online gaming, show everyone how to use the OPAC and get people signed up for their once a week trip to the brick and mortar location.

And I want more libraries ensconced in shopping or mall-like centers where people can get their food, see a movie, pick up a book and maybe go a to dance club, all within central structure.  Just another way to funnel kids, teens and families through library doors.  How about free movie nights at the library?  Info-tainment

I want libraries to be interwoven inside of everyone’s daily experience and needs.  Not just because I want job insurance, but because I think they provide a great service.  Libraries, in any of these forms, including the traditional, can provide potentially life-changing lessons, learning and growth experiences to a wide audience.  But we must innovate and we must reach out.

This miniature, Anatomical/Zodical Man, concluded the 15th century illuminated manuscript, The Tres Riches Heures.  Below is a 50 minute video presentation on this document.  It is divided into ten five-minute segments and described by content, so you can jump right to what looks most interesting to you. Click on each link to view and listen.  You will hear about the making of the Tres Riches Heures masterpiece, its related documents, and its thematic tracings with the meme of Hell.  I hope you enjoy the presentation.  Thank you for viewing and please feel free to comment on my blog.

The Presentation links are live, just roll your mouse over for a preview snapshot and click to view.  When the video stops, click the back button on your browser to return to this page.

Part One

Choice of the Tres Riches Heures and defining the Hell Meme

Part Two

Hell as a culture virus, Limbourgs, Bosch and Tundale, brief history of the Tres Riches Heures

Part Three

Overview of the project, form and content of the manuscript, what is a Book of Hours

Part Four

Exhibition of the Limbourg’s Belles Heures at the J. Paul Getty Museum

Part Five

The making of the manuscript, the miniature, artists techniques and materials

Part Six

More on materials, artists, patron and politics, life and death, work by Jean Colombe

Part Seven

Evolution of the document, geographic travels, printing press and spread of the Hell meme, Bosch, Tundale

Part Eight

More on the the Hell meme, Bosch influenced by Limbourgs, Limbourgs influenced by Tundale

Part Nine

End discussion on the Limbourg’s and Tundale’s Hell, Conclusion, Scrolling Forward, chasing the document

Part Ten

Tracing memes, significance of Hell, facsimile versus original, modern day Hell meme, bibliography

Limbourg, P.d., J. Colombe, et al. (1969). The Tres Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry: Musee Conde, Chantilly. New York, G. Braziller.

Summary: In his article, “The end of bookishness”, Steiner isn’t saying the book is ending, over, done.  He’s saying that books are no longer the middle class’s main way of deriving information and entertainment.  Steiner wrote, “The end of bookishness” at a time when cable TV was huge but mass internet use had not yet taken hold (Steiner 1988).  He therefore does not refer to net surfing but sees “electronic sources” (this refers I’m sure to computers, games, movies, videos and TV) as being the primary sources of information and enjoyment and books, by comparison, as dated and antiquated (Steiner 1988).  He feels that reading as a quiet practice is threatened for a burgeoning host of reasons: walls are thin and noise blocks concentration.  Also, he states young people have an actual preference for noise, be it background television or music, they prefer multiple stimuli to reading in silence.  Steiner also states people have less leisure time to read because a thicker slice of leisure-time-pie is taken up by electronic pursuits, namely TV.  He suggests other reading markets, mass circulation tabloids and other mainly pictorial works are taking up more of people’s time, leaving less time for more “bookish” choices.

