Social Media in Plain English and RSS In Plain English, among others from Common Craft among the best explanations you’ll find.

Then there’s Jessica Hagy’s explanation:

My presentation for today’s hottest IT trends is nearly completely new, though it draws a number of pieces from my building web 2.0-native library services and remixability presentations. What it adds is an (even more) intense focus on the people that make up the web.

Denmark is among the most wired countries of Europe, and it’s especially interesting that more than half of Danes over 55 use the web at least once a week. Of course the prime minister blogs and is on MySpace and FaceBook (though the Microsoft connection is sad).

And rather than serving as a broadcast medium, delivering the same messages we see in TV and elsewhere to all these users, the web is enabling conversations between users. Conversations like these:

• “This washing machine is too noisy.”
• “If you liked Into Thin Air you’ll like Touching The Void better.”
• “Those National Guard documents look forged.” (Not all of these conversations lead to politically favorable conclusions.)
• “Hey, I just opened this bike lock with this plastic pen!”
• “People are dying.We need to do better.”

The point of the slide above is that Kodak’s understanding of the photo experience was narrower than the user’s understanding. Flickr is built for how people use photos (sharing, discussing, remembering), while Kodak is built around the transactions people will pay for (purchase of film, processing, printing). Once those transactions became irrelevant, Kodak became irrelevant. How are our libraries working to understand the information experience and remain relevant to today’s users?

The slides for my main talk are online in Quicktime and PDF format.

The conference program says I’m speaking about designing an OPAC for Web 2.0, and I guess I am, but the approach this time is what have we learned so far? And though it’s the sort of thing only a fool would do, I’m also planning to demonstrate how to install Scriblio, a web 2.0 platform for libraries (foolish because I plan to do it live and in real time).

The slides for my main talk are online in Quicktime and PDF format. Extra: how the steam engine relates to all this.

Scriblio, IL2007, Internet Librarian, libraries, presentation, conference, web 2.0, native, library 2.0

Note: this cross-posted item is my contribution to our Banned Books Week recognition. We’ve been pitting books against each other, hoping to illustrate that there are always (at least) two sides to every story. Most of the other books were more social or political, but I liked this pair.

Wikinomics authors Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams tell stories of how the the internet’s unprecedented collaboration opportunities are changing the rules of economics. IBM, in one example, estimates the value of work done by volunteer software developers on Linux, the open source computer operating system built largely by people working for free, to be about one billion dollars, annually.

But Andrew Keen, in The Cult Of The Amateur : How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture, worries that collaborative technologies like Wikipedia and YouTube are unfairly cutting into established economic models and destroying record companies, television networks, and other cultural institutions.

Both books praise technology, but differ on how it should be used and who should control it. Tapscott and Williams say IBM’s decision to embrace Linux and support open source software is saving the company $900 million/annually, while Keen argues that experts should be given more control over what is published online.

Further reading:

• A debate between Andrew Keen and David Weinberger, from WSJ.com.
• Listen online as Andrew Keen, Xeni Jardin, Larry Sanger, and Clay Shirky discuss Cult of the Amateur on KCRW’s To The Point.
• NPR interview with Wikinomics co-author Don Tapscott
• Eric Raymond’s paper, The Cathedral vs The Bazaar, discussing how massive collaboration makes open source possible.

bbw2007, Wikinomics How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Wikinomics, Don Tapscott, Anthony D. Williams, The Cult Of The Amateur How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture, Andrew Keen, technology, internet, web 2.0, debate, banned books week

Over at KLE’s Web 2.0 Challenge I was surprised to learn:

Both Bisson and Stephens are so excited about this concept of Web 2.0 they have not taken a good look at what they can’t do for our libraries. …with all this new technology we can not forget that what is the most important in our libraries is the personal touch. We are one of the few institutions left that still offers individual attention.

KLE is doing some cool things, so I can tell this isn’t an offhanded rejection of Web 2.0 concepts, but the criticism makes me feel as though I’ve been missing my target somehow.

We wouldn’t accept poor service at the desk or over the phone, why should we treat our patrons so poorly online? I don’t think we’ve yet figured out what “good service online” is yet, but that’s what I’ve been focused on. Make no mistake, the future of libraries demands outstanding service everywhere we serve our users.

[tags]web 2.0, library 2.0, lib20, service, quality, libraries, criticism, online, good service, good service online[/tags]

The New York Times has struggled with TimesSelect, now they’re killing it. But the news here isn’t that a media giant is giving up on a much hyped online venture. The news is that a media giant is endorsing what we now call web 2.0:

Since we launched TimesSelect in 2005, the online landscape has altered significantly. Readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources. In light of this shift, we believe offering unfettered access to New York Times reporting and analysis best serves the interest of our readers, our brand and the long-term vitality of our journalism. We encourage everyone to read our news and opinion — as well as share it, link to it and comment on it. [Emphasis added.]

