[...] Final example: it’s pretty obvious to all of us now that chat reference should be done using common and freely available IM tools, but that didn’t stop us from investing huge sums of money in building and buying custom, library specific chat reference tools. Where else will history show we’ve made similar mistakes? [...]

Casey, I love it when you make my library technology fantasies into reality, but not so much that I won’t call you out here.

There is no doubt there is a huge opportunity to reach out to instant-messaging using patrons. Web-based chat offers a greater opportunity to reach out to the rest of the internet users - if the reason to offer IM services is because people are already using those tools, there are more than twice as many people with web browsers than there are with screen names (http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Instantmessage_Report.pdf).

I think the failure of some libraries to successfully implement web-based chat reference services is an example of libraries taking a wrong approach to technology and online services, not that web-based chat (vis a vis IM) is a mistake.

Failed services may have been poorly managed to begin with. Some libraries may not have had any experience implementing web-based services at all. What went wrong? Was there staff buy-in? Did they look at server logs to see how many of their patrons would have compatible browsers? How about focus groups to see who was interested? Was the service piloted? Did the library market the service? What was the criteria for success? yadda-yadda.

Embracing and implementing services that rely on decaying technological conditions (co-browsing! works great with Netscape 4.7 on Windows 95!) was one of the bigger mistakes, but it certainly isn’t one exclusive to co-browsing applications.

Not that it’s an ideal approach, but I think libraries as a whole are doing a much better job letting patrons know about requirements for downloading audio books than we ever did warning them about browser requirements for web-based chat.

In contrast, I think IM has been successful in libraries because it doesn’t *need* a whole lot of management, other than being diligent about setting the away message.

Insofar as things that work in libraries are easy for staff to implement, IM doesn’t have to suck on human resources the way web-based chat can, tying librarians to desks, contracting for 24/7 service.

Yet, with all of web-based chat’s failures, IM services haven’t come close to their successes. Or else, show me an IM service that took on 100,000 questions in it’s first year (not us, we took only got about 5,000).

I’m a fan of IM for reference service, and am encouraging local libraries to offer it, but the insistence that IM is the right and only way to offer chat virtual reference has got to stop.

p.s. my thesaurus:

virtual reference
used for digital reference
narrower term chat reference
narrower term web-based chat
narrower term instant messaging reference
narrower term text-messaging reference
narrower term e-mail reference
narrower term blog-based reference
broader term reference
broader term public service
related term co-browsing

I have to install web mesenger

iyahh use all okiieh
eeverythin is blcoked
ARGHHHHH tell me summert for msn
and my syt is defo not finished
xx