Steiner also refers to emergent trends which further downplay the traditional book- in 1988, poetry readings are popular entertainment and people are beginning to self-publish books by using their home computers.  Steiner states he is not writing the piece as a “pessimistic elegy”, he is simply looking at trends and gazing in the direction they are pointing in.  People both work and have leisure time.  During the “Age of the Book” (1550-1950), Steiner describes the middle class as using their leisure time for bookish pursuits.  But post-1950, because of technological advances, going beyond bookish pursuits became possible.  Options for leisure time widened.  Nearly 40 years later, Steiner sees these options for leisure as widening still, leaving traditional bookishness in an awkward position and even perhaps, “coming to a gradual end” (Steiner 1988).  Books had been an easy sell for a long time- how many other options for entertainment were there?  But Steiner saw in 1988 a technological shift and a market with much less interest in bookishness.  Steiner does suggest some positive outlook on the book market.  In the last few paragraphs of the article he refers to the rise of the small fine press book printers.  But counterbalancing this, he also describes “traditional quality” presses as being allied with “remunerative trash” (mass market publications) and to the decline of hard cover fiction and philosophical discourse.  And so, ensconced in his hierarchy of what is worth saving and what is taking over, Steiner closes with his dreamed of “Houses of Reading”, imagining glorious monastic spaces for those looking for quiet enlightenment or the sense of the miraculous from the book (Steiner 1988).

Response: Culture isn’t static.  Some bemoan this fact, especially when it means the demise of a practice they are especially fond of- the devoting of silent hours to reading a challenging text, for instance.  If this be bookishness, then I agree it might be a waning practice, at least in terms of touted leisure pursuits (these days, to admit to bookishness is to admit haughty intellectuality and a certain degree of anti-social tendency, oh dear, how embarrassing.)  But I think those inclined to such practices will stay so inclined.  It’s the rest of the population, the non-bookish who are much changing.  How?  Neither in 1988 or now is reading on the wane.  Steiner didn’t seem to think so either.  But he also doesn’t esteem the new kinds of reading (such as reading aloud to large groups and reading in a noisy din) and newly popular kinds of reading material such as tabloids, pictorial works and comic books (you know, “remunerative trash”), as much as he does those actions and works of the bookish kind.  This is fine.  His opinion, which is rather mildly expressed, has merit.  There is much to be said for reading challenging works of literature with one’s whole concentration.  I don’t think what is dying here is the inherently quiet person with a love of fine works of literature.  I think that person will always be born and will always be bookish.  And they will read in this quiet intent manner, as David Levy puts it, because for them there is a “sacred quality in the act of reading” when “book and reader, quiet and calm are one” (Levy 2001).  And no matter what diversions or tempting technologies life throws at them, they will always seek this meditative act of quiet reading.

But I feel there is also much to be said for non-bookish reading.  For what in fact might be happening now (and in 1988) is the expanding of all reading in general.  The moving of the importance of reading and information-gathering (a somewhat pretentious phrase because it sounds so full of directed purpose but what it actually is, is just a curious human being wanting to know what’s going on, to be apprised of the situation-that’s pretty much all of us, isn’t it?) from the middle class to all classes, from the “important” book to a whole new sea of informational objects.  But back to the word, ‘class’.  I don’t like that term either.  It seems to denote some kind of rank or relative human importance according to income and I feel that is a false classification.  It is important for all people to seek information if they are to survive, hold jobs, be informaed and cooperate in this world.  I think that all people are gathering or trying to gather information, in whatever ways they can afford and in the manner that best suits their circumstances and learning style.  We all gather information in different ways.  The non-bookish might not be seeking a monastic “house of reading” or trying to get their hands on a difficult philosophical treatise- and that’s ok.  Instead, they might find their reading on a public internet access station in a coffee shop, or in whatever newspapers they scan in a “third place” or information ground.  Or a person might read tabloids, magazines or paperbacks at work and go home to a busy family life.  Or a child who doesn’t “like reading” (i.e. bookish reading) but is thrilled to play World of Warcraft and read Spiderman Comics-this had merit also.  Perhaps, in order to gather information during the Age of the Book, only a certain group of people (i.e. the one’s with more financial capital, education and leisure time) were getting the lion’s share of the information, and as this was the “Age of the Book”, these were the ones who were bookish.  Now there are a multitude more portals for information, ways of learning, ways of stimulating the mind in a manner more appealing to the non-bookish kind, and thus now all people, not just the bookishly-inclined, have become wont to seek information, to learn.  We can quibble over the quality of the source, but I’m just pleased more people are being included in the informational process.