If only they’re realized it back when they started it.

web 2.0, web20, NYT, New York Times, TimesSelect, linking, open access

I wasn’t planning on posting much about Keen’s Cult of the Amateur, but I did. And now I find myself posting about it again. Thing is, I’m a sucker for historical analogy, and Clay Shirky yesterday posted a good one that compared the disruptive effects of mechanized cloth production to today’s internet.

Yes, that’s actually the birth of the Luddite movement, or at least where it got its name. And, though I was aware of the story, Shirky’s study offered details I’d not know previously.

Most interesting was the news that the handweavers largely opposed only the mills that sold their textiles cheaper than the handweavers did. And mills that sold their products at artificially high prices and used the efficiency of the mechanized looms to earn exorbitant profits weren’t opposed by the handweavers.

Hmmm….

Now back to Keen. Keen “doesn’t oppose all uses of technology, just ones that destroy older ways of doing things.”

But Keen is wrong. Using the internet without putting new capabilities into the hands of its users (who are, by definition, amateurs in most things they can now do) would be like using a mechanical loom and not lowering the cost of buying a coat — possible, but utterly beside the point.

The criticism here is that Keen wants technology to be controlled, and the value enjoyed exclusively by the establishment.

The internet’s output is data, but its product is freedom, lots and lots of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, the freedom of an unprecedented number of people to say absolutely anything they like at any time, with the reasonable expectation that those utterances will be globally available, broadly discoverable at no cost, and preserved for far longer than most utterances are, and possibly forever.

Keen is right in understanding that this massive supply-side shock to freedom will destabilize and in some cases destroy a number of older social institutions. He is wrong in believing that there is some third way — lets deploy the internet, but not use it to increase the freedom of amateurs to do as they like.

(Emphasis added.)

web 2.0, internet, anarchy, control, The Cult of the Amateur, Andrew Keen, Clay Shirky, luddite, luddism, disruptive technology

Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur; How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture is getting a lot of attention from usually quiet corners of the web, and I’ve had to quell the urge to write a story under the headline “Andrew Keen Tells YouTubers to Eat Spinach.”

Keen’s argument rests on the belief that “culture” is the sole provence of established media, and falls flat as soon as you get past the bombast of the subtitle. Our consumer relationship with culture is a recent development that has done great harm to us. Culture is participatory, messy, and resilient.

And that’s pretty much exactly how it played out on KCRW’s To The Point (listen), which invited Keen along with anti-Wikipedian Larry Sanger to take up the issue with Xeni Jardin and NYU prof Clay Shirky.

Keen is right to doubt Web 2.0 proponents who suggest technology will solve the world’s problems (it never did, it’s unlikely it ever will), but Jardin and Shirky didn’t argue that. The real issue isn’t technology, it’s the growing clash of control vs. anarchy as described in Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Anarchist In The Library. Well, that and the fact that the internet is still rather immature, even if it’s regularly used by a majority of Americans.

internet, web 2.0, anarchy, control, Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur

Web 2.0 has matured to the point where even those who endorse the moniker are beginning to cringe at its use. Still, it gave me pause the other day when Cliff (a sysop) began a sentence with “Web 2.0 standards require….”

Web 2.0 is now coherent enough to have standards? We used to joke about rounded corners and gradient blends being the rule, but something more has indeed emerged. O’Reilly defined Web 2.0 by example, Time Magazine echoed Kevin Kelly’s assertion in naming You as person of the year: Web 2.0 is about people. And “the rules” are emerging as a matter of market forces and natural selection.

Open Source

No matter your position on the Free Software Foundation’s philosophy, open source development reduces costs while improving quality and helps projects get to market faster with new ideas.

Flickr is among those that’s been rather public about their use of the LAMP stack, though Google and others have quietly built their business on it too. WordPress, a rare example of a downloadable Web 2.0 application, has enjoyed active development (and even a resurrection) due to its GNU license.

Still other Web 2.0 applications extend the open source model further. Open source content, or the user’s ability to declare a Creative Commons license on their content in these Web 2.0 applications is becoming common (and demanded by some). We may argue about the efficacy of Wikipedia, but the fact is that it’s among the most likely sites to appear for a web search and it’s consistently ranked among the top sites for traffic.

