Rethinking the Public Workstation

Challenges of USB Technology for Libraries

There are some obstacles to putting USB technology front and center on the public workstation. The foremost concern is security. Our library has not experienced any security concerns related to allowing increased access to USB ports and allowing users to connect personal peripherals. The library has focused on promoting library-purchased devices that can be checked out, but also allows users to bring in their own personal electronic devices. Hines’s article mentions that “the security risks from such digital toys–not to mention smart phones, digital music players, and USB drives–are growing.”¹³ Some companies that allow employees to connect gadgets to USB ports have acquired cameras or implemented programs to monitor use. Others have installed software that blocks access to certain devices. Despite these measures in the private sector, there has been little discussion on the appropriate use of USB technology in libraries, or guidance to help develop circulation policies for USB-ready devices. This category of access was not considered in the survey used for Appropriate Use Policies for Computers in College/University Libraries CLIP Note #31, and as a result no appropriate-use documents included in the appendixes really address the issue.¹⁴ Sendze’s recent article on securing public access computers details many security concerns that would no doubt be aggravated by increased use of USB technology in libraries, but unfortunately the author does not directly address the technology.¹⁵ The security concerns are real, and as with all technologies, libraries will need to consider how to balance demand, access, and security. There have been new upgrades in USB technologies to provide virus protection; however, as more users integrate these personal technologies into traditional library activities, security concern will continue to grow.

Another prime concern is that USB technology facilitates more piracy due to the increased rate at which data can be downloaded. There are still many questions regarding tension between library missions and the steps libraries should take to prevent piracy. For example, Hoorebeck’s article states both that “libraries can learn from these case studies and lessen the risk of facilitating copyright infringement by not allowing the installations of any peer-to-peer programs, not installing floppy disks or external drives and displaying relevant copyright notices.”¹⁶ Hoorebeck also states that the “threat of increased liability must not prevent libraries from fulfilling their potential to become fully fledged multimedia hubs.”¹⁷ Not installing peer-to-peer programs and posting copyright notices seem entirely reasonable, but not installing floppy disks or external drives seems to contradict Hoorebeck’s second statement, since content uploaded and downloaded via a USB port could easily be material that was legally obtained or otherwise not in violation of copyright laws. One such example of appropriate use is the collection of personal electronic archives, which Burrows explores in her article, “Personal Electronic Archives: Collecting the Digital Me.”¹⁸ Another example might be images taken on a cell phone to document some assertion made in a term paper. Yet, as libraries delve into interfacing with and circulating storage devices, it will be important for them to consider the procedures for preventing piracy and protecting privacy. Policies may need to address what happens when a USB key drive is checked in with downloaded copyrighted material or a patron’s personal information, or a digital audio recorder is checked in with interviews for a research project.

There are limitations to USB technology that may be of concern to libraries. Axelson’s book notes that “limits to be aware of include speed, distance, lack of support for peer-to-peer communications, no ability to broadcast, and lack of support in older hardware and operating systems.”¹⁹ The USB developers continue to work to improve speed with the launch of Hi-Speed USB, but other products still claim to have faster data transfer rates. Developers have also released Certified Wireless USB, which supports peer-to-peer communication with a variety of devices (printers, external hard drives, PDAs, DVD players), and is comparable in speed to Hi-Speed USB at close range. Our library has not yet begun to experiment with Certified Wireless USB, but it may be an option for the increasing demand for printing to public printers from personal and library-circulated laptops. Also, some older computers may not have USB ports, the ports may not be high-speed ports, or ports may not be easily accessible to the public. If there is no port or the port does not support higher speeds of data transmission, a library may have to wait for a refreshment cycle or raise funds for new computers to utilize USB technology. If the port is hidden from public access, the library may be able to purchase inexpensive extenders to make the technology more accessible.

Last, our library found that “plug and play” is not the same as “plug and complete the needed task.” Many devices need software to edit data, audio, images, or use the device. Software may need to be loaded to each computer to use scanners, burners, or recorders. For some libraries that use a single image or provide network access to software, this may not be a big deal, but to other libraries this may be a major obstacle.

Conclusion

Despite the merits or challenges, USB technology is here to stay. More products than ever can connect to other devices via a wired or wireless USB port. These products are ending up in libraries, and people desire to use them to complete both traditional and new library tasks. There are many merits to planning public workstations that better utilize USB technology. The technology supports traditional public computing in libraries and is easy to use. It allows for more flexible workstations by supporting legacy technology, audio/video viewing, microform stations, and adaptation to future unknown technology needs. When used in conjunction with item checkout, this technology is both cost effective and saves space. Libraries that choose to place USB technology front and center will, however, need to address security, piracy, and privacy concerns. Some libraries will also need to consider the age of their equipment and potential software installations before implementing this approach. The capabilities of USB may even allow libraries to move one step closer to the goal of a single workstation.

Our university is scheduled to open a new library in 2008, and will consider a plan for a single public workstation that relies on USB technology to enhance access and flexibility. Although the library opening is eons away in “technology time,” we will continue to strive for the ideal. It will be an exciting day for libraries when our users can sit down and plug in a USB drive that contains all of their personal computer settings, old papers, and research materials, and write a paper while simultaneously interfacing with our resources, our reference librarians, and their music on a next-generation player.

Sidebar: Emerging (and Retreating) Technologies

This time the Accidental Technologist offers up a trio of related technologies. Can you spot the theme?