There is a parallel in “The end of bookishness” to themes in the article “Letter Writing as a Social Practice”.  It is noted by Barton and Hall that when technologies shift and cultural practices are altered that “people begin to reflect on literary practices” (Barton & Hall 2000).  The shift of physical letter writing to the creating of the virtual letter in the composing and sending of email (likely while multi-tasking) is quite like the shift from quiet bookishness to reading in electronic formats within an environment of sound and action.  Both cultural shifts are due to technological ones, both are widely reflected on (and sometimes bemoaned), but both, I would argue have brought these practices (reading and letter writing) to more people and even perhaps, at a  higher frequency, lesser price, bridging greater distance and at higher numbers of connectedness.  Just as technology made reading more accessible to larger numbers, so does technology make letter-writing more accessible.

Back when I wrote letters by hand, I may have done so several times a year to a limited number of individuals.  But now that I have email?  I keep in touch with a much larger variety of friends new and old as well as family, some extremely distant from me-and some I’ve never met before, but through email, we communicate.  I believe this greater connectedness, this greater information sharing and gathering is one of the great benefits of the “rise of the computer and electronic communication” (Barton & Hall 2000).  So while Steiner’s predicted gradual end of bookishness is proved out today by the fact that not as many seek the “quality” books- I would disagree with putting a negative value judgment on the entire trend because of that.  There are many other options for information, technological and otherwise, but if the bookish desire the more challenging text, those texts are available.  The fact that other reading choices are easier, shorter or less philosophical-I don’t feel this makes them trash, I feel this makes them accessible, it makes them read (as in past-tense) as opposed to doorstops or dust-gatherers.  It also makes them remunerative, and this is a good thing, not bad.  “The end of bookishness” is an end only for some, and only if they so choose.  For most it is a doorway and a beginning.  It is an expanding of the reading universe, a leveling of the intellectual playing field.

Barton, D. and N. Hall (2000). Letter Writing as a Social Practice.  Philadelphia, PA.  John Bejamins Pub.

Levy, D.M. (2001).  Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age.  New York, Arcade: Distributed by Time Warner Trade.

Steiner, G. (1988) “The end of bookishness.” PLS (July).

“The greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world”. I love it. Some may feel that James Howard Kunstler’s lecture goes too far in stating the case against unsightly vernacular architecture and ugly urban sprawl. But due to my personal bias on the matter, he can’t go far enough. The hideous urban and suburban hellholes I grew up in had no excuse for existing. They depressed and oppressed me beyond what I could express. Fortunately I didn’t feel the need to cope the way Kunstler’s little Skippy and Heather did. But come on, why do humans have to create such ugliness? What ever happened to “firmness, commodity and delight”? Oh wait, that was way too many centuries ago, in Rome, and who cares what Vitruvius thinks about architecture anyway? Well. I do actually. Firmness commodity and delight were an inseparable triumvirate to the Roman architect. No building passed muster unless it was a veritable testament to all three. Firmness: strength. Commodity: utility in terms of function. Delight: pretty obvious, it must provide aesthetic value. (Though “firmness, commodity and delight” are actually a translation and paraphrase of Vitruvius’s concepts from De Architectura, scholars feel they were much pretty right on).

But how do we go back to such an esoteric idea? Really, in America, main street architecture just comes down to dollars. If Wal-Mart’s moving in, they’re not going to care that the building and its acres of parking lots are an eyesore, an assault on the eyes and soul. In fact, isn’t that kind of the point? Hard not to notice a megalithic Wal-Mart, a savage auto-sprawl, the primary color clash and screaming plastic signage of the fast food joints. It’s one big Ugly competition. Whoever can be the most visually offensive draws the most victims—I mean customers. So there it is again, dollars. Look at the photograph on this page. So in ancient Rome, did they just have more money or more taste, or both?  And get this- the building was a prison, the Castel Sant’Angelo.  If the Romans could invest that kind of skill and artistry into their prisons, I think we might consider investing a little more into our civic spaces, our schools, our libraries.