Wikipedia’s early contributors, looking at a young site with an unclear value proposition, could trust that their work would be protected by license (specifically, the GNU Free Documentation License).

Built for Remixing

Amazon reports that almost a third of their sales are attributable to remixers and boasts 180,00 registered developers of their API.

Google Maps didn’t include a public API when first released, but the community responded with enthusiasm and quickly reverse engineered the JavaScript to build new applications. Google responded by releasing a public API, making internet mapping and Google almost synonymous.

Dan Cat mashed up flickr and Google Maps on his own before Yahoo!/flickr snatched him up to build those features into flickr’s own site. But the company still enjoys the efforts of developers building applications to the flickr API, independently developing new features and adding value to the service.

Like open source, remixability and APIs engage a larger pool of talent than is available inside any company and serve two very important audiences: those who want features and those who care about their exit strategy. Neither group is remarkably large, but both are influential, passionate users. (More: Usability, Findability, and Remixability, Especially Remixability.)

Well Behaved and Social

Predictable and reliable URLs are essential to allowing users to bookmark and link to your site; well-formed semantic markup makes it easier for screen readers and search engines to make sense of the content. Semantic markup and microformats aid in remixability, contribute greatly to the Semantic Web, make site redesigns easier, and generally display better in a broader variety of formats and clients (think HTML vs. RSS).

People are anxious to leave comments telling us how right or wrong we are, so a site without comments/trackbacks/pingbacks is turning its back on its users. Good sites recognize the value of their users and cultivate the community. Caterina Fake did a lot of that for flickr (see her comments on my first photos there), while MetaFilter exists entirely as a community.

That doesn’t mean users are itching to build somebody else’s site, the lesson is that personal value precedes network value. Good sites make it easier for people to do what they want to do, not what their boss or the site’s creator wants.

If it isn’t obvious already: empower the user to achieve their own goals and control their experience.

rules, web 2.0, web applications, open source, remixability, social software, well behaved

Kansas State University’s Digital Ethnography group — “a working group of Kansas State University students and faculty dedicated to exploring and extending the possibilities of digital ethnography” — posted this visual explanation of Web 2.0. It’s by Michael Wesh, assistant professor of cultural anthropology, and it rocks.

Text is unilinear…when written on paper.

Digital text is different.

Hypertext can link.

With form seperated from content, users did not need to know complicated code to upload content to the web.

Who will organize all of this data? We will. You will.

Digital text is not longer just linking information…Web 2.0 is linking people…people sharing, trading, and collaborating.

We’ll need to rethink a few things…

Thanks to the Google Operating System blog for bringing this to my attention.

Michael Wesh, cultural anthropology, digital ethnography, kansas state university, video, visual explanation, web 2.0, future of the web, wisdom of crowds, semantic web

Right there are the beginning of Esther Dyson’s ten-year-old book, Release 2.1, she alerts us to the Web 2.0 challenge we’re we’re now beginning to understand:

The challenge for us all is to build a critical mass of healthy communities on the Net and to design good basic rules for its public spaces so that larger systems do self-organize and work effectively. Rule-making is not the job of legislatures and governments alone. You can make your own rules by designing an online service — or by setting up procedures in your workplace. Anyone you offers a service or product, anyone who votes in a PTA or discusses corporate policy with her boss, is a rule-maker. What will make this world a better place for you and your children (or friends) to live in? It’s up to you to figure it out and to make it happen.

That is, the communities are real, and they’re self organizing and policing, but do we yet understand them?

I’m surely not the only one who smiles kindly and feels bad for those who look for some authority to “fix” Wikipedia, but take a look at the arguments about what is or is not offensive in Flickr and we find it: that’s a community struggling with the Dyson’s challenge. That’s the struggle that makes Flickr’s status as a community undeniable.

challenge, communities, community, esther dyson, release 2.0, release 2.1, web 2.0, web20

Watch this video a few times. It’s funny. It’s catchy. It’s kitsch.

Now watch it a few times more. The ad, for a Lada VAZ 2109, appeared sometime in the 90s. It reflects the influence of MTV and other cultural imports from the West, but the details betray it’s command economy provenance. The snow appears trodden and dirty, the trees barren, the background architecture bleak. The car has headlights that flash in time to the music, but their dim yellow glow fails to dazzle.

It’s not the badly sync’d instrument solos, or that they portray the car’s owner as a bespectacled goof, it’s the permagrey sky and general bleakness of it all. One thing you can trust of Fifth Avenue: no matter how bad the product or the concept, their ads are technically flawless and the images sparkle. A Western ad would have featured windswept virgin snow below skies painted with the kind of puffy cotton clouds that dreams are made of.

