melissahoulroyd.info

Al Gore Video Feed

The Arthur Curley Memorial Lecture at this year’s ALA Midwinter Conference was presented by Al Gore. What would such a famous speaker and activist say? How would he connect the crisis of global warming to libraries? I had high hopes.

“If you want a book to be signed, you have to buy them over there before the lecture!” This was my greeting outside the convention center ballroom as staffers gesticulated towards a bookstand. The tone was set, and the room filled quickly.

Gore started his lecture by acknowledging the suffering and destruction in Haiti. Empathy, he explained, is one of the most powerful emotions tying humans together. He asked us to empathize with future generations and consider the kinds of destruction they will inevitably face if we don’t act decisively to save the environment.

“Save libraries!” I was thinking. “Prevent global warming and the destruction of libraries!” What kind of world would this be without libraries?

Gore outlined our options for prevention, covering each chapter of his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, except the one chapter that was relevant to libraries and librarians.

Surely, the majority of the people in that room had already seen An Inconvenient Truth. The lecture did not stray very far from the same information. What if he had paid the most attention to the one chapter he skipped? Wouldn’t that have been inspiring and energizing?

I left the lecture feeling frustrated and dismayed. This presentation was another symptom of what I feel is a larger problem with ALA conferences. Bonnie Swoger wrote in the Undergraduate Science Librarian that “there is a disconnect between the library world and the research world.” I feel that a similar gap exists between libraryland and the technology, design, and marketing worlds.

Getting such big names as Al Gore to speak at our conferences is awesome, but let’s make it even better by inviting them to talk about their ideas relating to our profession. Let’s take the opportunity to hear something new.

We need to hear from our users, as Bonnie suggests, but we also need to hear from experts outside the library world to help us move forward and keep up with the ever-changing landscape our libraries are part of. We need futurists, philosophers, economists, designers, and technologists to speak at our conferences. We need to hear it from the horse’s mouth — what will effect us.

I still think librarians are a great source for programming at ALA, but I want diversity of thought. I don’t want canned presentations or recycled discussions. I think the change would help us keep up and maybe even change our general image from “behind the times” to “in the know.”

The LITA Program Planning Committee (PPC) is the committee that collects, reviews, and schedules LITA-sponsored programs for the ALA Annual Conference. The illustrious Jason Griffey is the chair of the committee for the 2008-2010 term. I was lucky to be appointed to the committee this year, at a time of significant transition for the program planning process.

For the upcoming ALA Annual Conference 2010, Jason Griffey and the LITA Program Planning Committee decided to switch the program proposal process from a paper form and in-person interview to an electronic exchange: a Google Form and email correspondence this year, and hopefully a conference planning system by next year. (The PPC ProgramProcess TaskForce recommends the Open Conference System, an open source application from the Public Knowledge Project.)

With generous help from Ranti Junus, Systems Librarian at Michigan State University Libraries, a senior member of the committee, and Chair of the PPC ProgramProcess TaskForce, I learned that the process used to be very involved:

1. The chair, co-chair, or vice chair of the Interest Group (IG) sponsoring the program would fill out the paper form and make many copies for each PPC member to read. (The information requested on the paper form was exactly the same as that requested on the Google Form this year.)
2. The IG would arrange an appointment and meet with the PPC for 20-30 minutes.
3. Feedback from the PPC was immediate: clarifications, potential audience, etc. PPC sometimes suggested the IG collaborate with other IGs within LITA or with other divisions. Typical collaboration usually entailed asking the other IG/division to co-sponsor to share information about the program with their own members. Time slots were also discussed. (Usually, the PPC chair had the timetable with her so she could check with the conflicts.)
4. The PPC would then come to a consensus.
5. A PPC liaison who was assigned to the IG would take over communication to the IG proposing the program after ALA Annual. The liaison was the go-to person for the IG for all PPC-related communications and was responsible for making sure that the IG would get the information they needed in a timely manner. Liaisons were also responsible for reminding the IGs about turning in other information such as the names of the speakers, communicating PPC discussions related to the respective IGs, and informing PPC about the IG’s progress preparing the program.

This year, with the use of Google Docs, Griffey was able to set up a Google Form for program proposals. The information from the Google Form was funneled into a Google Spreadsheet shared by all the members of the PPC. This was the process so far this year: (more…)

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.

The Unconference at ALA Annual Conference 2009 consisted of 6 fifteen minute presentations, 1 fifty minute discussion session, a two hour lunch, 4 more fifteen minute presentations, and 2 more fifty minute discussion sessions. For each discussion session, there were several tables with a different discussion topic and a limit of 10 people per discussion.

