Accidental Technologist

Looking to Connect: Technical Challenges that Impede the Growth of Virtual Reference

Sidebar: Emerging (and Retreating) Technologies

This time the Accidental Technologist is shaking things up. Discussion and disagreement welcome.

Sprouting–Mass Digitization of Books

To be fair, this has been going on for a few years. Less-than-perfect scanning quality and less-than-robust metadata have rendered the digitized book collections less-than-user-friendly. There is a critical mass of digitization projects and scanned volumes. Some improvements are being made. Check out Open Content Alliance, Google Books, or Microsoft Live Books. This is just highlighting the most high-profile. They each have their strengths and weakness in relation to the above issues, so explore and see what you find to be the useful features. Feel free to post comments or share other book digitization projects in the electronic version of this article available via the RUSQ Online Companion at www.rusq.org.

In Bloom–Embedded IM

Six months ago I wrote that embedded IM “should be raising the concern of some library chat vendors and the interest of more than a few librarians.” I feel more definite now. MeeboMe, chatango, and other embedded IM applications have arrived. They are the new red carpet stars to watch. This will be bigger than traditional IM.

I picture the patron thought process as, “This is a blank box on a Web page. I type something in that and something happens.” Easy. My library has offered IM and Meebo side by side for a few months. Volume for the embedded version of IM is often higher than the traditional IM. Our chat software vendors can one-up the free clients by writing embedded chat applications that also provide the collaborative and administrative features of their software. Now that’s added value.

Withering–Co-Browsing

Good idea; never fully realized. Librarians seem to want it more than patrons. Our patrons gravitate to the more simple interfaces of IM and embedded IM. But we persist. We can instruct without sharing a screen with the patron, we do this for telephone reference. Maybe in five years our patrons will want it and the technology will be ready: I don’t see the evidence of either right now. Maybe it is time to give this up and focus our concerns and efforts elsewhere.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Comments (One comment)

These comments link to the articles to which they refer.

While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the technical aspects of providing a virtual reference service (and I’m really looking forward to those improvements and innovations), it continues to concern me that much of our blame for a perceived low use of these services focuses primarily on the software. How can we definitively state that because an “…abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messaging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm”? I don’t understand that logic. It’s like saying billions of humans use phones, but it just isn’t translating to the library realm because our phones aren’t ringing off the hooks. What is our benchmark for sufficient usage? And how are you making the service know to your users?

Here at AskColorado we struggle to keep up with demand. We do very little marketing. Use is generated from link placement at participating library websites, library catalogs and databases, and word of mouth. Our primary users (more that 60%) are the same demographic cited as being avid IM users in the article; teenagers.

My main concern is that libraries first need to set benchmarks for sufficient use of any reference service (in-person, phone, e-mail, IM, VR) then assess usage. If you’re not happy with usage you need to look at how you are making your service available. Can users find the VR service on your website? No? Then you need to make it more visible (‘Goal of Convienence’.) Try this experiment: Add Live Help links throughout your library’s website and in your library catalog. Assess usage of the service. If your numbers still do not meet your goals then perhaps you need to assess whether it is the technology preventing usage of your service.

I know it’s not as simple as I’ve explained above. My main point is to caution librarians not to discount a service based on technology alone, without looking at other factors that may impact usage of that service.

Kris Johnson / January 22nd, 2008, 11:02 am / #

Accidental Technologist

Looking to Connect: Technical Challenges that Impede the Growth of Virtual Reference

Sidebar: Emerging (and Retreating) Technologies

Sprouting–Mass Digitization of Books

In Bloom–Embedded IM

Withering–Co-Browsing

Comments (One comment)

Post a comment

Categories

Search

Links

Feeds