The problem isn’t that the advertisers didn’t know how to produce an ad to compete with those from Western ad agencies, the problem is they didn’t know they were competing.

And then I come across this report from the National Center for Education Statistics:

During the 2004 fiscal year, academic libraries in the United States added 24.6 million books and other paper documents to their collections, bringing total holdings to 982.6 million. During the same year, a typical week saw 1.4 million academic library reference transactions (including computer searches), and total academic library expenditures were about $5.8 billion.

NCES was reporting on 3,653 libraries, but they don’t offer the statistic I really want: average number of reference transactions per FTE student. And nowhere does anybody appear to ask the question: how do our 5.6 million monthly reference transactions (2004) compare to internet search engines’ six billion monthly transactions (2006)? (And, um, how does satisfaction compare?)

With Time Magazine naming you as person of the year for 2006, why are these stats centered on libraries and not patrons? Why is the internet so poorly represented? How will we serve an internet-native generation?

Hats off to Jalopnik for pointing me to that ad.

academic libraries, compete, competition, lada, lib20, libraries, library 2.0, metrics, nces, piddling, reference transactions, statistics, web 2.0

In pointing this out to me, Lichen noted “if this isn’t evidence that Web2.0 is an undeniable force, I don’t know what is.”

“This,” of course, is Time Magazine’s announcement of the 2006 Person of the Year. And the answer is you. Yes, you.

Michael Stephens was right on top of it, pulling this quote:

…But look at 2006 through a different lens and you’ll see another story, one that isn’t about conflict or great men. It’s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It’s about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people’s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It’s not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it’s really a revolution.

This is well-trodden ground here at MaisonBisson, but it’s still a tickle to see it in mass media. Extra: I got excited about the possibilities of all this for the art world a while back in my presentation, Art vs. The Google Economy.

web 2.0, library 2.0, lib20, time magazine, person of the year, you, power to the person

MAIUG 2006 Philadelphia: Designing an OPAC for Web 2.0 (interactive QuickTime with links or static PDF)

Web 2.0 and other “2.0” monikers have become loaded terms. But as we look back at the world wide web of 1996, there can be little doubt that today’s web is better and more useful. Indeed, that seems to be the conclusion millions of Americans are making, as current estimates show over 200 million users in the US, including 87% of youth 12-17.

Web 2.0 isn’t driven by technology, it’s driven by that critical mass of users. And while social software and AJAX enabled web applications get most of our attention, people are turning to the internet for some very mundane everyday activities that were little more than science fiction in 1996. The commonality of internet banking, for example, reflects the trust users now have in the security and reliability of online services.

But the web has weathered so much hype and hyperbole that it may be difficult to recognize its arrival as a true cultural force. Computing has become so common that children often learn to type before they learn to write. And the instant, self-service access to worlds of information and services is changing industries — a fact we can see clearly in the decline of the role of travel agents, even while air travel continues to grow.

Kevin Kelly, in a Wired Magazine story described this apparent blindness:

The accretion of tiny marvels can numb us to the arrival of the stupendous. [thanks to Josh Porter for alerting me to this]

So the question of how to design a web OPAC for today is a question of how to design an information service in a world rich with information services and filled with users who make information seeking — though not necessarily at libraries — part of their everyday lives.

note: this is an update of my IUG2006 presentation.

Mid-atlantic innovative users group, iii, lib 2.0, libraries, library, library 2.0, library catalog, maiug, maiug2006, online catalog, opac, opac 2.0, presentation, web 2.0, web opac, wpopac

I’m honored to join Katie Bauer, of Yale University Library, in a program coordinated by Mary Jane Kelsey, of Yale Law’s Lillian Goldman Library.

The full title of our program is Technology Scouts: how to keep your library and ILS current in the IT world (H-4, 4PM Tuesday, room 274). My portion of the presentation will focus on how we’re fixing up our catalogs, with a big emphasis on how APIs can be used to continuously reinvent the way we look at — and thus understand and use — the information we have. The big idea here is that as we separate the systems that store and manage our data from the applications that display and manipulate it, we open the door to faster, cheaper development — and make room for a bunch of new ideas along the way.

Because it’s a short program, I’ll only be able to gloss over some of the discussion of what’s wrong with our catalogs and how we’re fixing them, and while there’s a lot to say about WPopac, I’ll have to leave it to Jenny Levine to explain most of it.

My slides are online. As usual, all the underlined text is hotlinked along with all the screenshots, so click them for more information and detail.