Withering–OPAC

Long the standard of access to the bibliographic surrogates that describe our library materials, they are as unappealing and difficult as this sentence. Librarians are beginning to realize that there might be other options and that we do not have to rely on our ILS vendors to supply the solutions to access. The MARS Hot-Topics discussion, “Not Your Dad’s OPAC,” at the 2007 ALA Midwinter Meeting drew 275 audience members. One of the most provocative statements came from the audience: Do we need the OPAC anymore?

Sprouting–Collaborative Tagging and Social Bookmarking

Perhaps easier to see in context than to describe, del.icio.us and LibraryThing all use this technology to allow individual users to define how content is categorized. Other users can find items of interest by searching for terms, finding content tagged with that term, and then moving to other items with the same tag. Since items can be given multiple tags, a user can move on to related (or unrelated) items by clicking the links for those terms. Might remind you of subject headings, but user-generated. There are undeniable advantages to this in that users define what they find as important about the content and then share it with others. It is interesting to librarians that participants in social tagging are starting to notice problems with lack of hierarchical structure–for instance, searches for “vegetable” don’t bring up items tagged as “corn.” See PennTags for an example of collaborative tagging in a library environment. A hot-off-the press Pew Report on tagging has found that 28 percent of Internet users have tagged online content.

Sites: http://del.icio.us, www.librarything.com, http://tags.library.upenn.edu, www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Tagging.pdf.

In Bloom–Going Where the Users Are

Last column I mentioned Instant Messaging (IM), but there are many other ways that librarians are placing themselves in user spaces. This is not without controversy, (are we invading users’ space?) but increasingly, libraries are forging ahead into the social networking arena of MySpace and the gaming world of Second Life. Articles and blog posts abound about these endeavors. See in particular the category for “gaming in libraries” at Aaron Schmidt’s blog www.walkingpaper.org. He also has some interesting posts about MySpace.

Librarians in academic libraries are also using laptops and wireless technology to offer reference service in untraditional physical spaces such as student unions and coffeehouses.

Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to: M. Kathleen Kern, Central Reference Librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 300 Library, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801; e-mail: katkern@uiuc.edu. Amy Wallace is Head of Public Services, University Library, California State University, Channel Islands in Camarillo.

References and Notes

1. Colby Riggs, “New Gadgets on the Horizon,” Library Hi Tech News 23, no. 2 (Mar. 2006): 16-18; Colby Riggs, “New Gadgets on the Horizon: Part 2,” Library Hi Tech News 23, no. 3 (Apr. 2006): 22-25.
2. Greg Scoblete, “Pure Digital Revamps Single-Use Camcorder,” TWICE: This Week in Consumer Electronics 21, no. 10 (May 8, 2006): 8; “SanDisk Debuts Game Content USB Drives,” TWICE: This Week in Consumer Electronics 21, no. 13 (June 19, 2006): 6; Steve Blass, “New Uses for Old Hard Drives,” PC World 24, no. 8 (Aug. 2006): 41.
3. Snunith Shoham and Nurit Roitberg, “From Electronic Library to Learning Center in the Academic Library: Integrating Traditional and New Uses in the Library Workstation,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 4 (Jul. 2005): 345.
4. “In-Library Public Workstations,” Library Technology Reports 38, no. 3 (May/June 2002): 56.
5. Ibid., 59.
6. Jennifer Church, “The Evolving Information Commons,” Library Hi Tech 23, no. 1 (2005): 75-81.
7. Karen K. Hein, “Information Uncommon: Public Computing in the Life of Reference,” Reference Services Review 34, no. 1 (2006): 33-42.
8. According to Diana Romm, “Thin clients differ from PCs or ‘fat clients’ because their applications and data are stored on the server, rather than on the thin client itself. In a PC network, some applications and data may be stored locally on the personal computer itself and some may be stored on the server. In a thin client network, all of the applications and data reside on the server. The thin client is simply a device from which to send requests and on which to see the results. Thin clients are essentially empty boxes, much like the original “dumb” terminals that connected to a mainframe.” Romm, “It Pays To Be Thin,” Library Journal 131, no. 2 (Feb. 2006): 34.
9. David B. Bills et al., “The New Mobile Scholar and the Effective Use of Information and Communication Technology,” First Monday 11, no. 4 (Apr. 2006): 1-14. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/index.html (accessed Jul. 6, 2006).
10. Ibid., 4.
11. “OverDrive Announces OverDrive Download Station,” Advanced Technology Libraries 35 (Apr. 2006): 7.
12. It is important to note that the costs included in this article were actual costs at time of purchase. Prices for USB-ready zip and floppy drives continue to fall.
13. Matt Hines, “Gadgets Present Security Conundrum,” eweek 23(May 22, 2006): 20.
14. Jane H. Tuten and Karen Junker, eds., Appropriate Use Policies for Computers in College/University Libraries CLIP Note #31 (Chicago: ALA, 2002).
15. Monique Sendze, “The Battle to Secure our Public Access Computers,” Computers in Libraries 26, no. 1 (Jan. 2006): 10-16.
16. Mark Van Hoorebeck, “Health and Safety and Piracy: Legal Risk Minimization in Libraries,” Electronic Library 22, no. 3 (2004): 235.
17. Ibid.
18. Toby Burrows, Personal Electronic Archives: Collecting the Digital Me,” OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 22, no. 2 (2006): 85-88.
19. Jan Axelson, USB Complete: Everything You Need to Develop USB Peripherals, 3d ed. (Madison, Wisc.: Lakeview Research, 2005), 10.

Pages: 1 2