melissahoulroyd.info

Trying to incorporate FriendFeed into my routine lately has made me think a lot about social networking and why and how I use what I use.

As Laura Carscaddon and Colleen S. Harris explain in their article in Library Journal, “Working the Social: Twitter and FriendFeed,” ”a major benefit of FriendFeed is the ability to converse easily on a specific topic with threaded discussions.” This appears to be true for many librarians, but for me, FriendFeed is just redundant. I follow few people on FriendFeed. Even for these few, I prefer reading the individual feeds they produce (via Twitter, RSS, or Flickr) to the context-less aggregate. When I feel the need to comment on what they say, I do so in context.

Why is that?

In order to use Twitter, I use a desktop application on the Mac called Tweetie. I use iScrobbler to record what I’ve listened to on my last.fm account. I go to Facebook daily (usually), and LinkedIn, Yelp, and LibraryThing occasionally. I upload pictures to Flickr using an iPhoto plugin after I upload them from my cameras, and visit Flickr occasionally. I use NetNewsWire (a desktop app that now syncs with Google Reader) for my RSS feeds.

After using FriendFeed for some time, it seems to me that the way to get the most out of the site is to keep it open in browser all day. Otherwise, one is bound to miss something in the sea of information generated throughout the day. Personally, I don’t like this practice. I read or see a lot of the information in other ways, I don’t like web apps, and I don’t like the design of the website. I’m bothered by the fact that I struggle to be an active user of the site.

I agree with Erin Dorney’s post on Library Scenester, “Social networking: be an active, responsible user.” I try to be an active user of social networking tools for different reasons. Twitter is a great way to see what is going on in the library world and to participate in it. I use Facebook mostly to keep up with friends and family, though the library world is part of that, too. As Erin wrote, “I would be on some of these sites regardless of my career because technology is something that is tightly integrated with the way I live my life.” And I also try to be a responsible user, not posting things that are too personal or too hasty.

So the fact that I am having trouble with a social networking tool is jarring to me; I usually get the hang of it quickly and easily. Maybe FriendFeed is just not right for me.

These realizations have made me curious: how do you decide what social networking tools work for you? Are there any that you just can’t use for one reason or another? Do you have a favorite?

(Tangentially, Meredith Farkas‘ presentation I mentioned in a previous post, “2.Broken: Cautionary Tales of 2.0 Gone Wrong” describes a similar kind of struggle for libraries, rather than the individual, and what to do about it. Erin Dorney’s personal social networking philosophy of being an active and responsible user can (and should) be applied to organizations using social media, too.)

Debbie Faires kicked off the first presentation after lunch with “Web Conference Tools and Uses.” As #11 on SLA’s list of 100 innovations that have changed librarianship, web conferencing tools have many uses. San Jose School of Library and Information Science utilizes them for a rich distance learning experience for distance students as well as communication between staff members. These tools can be used for several purposes, including:

• presentations by remote speakers to distance learners,
• tech troubleshooting for distance learners,
• student group meetings,
• staff meetings,
• and staff training.

Important features include screen sharing, PowerPoint presentations, whiteboard, co-browsing, audio, text chat area, and recording. Examples of web conferencing software are Adobe Connect, Elluminate, Wimba, Dimdim, and WizIQ. Faires explained that by recording and preserving the material, these tools can help extend the life of an event.

The second presentation was “Making the library a partner in research, rather than just a support service, by leveraging the campus strategic plan” by Brian Gray. As the librarian for the Case School of Engineering at Case Western Reserve University, Gray’s job description requires that he spend a good deal of his time in the engineering department. He explained how he was able to set up an office near the dean of the college and provide access to some library materials in the Engineering Reading Room, allowing him to work closely with the students and faculty as the “Librarian in the Laboratory.” I think this is a great idea. Many of my friends who went to college never used the library. In general, they thought they didn’t need help and were not likely to make the extra effort to go even if they thought they might benefit from it. Students won’t seek out inaccessible librarians.

Next was Laura Koltutsky on “Online tutorials in academic libraries: free/low cost options.” She explained that the traditional information literacy tutorial process requires an investment in software and training/IT support and frustrates creators. Koltutsky suggests using Jing to create tutorials in a timely fashion. As a free and easy tool, it seems to be the right fit for online tutorials.

In the last presentation Beth Gallaway presented “Board, tabletop, & video gaming at the library: basics and best practices.” During her presentation, she explored The Librarian’s Guide to Gaming: An Online Toolkit for Building Gaming @ your library. The website has a long list of Tools & Resources to take advantage of when planing a gaming program at the library.

For the second discussion session of the day, I chose to go to Michael Porter’s “Practical Emerging Technology + 10 Years = What kind of library?” Unfortunately, there was a scheduling conflict for our discussion leader, so our group made an effort to come up with an answer to Porter’s question without him. The discussion was best characterized by Aaron Dobbs‘ tweet:

So, 10 years out Libraries will be “different” “platforms” “services” “user space” “guide” “producers” “user-centered” #unala2009 #ala2009

Still stuck on the future of libraries, I chose to go to Amy Harmon’s discussion during the last segment of the Unconference, “The purpose of libraries and how we can ensure that others see the value.” This was a little tougher than the previous session, but important to think about. The Darien Statements helped to answer the first part of the question, but the second has been a huge challenge for a long time. More questions than answers, but still something to consider.

My Thoughts

Friday felt very productive. I didn’t waste any time running around Chicago or the convention center. Staying in one room all day listening to and participating in short sessions was ideal. Understandably, it wasn’t entirely what I thought an “unconference” would be. Before I saw the schedule, I was expecting something a little more informal, but given the size of the group (and the conference), it’s no wonder that it was a little more restrained. My only complaint is that this year’s unconference overlapped with the Emerging Leaders program and poster session. It would have been great to have ELs at the unconference and to have more than one opportunity to participate in an unconference during Annual. Meredith Farkas and Michelle Boule did an amazing job setting up the first ever ALA Unconference, and by all accounts I’ve heard (and my own), it was a huge success!

If you’re interested in more of the breakdown of the unconference, here is the schedule.