But, oh heck, don’t cry. The ugly virus hasn’t infected all American architecture. We have our world class architecture. Our amazing spaces. Let’s start here: Libraries. I say, make them Extraordinary. Blow our freaking minds. If you haven’t already, check this article and slideshow of library architectural wonders:

Borrowed Time: How do you build a public library in the age of Google?

From the article, here are two snippet descriptions of what I feel characterize the best of American libraries (both interior and exterior) today:

“Salt Lake City’s public library goes one step further and adds a touch of the shopping mall. The architects, Moshe Safdie & Associates, made the focus of the building a skylit lobby-concourse, known as the “Urban Room.” Like Milan’s Galleria—the granddaddy of shopping malls—the dramatic space is a sort of indoor street, lined with shops. The library houses a cafe and a deli, a florist and a comic-book store, as well as an NPR station and a writing center. The book stacks and reference areas are on the left of the concourse; individual study carrels and reading nooks rise on the right. The result manages to be grandly civic and familiarly commonplace at the same time” (Rybczynski 2008).

“During the last two decades, many cities have grappled with this question and provided a variety of answers. One of the first—and the largest—was the Harold T. Washington Library in Chicago, designed by Hammond, Beeby & Babka in 1991. The interior was planned with stacks open to the public and large loft spaces for maximum flexibility—a bit like a department store. The lower levels contained such nontraditional spaces as a video theater and lending library, a gift shop, and exhibition spaces. But it was the exterior that made the strongest impression. The building incorporates many elements of 19th-century loop architecture: heavy stonework, arched windows, and decorative carving, as if Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, and John Root had come back to have another go. The result, massive and monumental, is a slightly forbidding Fortress of Knowledge” (Rybczynski 2008).

These libraries are a haven, a community center, a third place. But even without architectural revamp and, oh, you know, the building of library movie theaters, I think today’s libraries can be that third place. This will mean something different for each community: allowing for chocolate chip cookie incidents because food is both sold and allowed, allowing for more noise because teens are gaming, toddlers are singing and seniors are playing Mah Jong, and also allowing for space for the quiet “Cathedral of learning” experience so persuasively written about by Garrison Keillor. The library can and should be everyone’s third place. As librarians, we can be facilitators of this by being idealistic, forward thinking, creative and tolerant. I’m sure “practical” fits in there somewhere too, but I’m also sure most librarian’s won’t have any trouble with that one. Maybe we need to be more careful about being “too practical” (i.e. Kunstler’s building’s which “make us feel like termites” or “look like DVD players”), hmm? For the short-changed of community center and architectural beauty, I hope more library interiors and exteriors can become transformative spaces.

Rybczynski, W. (2008). “Borrowed Time: How to Build a Public Library in the Age of Google.” Retrieved 11/15, from http://www.slate.com/id/2184927/.

]]> http://openoculus.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/firmness-commodity-and-delight/feed/ 1 openoculus Castel Sant'Angelo http://openoculus.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/hello-world/ http://openoculus.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/hello-world/#comments Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:35:40 +0000 openoculus ]]>

I have escaped the confines of a 20 member blogosphere to wind up here, on the Big Web.  I’m a little lost at the moment, but happy to be free!  Thanks Aaron, for helping me jump ship.

Also, I’d really like my Ocular Professor theme back.  But are these really the directions I have to follow to get it?  Yikes, I only half understand half of those steps, and the other half, eh, I’m like this Webkin abandoned in the grass.  Little help here?  If you want to tell me to search around the WordPress forums, consider it done.  But methinks there is a cheat sheet faster to way to accomplish the goal…  At least, I dearly hope so, my bog doesn’t like being mushed into this format.

I’ve been captured by news headlines about the end of the Dewey Decimal System.  It seems some libraries, and some librarians, are advocating the jettisoning of the old familiar subject classification system.  Some libraries have actually done the deed.  “Arizona Library Ditches Dewey” (Whelan 2007) describes this process.  A public library closes its doors and does some internal reconstruction.  Now the library has books grouped by labeled subject areas-but no call number label on the spine.  The idea behind this is patrons find this arrangement more browsing-friendly.  More inviting, less demanding.  They can browse exactly as they would at a major chain bookstore.  Public response has been reported as “overwhelmingly positive”.  Circulation statistics have soared and patrons haven’t said a word about missing their old pal, Dewey (Whelan 2007).  Librarians are polarized on the subject and sit in warring camps, pro-Dewey and anti-Dewey.  Bloggers weigh in, referring to the Dewey-ectomy as the “Googlization” of libraries.

