Recently in 2.0 Category
Put down that mouse and keyboard! Twenty-first century, Web-based libray management services now means finding a whole new way to interact with library data and customers. As the team at OCLC working on Web-scale Management Services has been hammering out new functional requirements, we've had a lot of leeway in breaking new ground. But we've really been looking for a way to take the service beyond the obvious trends of electronic content management and mobile interfaces. That's when one of our developers hooked up his XBox Kinect sensor to our development environment and the ideas started flying faster than we could implement them.
Web-scale Gesture-based Circulation.
I recently asked one of the developers how they got started. "The easiest thing for us to do was introduce 'gesture-based' searching in the staff interface," said Kannan Seshadri, Release Manager for the product. Usability testers had a blast finding titles on peace, prayer, and The Fonz. Rock, paper, and scissors also became popular search terms, but nothing surpassed the number of searches for "birds" in WorldCat that day.
Gesture search results for "birds."
"No one wants to stop at just searching," comments Product Manager, Jeff Schilling. "Early adopters of the software have been flooding us with development ideas with gestures for 'angry patrons', circulation staff body movements for 'claims returned', and some of the most hilarious hand and body gestures for managing subject-based fund codes."
Directors and system administrators are loving this too. We're looking to see if we can extend the functionality to not only recognize faces for the purpose of identity management, but also a way to accurately read facial expressions of the system administrators themselves so that they can rate library personnel as they are authorized to use the system.
A clever library director stretches her budget with Web-scale Management Services.
We've identified a lot of green pasture in the development of these new web-based services, but nothing has been as exciting as defining a whole new way to interact with library data. Be sure to send your ideas and gestures to pacea@oclc.org.
Okay, maybe I'm a little strange, but I really like ALA conferences. Until I started writing for American Libraries and getting uber involved in LITA, I was an occasional attender, but my love for the conference goes back to the fact that I got my first job at an ALA, over a 7am breakfast with an Innovative Interfaces VP. When I started attending regularly, I would fill literally every minute of the day with activity, usually for the magazine, but mostly out of a desire to get as much as possible out of being there. You'd have to check with Leonard Kniffel, but I'm pretty sure this is where the idea for "Hectic Pace" actually came from.
I mistakenly thought that "retiring" from the column would amazingly free up half of my time at the next ALA, but I was wrong. Between LITA, OCLC events, and programming, I find myself completely booked again, and perhaps it's just as well. I will feel normal.
I have the great pleasure this year of kicking off my ALA by moderating the OCLC Symposium--"The Mashed -Up Library." I've been in on the planning for this and would encourage folks to register for this great event. Yesterday I got to speak to the keynoter, Michael Schrage, who has some wonderful writings and spot-on observations about innovation. I would say that any library that has worried about relevance, funding, and establishing persistence in the information space would be interested in hearing him speak. I'd be interested to meet the librarian who wasn't worried about any of those things!
Schrage will be joined by three fabulous librarians--Susan Gibbons, David Lee King, and Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran--on a panel that will share creative library mash-ups that are not the kind you've heard about over and over again. Insert an ice cream break in the middle of the event and I can't think of a better way to start ALA in Anaheim. I am certainly looking forward to it.
I mistakenly thought that "retiring" from the column would amazingly free up half of my time at the next ALA, but I was wrong. Between LITA, OCLC events, and programming, I find myself completely booked again, and perhaps it's just as well. I will feel normal.
I have the great pleasure this year of kicking off my ALA by moderating the OCLC Symposium--"The Mashed -Up Library." I've been in on the planning for this and would encourage folks to register for this great event. Yesterday I got to speak to the keynoter, Michael Schrage, who has some wonderful writings and spot-on observations about innovation. I would say that any library that has worried about relevance, funding, and establishing persistence in the information space would be interested in hearing him speak. I'd be interested to meet the librarian who wasn't worried about any of those things!
Schrage will be joined by three fabulous librarians--Susan Gibbons, David Lee King, and Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran--on a panel that will share creative library mash-ups that are not the kind you've heard about over and over again. Insert an ice cream break in the middle of the event and I can't think of a better way to start ALA in Anaheim. I am certainly looking forward to it.
I've generally steered clear of much of the debate surrounding Library 2.0. Nevertheless, the catalog work I was involved in at NCSU (somewhat over-hyped as a "2.0 catalog"...as though anything new in libraries must now carry the 2.0 moniker), resulted in several speaking invitations where the invitors assumed I could speak knowledgeably about Library 2.0.
So like a good librarian, I did some research. I read a lot of Tim O'Reilly. I read a lot of Lorcan writing about 2.0 and O-Reilly. I tried to put something together that juxtaposed basic 2.0 principles against the entire workflow of the library. I will admit that what came out was a tiny bit mocking of the 2.0 meme, but I nevertheless kept coming back to O'Reilly.
In April 2007, he gave an interview where he accused much of the 2.0 crowd of missing the point. I've been calling this the "It's the data, stupid" quote:
I think libraries should appreciate this sentiment. I know my colleagues at OCLC do. The conversations that I'm in are invigorating--look at what we can do with all these data! Things like WorldCat.org and Identities. Now the next logical step, and echoing O'Reilly, how do we give the best access to it? The Developers Network is taking shape, and intense internal discussions regarding use and transfer of OCLC-derived records is in full swing. Stay tuned.
I love that the access discussion is happening; and I'm somewhat dismayed about the confusion over 2.0 leading to new discussions of 3.0 and 4.0. Sheesh. Before 3.0 takes hold, I'll be focusing on the use of the data for more and better purposes.
So like a good librarian, I did some research. I read a lot of Tim O'Reilly. I read a lot of Lorcan writing about 2.0 and O-Reilly. I tried to put something together that juxtaposed basic 2.0 principles against the entire workflow of the library. I will admit that what came out was a tiny bit mocking of the 2.0 meme, but I nevertheless kept coming back to O'Reilly.
In April 2007, he gave an interview where he accused much of the 2.0 crowd of missing the point. I've been calling this the "It's the data, stupid" quote:
"[There is] a major theme of web 2.0 that people haven't yet tweaked to. It's really about data and who owns and controls, or gives the best access to, a class of data." (full context)
I think libraries should appreciate this sentiment. I know my colleagues at OCLC do. The conversations that I'm in are invigorating--look at what we can do with all these data! Things like WorldCat.org and Identities. Now the next logical step, and echoing O'Reilly, how do we give the best access to it? The Developers Network is taking shape, and intense internal discussions regarding use and transfer of OCLC-derived records is in full swing. Stay tuned.
I love that the access discussion is happening; and I'm somewhat dismayed about the confusion over 2.0 leading to new discussions of 3.0 and 4.0. Sheesh. Before 3.0 takes hold, I'll be focusing on the use of the data for more and better purposes.
About the Author