AALL, AALL2006, American Association of Law Libraries, api, conference, law libraries, lib20, libraries, library, library 2.0, opensearch, presentation, rss, web 2.0, web20, xml

When I heard news that Google was to release a spreadsheet companion to their freshly bought Writely web-based word processing app, I got excited about all the things they could do to make it more than just a copy of Numsum. Let’s face it, Google’s the Gorilla in the room here and they’re gonna squash Numsum, but wouldn’t it be cool if…

Well, Dmitry Nekrasovski get’s credit for planting the notion of URL-addressable rows, columns, and cells in my mind with this commentary from months ago:

I just came across this ITWorld article that suggests a simple yet intriguing idea for making online spreadsheet applications like Numsum more than Excel wannabes: make cells and cell ranges addressable with URL’s, and use a standard XML variant to encode them. To the author’s credit, he does not use a buzzword for this idea, but, for ease of meme-peddling, I will refer to it as Spreadsheet 2.0. You heard it here first.

The implications of Spreadsheet 2.0 at the user experience level for a public site could be pretty neat: feeding into a live stream of, say, stock market data could be as easy as copying and pasting a spreadsheet cell. But it could be most valuable in an enterprise environment. Anyone who has worked in a large organization will testify to the pervasiveness of the “spreadsheet mentality” and the difficulty of managing and reusing data once it is buried in a spreadsheet. Could this be a legitimate way for Web 2.0 apps to find their way to large-scale enterprise deployment?

Now, go one step beyond read-only URL-addressability and think about writing to cells with an HTTP post URL. Imagine the way cool apps we could build based on that.

Thanks go to Jessamyn for inviting me.

google, google spreadsheets, office application, office software, spreadsheet, spreadsheet 2.0, url-addressable, web 2.0, web application, web20, webapp

Following Edward Tufte’s advice, I’ve been wanting to offer a presentation without slides for a long time now; I finally got my chance in Portland. The downside is that now I don’t have anything to offer as a takeaway memory aid for my talk. My speaking notes are too abstract to offer for public consumption, but below are the URLs from them along with a tiny bit of context.

Foundation

Increasing use of the web is changing our expectations of information services and places greater demands of self-service on them. If “Web 2.0” has any meaning, it’s this notion that internet services are no longer the stuff of science fiction, but a part of our every day reality.

One interesting reflection of this increasing usage and comfort with the web is the development of social software like MySpace, Facebook, blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, Flickr, and also LibraryThing.

It takes a moment, sometimes, to realize what’s changed in the ten years since the first Mosaic browser opened the web to a mass audience. Kevin Kelly tried to explain that when he noted: “The accretion of tiny marvels can numb us to the arrival of the stupendous.”

Okay, now what?

We need to understand how people now search for and interact with information. Part of that means making peace with search engines and making sense of “findability.” Peter Morville’s Ambient Findability addresses this question in terms directly relevant to libraries. To that I add the notion of The Google Economy and a set of rules for participation (and findability) in it:

• Linking must be possible
• Linking must be desirable
• Linking must be measurable

I argue that libraries are rich with the stuff people would like to link to, but the architecture of our systems often fails us on the other aspects.

I’ve been exploring this with my WPopac project, and I’ve seen some interesting results in the four months that it’s been live and available to the public. One example is that a web search for “joe monninger” returns the WPopac page as the top hit. Elsewhere, WPopac content is appearing in blogs (examples: Fuzzyfruit and Angie) and as a result some of the books in WPopac are now highly ranked in web search engines (example: A Baby Sister For Frances is now the only non-commercial result in the first page of Google results).

A rather more controversial look into how the Google Economy works can be found in Google’s explanation of their search results. Interestingly, the same factors within the Google Economy that created the controversy also made possible a solution: the top search result for “Jew” is now the Wikipedia page.

How can we track our participation in the Google Economy?

Alexa might be best described as the Nielsen ratings for the web. Tracking the daily changes in reach and rank (and looking at all the variations of the graph) can be rather addictive. Alexaholic serves that fix by offering more varied views of the same data.

It should be said, however, that the results in Alexa are the slowest to reflect changes or improvement in a service’s role in the Google Economy. A more immediate pulse of things can be taken at Technorati or within Google.

Last word

As we consider ways to improve our online services — as we look to build the online library of the near future — these words echo in my mind:

Nobody cares about you or your site. Really. What visitors care about is getting their problems solved. Most people visit a web site to solve one or more of the following three problems.

• They want/need information
• They want/need to make a purchase / donation.
• They want/need to be entertained.

Too many organizations believe that a web site is about opening a new marketing channel or getting donations or to promote a brand. No. It’s about solving your customers’ problems. Have I said that phrase enough?