Well.  I’m not on one side or the other.  I think both sides make good points.  My favorite thing to do is take the best parts of each system and weld them together.  Sort of a sci fi fix-it to dogmatic entrenchment.  I think the following has already been put forth- take all the Dewey labels off the spines, and make them RFID chips (i.e., scanable and invisible).  Then rearrange the library in all its Barnes and Noblesque glory: numberless to the patron point of view, subject organized, browser-friendly and jammed with comfy couches.  Win-win.  Patrons get what they want.  And librarians still get their information-friendly cataloging system.  To find the book, they just use Dewey and the RFID technology.

But lets take the RFID vision one step further.  What if there were 10 or 20 RFID reading PDA’s at the front circulation desk for patrons to check out?  Not all patrons would want to use them, just the one’s with more specific information needs.  Each PDA would also have the library’s OPAC and a keypad on it.  Now a patron who wants to use Dewey to find a book can do so.  They can also access and create user reviews on the OPAC, commenting on and tagging library materials as the walk around they library.

In example, here’s how it works.  I pick up my PDA at the circulation desk and look up books by Pam Houston.  I can search with the typical Dewey fields (author, title, keyword) or by reader-generated tags.  The library map on the RFID-reading PDA pinpoints the item’s exact location.  I go to it, scan the book.  Beep.  A picture of the book pops up on my PDA. I see the Dewey number, subject, description, starred commentary from other readers, tags.  Of course, the PDA has a keypad so I tag it and comment on it, give it 4 stars.  Hmmm.  Maybe this OPAC is also linked with the Friends of the Library Bookstore database.  My RFID-reading PDA will also tell me if that book is available in the library’s used book store for $1.50.  Score, score, score!

So, I say lets keep the good stuff, innovate, and keep building for the future.  I think we can raise circulation while keeping and even improving organziation. Well, gosh, a girl can dream, can’t she?

I spent 4 weeks of my summer doing directed field work at the Rome Center Library.  Rome Center is a small (about 4,500 books & periodicals) art and architecture library in Rome’s historic district.  When I arrived, the library had no signs.   Well, that’s not exactly true.  It had a couple.  I remember one in particular.  It told you to look in the wrong place for the location of the reference books.  I took it down.  There was no sign to indicate “This is the Rome Center Library, Hello and Welcome”.  Also, there were no signs above the aisles with call number ranges.  All in all, Rome Center Library had some signage issues.  I did my best to remedy them by: Designing simple signs indicating sections such as Folio Books and Reference Books, creating a sign that welcomed users to the Rome Center Library, creating a sign that showed how to browse using the LC system, and lettering and hanging metal signs above the library aisles indicating call number ranges.

While I was actually at the Rome Center to work on the library’s database, I found myself quite possessed by fixing the signage issues.  Sitting in the library every day, I often overheard the undergrads (who are library’s primary users) making such comments as, “Do you guys know where the library is?” or simply, “How do I find this book?”   I felt that correcting the signage issues would go a long way in helping to: Differentiate the library area from the computer lab area, highlight areas of special interest books, such as Folio and Reference, and show users new to the LC system that it’s just as navigable and easy to understand as Dewey.

Sadly, I didn’t keep the “broken” signs, I just purged them.  Anything incorrect, overlong or confusing, or aged and ignored- all of these went in the round file.  There wasn’t much to toss.  Rome Center’s problem was not an overabundance of signs or rude signs, just a lack of them.  In addition to the overhead metal call number signs, I made a Welcome Sign, a signs for Browsing by LC subject and a sign the location of the Folio books.  Dull, but serviceable they were.

These signs were my first attempt at creating some order and direction.  After reading Robin Williams’s Non Designer’s Design Book, I will redesign the Welcome, Browsing and Folio signs.  After employing the Four Basic Principles (contrast, repetition, alignment, proximity), hopefully you will be able to ascertain some improvement!  It’s a great book.  After reading about 2 pages you start smacking your forehead saying, Why didn’t I do that, duh! There are also some shocking revelations, i.e. centering text marks you as a newbie- who knew?! Goodbye, my dear centered text, sniff. My signs will definitely be getting an overhaul.  While functional, they are not effectively visually organized.  Nor were they clever or eye-catching.

Click here for the overhaul of the three signs.  The Welcome, Browsing and Folio signs redone at last.  Compare to their original designs above.  Not perfect, but definitely better, I think.  I got so much help from The Non-Designers Design Book.  Contrast, repetition, alignment, proximity indeed!  I loved discovering the little details about repeating design elements (note the stars in my Folio sign repeated from the star on the pussycat font), mixing serif and non-serif fonts, using left or right align, going big with text, no-all caps, spacing like with like- on and on.  This book is a lifesaver for those to whom this not come naturally.  The Nondesigner’s Design Book by Robin Williams, it bears repeating.  If you have the means, I highly suggest picking one up… (And if you can identify which movie that last line came from, you win a Gold Star!  Metaphorical, of course.)

Wow, what they can’t do with OPAC’s these days!  I am floored by Bibliocommons “Building connections through Collections” simple and beautiful “social discovery system” for libraries.  Thanks Aaron, for pointing this out.  Maneuvering around the Oakville Public Library site, all I can do is channel the Croc Hunter (miss ya, Steve) and say to myself, “Crikey!  Look at this little beauty!”.  I can’t believe this library is the only one that uses Bibliocommons.  How can this be?  I love the layout, the big blocks of color and large spaces between easy-to read text.  I love the natural language, the lack of jargon.  I love the social, community-creating tools- the book club kits, the Recently Reviewed Items whose format you select and items you scroll through, all of which patrons can blog on and review.

I wish library OPAC’s had blog-able items when I was a young library-goer.  I remember wandering through aisles of books wondering what I should choose.  It would have been lovely to have recommendations.  Some indication that many others had loved something and I might too.  And even if I still didn’t like the book, I would enjoy the communal experience of knowing where my opinions fit in or clashed with others.  Dang.  Oh well, now at least I can hope that OPAC’s like this one will gain a foothold in Libraries today.  Even if the blog-ability isn’t heavily used at first (I did notice that the books I looked at had only one or no reviews), if this OPAC style is adopted, perhaps people will become more accustomed to this mode of being social.  I wonder if it would also be a good thing to open up reviews to all, not just library card holders?  Perhaps the ease of “membership” privileges with consumer OPAC’s like Amazon are what make it such a popular social OPAC and a valuable selection tool for librarians making collection decisions and consumers making buying decisions.  What I love about Amazon’s OPAC is the ability to read dozens of reviews on a single item.  I really feel I get a good sense of item by reading multiple reviews, positive, negative and mixed.  I love this experience of wading through information, this flow of sensory input from scores of individuals.  I just dive into it and “find the nodal points”- this is a William Gibson phrase from the book Pattern Recognition.  It refers to the drawing out of precise meaning from a mass of what seems like gibbering miscellaneous, but isn’t.  It’s a beautiful puzzle of voices, a sieve-able, solidified whole, a gift from the social OPAC.  A tool for guiding choice, a conduit of information.  A parallel universe for library OPAC’s?  A possible future?

What’s not to like about OPAC’s?  Well.  As Aaron points out, searching for an author’s name on OPAC’s is often imperfect.  Some OPAC’s are more imperfect than others.  Amazon?  High marks.  As a test searched for author Tim Parks, first name then last.  Then I searched last name then first.  I netted essentially the same results, just differently ordered.