In short, our libraries’ web sites are the online embodiment of our libraries. Our patrons don’t want to know how to use our library, they want to find in our online services the value that libraries offer in their in-person services. They want online services that deliver answers.

findability, future libraries, google economy, lib 2.0, libraries, library, library 2.0, online libraries, opac 2.0, presentation, usability, web, web 2.0, wpopac

IUG 2006 presentation: Designing an OPAC for Web 2.0 (also available as a PDF with space for notes)

Web 2.0 and other “2.0” monikers have become loaded terms recently. But as we look back at the world wide web of 1996, there can be little doubt that today’s web is better and more useful. Indeed, that seems to be the conclusion millions of Americans are making, as current estimates show over 200 million users in the US, including 87% of youth 12-17.

Web 2.0 isn’t driven by technology, it’s driven by that critical mass of users. And while social software and AJAX enabled web applications get most of our attention, people are turning to the internet for some very mundane everyday activities that were little more than science fiction in 1996. The commonality of internet banking, for example, reflects the trust users now have in the security and reliability of online services.

But the web has weathered so much hype and hyperbole that it may be difficult to recognize its arrival as a true cultural force. Computing has become so common that children often learn to type before they learn to write. And the instant, self-service access to worlds of information and services is changing industries — a fact we can see clearly in the decline of the role of travel agents, even while air travel continues to grow.

Kevin Kelly, in a Wired Magazine story described this apparent blindness:

The accretion of tiny marvels can numb us to the arrival of the stupendous. [thanks to Josh Porter for alerting me to this]

So the question of how to design a web OPAC for today is a question of how to design an information service in a world rich with information services and filled with users who make information seeking — though not necessarily at libraries — part of their everyday lives.

note: this is an update of my ALA Midwinter presentation.

iii, innovative users group, iug, iug2006,lib 2.0, library, library 2.0, library catalog, online catalog, opac, opac 2.0, presentation, web opac, wpopac, libraries, web 2.0

Danah Boyd posted recently at Many-to-Many about the future of social software. I’ve been more than a little bit gung ho on web 2.0 for a while, but I do like her caution:

If MySpace falters in the next 1-2 years, it will be because of this moral panic. Before all of you competitors get motivated to exacerbate the moral panic, think again. If the moral panic succeeds:

• Youth will lose (even more) freedom of speech. How far will the curtailment of the First Amendment go?
   
• All users will lose the safety and opportunities of pseudonymity, particularly around political speech and particularly internationally.
   
• Internet companies will be required to confirm the real life identity of all users. At their own cost.
   
• International growth on social communities will be massively curtailed because it is much harder to confirm non-US populations.
   
• Internet companies will lose the protections of common carrier which will have ramifications in all sorts of directions.
   
• Internet companies will see a massive increase in subpoenas and will be forced to turn over data on their users which will in turn destroy the trust relationship between companies and users.
   
• There will be a much greater barrier for new communities to form and for startups to build out new social environments.
   
• International companies will be far better positioned to create new social technologies because they won’t have to abide by American laws even if American citizens use their technology (assuming the servers are hosted outside of the US). Unless, of course, we decide to block sites on a nation-wide basis…

There’s stuff here that I wish I had more time to write about, more time to think about, but read the full story. I’ll get back to this in bits and pieces over time.

danah boyd, facebook, friendster, moral responsibility, myspace, responsible application development, responsible web design, social internet, social software, web 2.0

It can be hard for library folk to imagine that the web development world might be as divided about the meaning and value of “Web 2.0” as the library world is about “Library 2.0,” but we/they are. Take Jeffrey Zeldman’s anti-Web 2.0, anti-AJAX post, for instance. Zeldman’s a smart guy, and he’s not entirely off-base, but let’s not confuse his argument. What you don’t see him suggesting is that we abandon the web. And he certainly hasn’t packed up shop.

What Zeldman and now Michael Calore are suggesting is that their fellow web developers use these fancy, (sort of) new technologies like tags and AJAX carefully. But where they go wrong, and it’s an apparently common mistake, is that their definition of Web 2.0 ends there. Conversely, Tim O’Reilly’s definition of the term admitted to some difficulty in bounding it. In fact, it seemed more an attempt to identify the core attributes of both a number of wild successes (think Google) and emerging stars (think Flickr).

At the center of all of this, however, was the unspoken but undeniable fact that huge numbers of people were turning to the internet for their information, news, and entertainment.