After Amazon, I needed to find a more recalcitrant OPAC and some users whose arms could be twisted for testing it.  Well.  I’m not much of an arm twister.  So, (sorry) I did the testing myself.  Besides, I knew of a deeply stubborn and capricious library OPAC whose wicked ways I could expose here, in one simple test.  Again, I used an author search.  Again, Tim Parks and Parks, Tim.  Then, in exasperation, just Parks.  This OPAC’s database is one I worked on during a summer DFW in Rome: The Rome Center Library Online Database.  Having added new records to it and having done some fix-it cataloging, I became familiar with its quirks.

Here is the synopsis: Tim Parks nets you 1 result.  Parks, Tim nets you 2.  And just plain Parks nets you 3.  Sigh.  Very sad.  But I’ll tell you why- it’s all in the catalog entry.

The result for author search just “Parks”, explains the results.  An author search will only look in the author field so you can scratch the “Tim Parks” in the title field (yes, a keyword search would find this, because it searches All fields, not an author search though).  That leaves just the 3 entries in author, 2 are “Parks, Tim”.  1 is “Tim Parks”.  See how the search tallies will come different because of cataloging?  Score 1 for Tim Parks.  2 for Parks, Tim.  And of course, 3 for Parks.  So, the answer is, have perfect catalogers, or perfect users orrr, a less frumpy, less grumpy OPAC, whose search functions will not be quite so literal and exacting.

I vote for less frumpy, less grumpy OPAC!

Desk Librarian Versus Roving Librarian:

Desk Librarian: Desks ugly? I hardly think so. I have known many a fine desk. The one I sit at now is a museum reproduction of Napoleon Bonaparte’s desk and I’m extremely fond of it. And unusable? By what stretch of the imagination? A desk is spot for pondering. For leaning. For congregating. For pleasantries and Q and A. A desk is a center point. A spot for a welcome sign. A stately desk speaks with an international tongue: If you need help, you will find it here. There should always be a desk. And there should always be a librarian behind it. This is a comforting ritual, as old as time.   Did the Oracle at Delphi come to you?  Oh my dear, no!  You went to Oracle at Delphi.  But let me try to get a handle on this “Roving”…thingie. If I understand correctly, this is some kind of…Commando Librarian. How do the kids say it? In your face. In your business. (Ahem). A librarian who comes to You.  Give me a moment to envision this. Perhaps a patron is choosing between two books on pernicious skin diseases, when who should appear? Why it’s your librarian!  She or he will start a friendly conversation, introduce him or herself, “Hello I’m a Roving Librarian.  May I be of some assistance to you today?”  Your patron, meanwhile, is turning several shades of scarlet and slowly backing away muttering, “I’m fine, thanks..”  At which time the librarian will give the patron a cheery smile and go to “help” the hapless young patron furtively perusing the romance novels.

Roving Librarian:“If Mohammed cannot come to the mountain, then the mountain must come to Mohammed.” Got history? Heh, heh. Have quotes, will travel. Spare me that Oracle at Delphi mythology (you know that Oracle was just L-A-Z-Y, sitting around at Delphi, waiting for biz). Patron: I am here for You. I wear a head set. I have a PDA. I have a super light-weight laptop. Push any sensor button in the stacks and I and my technology will be there as fast as my roller blades can carry me. I have gear. Fear me. It’s true, I thought about being a body builder or aerobics instructor, but when I saw those Roving Librarians with their toned thighs and washboard abs, I said, “Yeeeahhh! This is the job for me.” I would never go back to the Old Ways (shudder). I’m told that in another era, lumbering old dinosaur librarians used to dwell in book-lined lairs with giant slabs in front called “desks”. This confuses me. What was the purpose of these slabs? One of the soon-to-retire librarians told me the dinobrarians used to conduct ritual question and answer sessions over them. Snort. What-ev-er. Patrons herding around a slab, HA! Anyway. Excuse me. I see a patron and he’s getting away. Helloooooo! I am Prometheus, bringer of the light. Sir, you cannot elude me! Truly, I can even skate down the teens with heelies, I don’t even know why they bother… Here we go (I can see the whites of his now), another click for the ticker, heh heh.

Synthesis: So who do you want in your library? The wired rover or the dinosaur desk-hugger? Or maybe this doesn’t have to be a Mad Max, Thunderdome kind of thingie? Is it possible the Desky and the Rover could co-exist? Is it possible, there is use for both of them? Nah. It’s way more fun to satirize both and come up with no answer at all… Just kidding! I honestly get a kick out of both archetypes and feel they each, “add value” (hate that expression) to the library.

To make my decision, I read 2 articles and 1 blog on roving reference. Two of these were wholly uncritical praise of the roving model (Pitney 2007) (Jardine 2008). The third, while still pro-rover, actually had some criticisms to offer (Courtois and Liriano 1999) The criticisms (several of which you see satirized above) centered around librarian discomfort with roving and patron hostility toward librarian interruption. The fact that, as a library user, I also would dislike being “circled” or approached, makes me wary of the wholesale adoption of the roving model. I have a Keillor-ish way of viewing the library: as a haven, a place to be alone and do work quietly, without interruption. But hey, Garrison Keillor and I don’t speak for everyone, right? Clearly not, if the studies in the articles are to be believed.

One study states most patrons will not approach the reference desk to ask questions (though after seeing the ref desk line-ups at the Newport Beach Public Library I used to work in, I have a hard time with this) and do appreciate being approached by librarians (Courtois and Liriano 1999). But, o.k. We’re all different and like getting our info in different ways. In fact, on the librarian side of things, I like the idea of getting to circulate and helping the shy afraid-to-approach-the-deskers. I’m totally down with whatever way I can bring information to people who really do want it (and can I wear rollerblades and a headset, please? Please?) I do have a tad bit of difficulty with the idea of approaching people who don’t want to be interrupted or repeatedly circling those who are working at computers or on the internet. It strikes me as rude, almost harassing. I think there is a happy medium here, however. It does not involve desk elimination (desks are useful as focal points, a place where you can always find staff, a place for user-patrons more comfortable with the formal model of Q and A). It also does not involve approaching people who would like to work on their projects without interruption or to read information on STD’s in peace. The library needs to be both a haven, and a place where questions get answered. Suzzallo Library, a place I enter on a weekly basis, could easily be reimagined in this dual model (as could any library). I absolutely want desks (call them stations if you like, is what it is) with helpful smiling librarians (check, they’ve got that). But it would also be cool if you could, from anywhere in the stacks, on any floor, push a “service” button and have a cheery-faced rover come to you. In fact, that sounds lovely! Soooo, it’s great for libraries to try new ideas and keep the useful old models as well. No need to throw down the gauntlet. Rover and Desk Librarian, you can shake hands and both exit the Thunderdome.

But it doesn’t really end there, not for me at least. It’s not enough to use new models to satisfy the users who are already in the library. You see, I really am into that “If Mohammed cannot come the mountain…” quote. In other words, how can the librarian go to the patron? Like, Outside of the library? Kind of an Informational Meals On Wheels thing. In looking over the OCLC report, I read things about the library like, “I do not go there. However it is a good place for research but I think the internet is better & faster” (OCLC 2005).  Well, that’s ok. I’ll bring the library to you. Then you’ll know why it’s awesome too. I think if librarians did more community outreach, going to senior centers, nursing homes, schools, and even, gasp, individual homes… I think we’d have a lot more people wired into library services. Maybe they’ll become “virtual patrons” or maybe this will bring more people pouring through the doors, who knows? I just know I LOVE to bring people the information they want and need and I’m comfortable doing that in any environment. Lots to explore here. But just let’s build onto the old model, no bulldozing, okey dokey?

Courtois, M. and M. Liriano. (1999). “Roving Reference: A New Approach to User Services.”, from http://www.ifla.org/VII/dg/dgrw/dp99-05.htm.

Jardine, S. (2008). “Information Literacy at ISU.” from http://spencerjardine.blogspot.com/2008/05/promoting-information-literacy-via.html.

OCLC. (2005). “Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources “, from http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm.

Pitney, B. and N. Slote (2007). “Going Mobile: The KCLS Roving Reference Model.” PUBLIC LIBRARIES -CHICAGO- PUBLIC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION- 46(1): 54-68.