That’s why Zeldman and Calore are publishing no end of tips on how to get better search engine placement, how to design usable and accessible sites, and how to design them well. Look back at O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 spiel. Right there on page one you’ll see him talk about how “the web is a platform” and a discussion of why Google is the “standard bearer” for Web 2.0. Google’s success has nothing to do with AJAX, and it’s not tags. Google’s success is in the way it delivers, for the most part, what people want when they want it.

With search engines handling over five billion searches per month, it’s pretty clear that there’s a huge number of Web 2.0 users out there. Yes, Google and other Web 2.0 technologies may be difficult to make sense of, and it might take us some time to find our place in this new world. But be wary of those who suggest they’re irrelevant, for our customers have already voted with their feet.

arguments, definition, definitions, future internet, future libraries, internet, internet usage, jeffrey zeldman, lib20, library 2.0, michael calore, tim o’reilly, web 2.0, tim o’reilly

Yahoo’s Tom Coats was of seven star speakers at Carson Workshops‘ Future of Web Apps Summit last month. As usual, Ryan Eby was pretty quick to point out his slides to me, mostly by way of pointing out Jeremy Zawodny’s translation of them.

If it’s not clear yet: I wasn’t there, though I very much wanted to be, especially given some of what can be found in the post-summit blog posts.

Still, there’s a lot to be learned from just this one slide:

1. Look to add value to the Aggregate Web of data
    
2. Build for normal users, developers, and machines
    
3. Start designing with data, not pages
    
4. Identify your first order objects and make them addressable
    
5. Use readable, reliable, and hackable URLs
    
6. Correlate with external identifier schemes
    
7. Build list views and batch manipulation interfaces
    
8. Create parallel data services using standards
    
9. Make your data as discoverable as possible

I’ve been making a lot of noise about Coates’ point number five in my own presentations about how to build an OPAC for Web 2.0 (though the lesson should be applied to every library application), but there’s a lot to like in all nine. And it’s a bunch easier to understand his point when you read Zawodny’s take on it.

Here are my favorite bits:

Use readable, reliable, and hackable URLs

If the URL is hard to read over the phone or wraps in email, you’re not there yet. Simplicity and predictability rule here. Consider something like http://socialshopping.com/item/12345. You can guess what that URL does, can’t you?

You may not grasp how important this is, but don’t let that stop you from worry about it. This stuff really does matter. Look at how most URLs in del.icio.us are guessable and simple. Mimic that.

Correlate with external identifier schemes

Don’t go inventing complete new ways to represent and/or structure things if there’s already an established mechanism that’d work. Not only is such effort wasteful, it significantly lowers the chance that others will adopt it and help to strengthen the platform you’re building.

You are building a platform, whether you believe it or not.

Create parallel data services using standards

Developers (and the code they write) will want to consume your data. Do not make this an afterthought. Get your engineers thinking about how they might use the data, and make sure they design the product to support those fantasies. Again, always default to using an existing standard or extending one when necessary. Look at how flexible RSS and Atom are.

Don’t re-invent the wheel [link added --Casey].

Make your data as discoverable as possible

The names and attributes you use should be descriptive to users and developers, not merely a byproduct of the proprietary internal system upon which they’re built. This means thinking like an outsider and doing a bit of extra work.

application design, Carson Workshops, FoWA, future of web apps, future of web apps summit, lib20, library 2.0, native to web, native to web of data, summit, tom coates, web 2.0, web applications, web design, web platform

Anybody who questioned the Pew Internet and American Life report about how teens use the internet and how they expect conversations and interactivity from the online services they use might do well to take a look at this comment on my Chernobyl Tour story:

Student Looking for Info that your not give us
February 3rd, 2006 10:11

you people suck. We have to do a school report and you are not giving us any info on what happened to the people, and the environmetn, we need a story from someone and about someone who lived through this inccident.

Ignore the bad spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Ignore the personal criticism. Instead, think about enormous shift of worldviews that allows a reader to make that comment about a popular story on a top-ranked website. Yes, the internet really is conversational — even if some people may be bad conversationalists.

Now imagine instead that the comment was on a related post at a library’s reference blog. Kindly worded or not, that’s a reference question. It’s an opportunity to serve a patron who obviously isn’t being served by traditional library services, and it’s a huge argument for libraries to make sure they’re blogging this stuff and fully participating in the Google Economy. Afterall, the person who made that comment certainly didn’t search the library.

Keep reading: the language of your website, institutional blogging done right, and designing library services for today.

library, libraries, web 2.0, social web, social internet, blogs are conversations, blog, blogs, comments, blog comment, blog comments, teens, internet generation, reference blog, millennials, future libraries

Ryan Eby speaks with tongue firmly in cheek in this blog post, but his point is well taken. Privacy is serious to us, but we nonetheless make decisions that trade bits of our patrons’ privacy as an operational cost. While we argue about the appropriate time keep backups of our circulation records, we largely accept them — and the way they connect our patrons with the books they read — without question.

The problem here is that it’s a decision we make on behalf our patrons, often without bothering to inform our patrons of the risks we take with their privacy. And the problem there is that it violates users’ expectations of transparency and self determination — some of the same expectations you’ll find in Jenny Levine’s Online Library User Manifesto.

So here’s the trick: how do we deliver targeted and customized services online, without unhinging our patrons’ privacy? The answer so far is that we allow patrons to choose, giving patrons the tools and knowledge they need to make their own decisions about how much they reveal. But that answer depends on the notion that library services must be self-contained, that the only way our patrons can manage reading lists and the like is if libraries offer those services.

One only need look at LibraryThing to see an alternative. It’s not that I think LibraryThing or Listal or any other service will make better privacy decisions than we will. My point is that our attempts to build out customized services will likely draw resources away from efforts to improve the way our existing services interoperate with the rest of the internet. Listal and LibraryThing work because Amazon built an outstanding API and made it freely available to all. If libraries offered an API like that, those services could easily integrate our holdings, and LibraryThing users could match their interests against materials available at their local libraries without revealing themselves to us. Patrons could run desktop applications like Delicious Library and (mostly) avoid revealing themselves over the network. Libraries are in the awkward position of having identifying information about their patrons, but online-only services might not need any more identification than an anonymous username and password.

But even more simply than that, it’s worth asking how easily our online services work with basic expectations of web sites. Can users bookmark an item in your catalog in their browsers? Can they send the catalog URL of their new favorite book in an email to a friend? Can Google or other search engines index your catalog and help your patrons find materials even when they don’t know to search your site specifically?

Circulation records can be subpoenaed, but getting at the reading list I’ve been keeping as bookmarks in my browser is more likely to require officials to serve me with a search warrant. Building systems that work with the internet puts users in charge of their own privacy decisions.

library, libraries, privacy, transparency, web 2.0, internet, bookmarkability, durable links, web20, web architecture, usability, privacy, privacy and libraries, future libraries

ALA Midwinter IUG SIG Presentation: Designing an OPAC for Web 2.0

update: PDF version with space for notes

Web 2.0 and other “2.0” monikers have become loaded terms recently. But as we look back at the world wide web of 1996, there can be little doubt that today’s web is better and more useful. Indeed, that seems to be the conclusion millions of Americans are making, as current estimates show over 200 million users in the US, including 87% of youth 12-17.

Web 2.0 isn’t driven by technology, it’s driven by that critical mass of users. And while social software and AJAX enabled web applications get most of our attention, people are turning to the internet for some very mundane everyday activities that were little more than science fiction in 1996. The commonality of internet banking, for example, reflects the trust users now have in the security and reliability of online services.

But the web has weathered so much hype and hyperbole that it may be difficult to recognize its arrival as a true cultural force. Computing has become so common that children often learn to type before they learn to write. And the instant, self-service access to worlds of information and services is changing industries — a fact we can see clearly in the decline of the role of travel agents, even while air travel continues to grow.

Kevin Kelly, in a Wired Magazine story described this apparent blindness:

The accretion of tiny marvels can numb us to the arrival of the stupendous. [thanks to Josh Porter for alerting me to this]

So the question of how to design a web OPAC for today is a question of how to design an information service in a world rich with information services and filled with users who make information seeking — though not necessarily at libraries — part of their everyday lives.

ala, ala midwinter, ala midwinter 2006, iii, iug, lib 2.0, libraries, library, library 2.0, library catalog, online catalog, opac, opac 2.0, presentation, web 2.0, web opac

In recognition of the divisive and increasingly meaningless nature of x.0 monikers — think library 2.0 and the web 2.0 that inspired it — I’m doing away with them.

When Jeffrey Zeldman speaks with disdain about the AJAX happy nouveaux web application designers and the second internet bubble (and he’s not entirely off-base) and starts claiming he’s moving to Web 3.0, then it’s a pretty clear sign that we should give up on trying to version all this.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s something big going on, but it doesn’t respect version numbers and it isn’t about AJAX or social software. And as much as designers and developers want to take credit, we cant. I’m not the first to say it, but let me repeat it without the baggage of these x.0 monikers: people are making the internet a part of their daily lives and in doing so it is changing us. With or without a label, that’s what we need to talk about.

web 2.0, web20, lib20, library 2.0, library20, moniker, monikers, divisive, conflict, label, change, internet usage, internet use, massive social change