Jason Griffey’s presentation, “Ubiquitous Computing,” was first. Griffey explained that mobile phones are the single most popular computing platform in the world. There are more usable mobile phones than people in Korea. There were 2.3 trillion SMS messages sent last year alone. They’re shrinking the digital divide. Computer networks are even changing, with devices exchanging information with each other instead of nativized servers. (Object to object, rather than object to server to object.) [NTS: This reminded me of a particular game architecture Joe used in one of his games to make it work faster.] Digital is, by necessity, going to be free. Information will become easier and easier to get. Compete with piracy by making it easy to obtain (e.g., iTunes — not free, but very easy). Content is easier to obtain outside the library. Services becoming more important within the library.

The second presentation was “Audiobooks, E-books, and Online Reading: Implications for Libraries,” by Jessica Moyer. Teens and college-age adults are the fastest growing audiobook listening groups. Over 52% of users get their audiobooks from library, the #1 source for listeners. ”Digital means dealing with DRM and compatibility.” Libraries have to change their collections to offer new technologies. Overdrive not usable on a Mac. Moyer illustrates that other media, such as audiobooks and e-books, are necessary in library collections that aim to serve people living in the 21st century. Those users of “other media” tend to read books, too.

Theresa Liedtka, Dean of Lupton Library at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, presented “Patrons as a Top Priority.” She described how her university library used surveys, online forums, and communication within the entire university to design the future library building as a user-centered space. Collaborating with a diverse group of so many interests, both faculty and students, will allow Lupton Library to be the center of university life. I loved my college library; I can only imagine how amazing Lupton Library will be for UTC’s students.

Rachel Vacek was next with “Librarians Using Mobile Devices.” She and the University of Houston Libraries (her place of work) chose to focus on the mobile device needs of librarians, rather than library users. With a microgrant, they were able to purchase 8 iPod Touches for the university librarians to check out. Using the iPod Touches, librarians were better suited to serve the library users’ needs. This experiment resulted in the library purchasing an iPod Touch and/or a netbook for every librarian. Fantastic! But one great thing I took away from this presentation was the idea of creating a technology “petting zoo” for librarians. Technology becomes a lot less scary when you can hold it in your hand and realize that it isn’t so hard to figure out.

Robin Hastings was the fifth to present, and her topic was “Web 3.0.” During her presentation, she explained that Web 3.0 would be the semantic web, transforming the internet into a database. One way to turn the internet into a database is with microforms. An example of a microform is this hCard:

<div class="vcard">
<div class="fn">Joe Doe</div>
<div class="org">The Example Company</div>
<div class="tel">604-555-1234</div>
<a class="url" href="http://example.com">http://example.com</a>
</div>

Labeling data with microforms makes it easy to collect this kind of information (e.g., through Address Book on a Mac.)

The sixth presentation was “Libraries and Innovation: Creating environments for encouraging and supporting creativity and innovation among staff” by Matt Hamilton. He explained how letting library staff decide on their own projects makes for happier and more efficient staff. Let the workforce decide what gets them excited, and let them work on that. Start projects in “beta” to help get buy-in; “beta” projects seem temporary, but may last. This management approach reminded me of W.L. Gore & Associates (Small Groups, Big Ideas), a company without a hierarchal structure and a focus on communication, freedom, and creativity. Sounds like an awesome place to work, and so does Boulder Public Library (I love their logical URL, too!).

The first discussion group I attended was Rebecca Blakeley’s “Government Issues for Librarianship.” Rebecca Blakeley is the Government Documents Librarian at McNeese State University (Louisiana). During the discussion, she talked about how Obama’s call for more transparency in government at the start of his term got a lot of people interested in government documents. Now there are a lot more resources for government information than there were before, and librarians need to be aware of them and trained how to use them. Some of the websites she pointed us to were:

• The Center for Disease Control’s Widgets: In the event of a pandemic like Swine Flu, libraries can add these Web 2.0 tools to their websites to provide easy access to information from the CDC.
• Data.gov: Raw government-collected data that can be collected and manipulated
• Sunlight Foundation: a government watchdog site
• MAPLight.org: reveals the connection between money and politics
• OpenCongress: an effort to make congress more transparent with a feed of legislation in a much more accessible way than THOMAS
• FDSYS.gov: provides public access to Government information submitted by Congress and Federal agencies
• Versionista — Versions of WhiteHouse.gov since Obama took office: archives versions of websites as they change

Blakeley stressed that because of these changes in the supply and demand of government documents, there needs to be standards for government document competencies. A couple resources she provided were:

• ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) Wiki
• ALA Washington Office E-Government Services Wiki
• US Public Libraries and E-Government Services White Paper

That’s only a little more than half the unconference! More to come soon…

The location of this year’s ALA Annual Conference gave my fiancé and me a great excuse to tour Chicago before the event began. We explored the city, visited museums and saw the Harry Potter exhibit, tested the public transportation system, and ate some great food. Some more of our family members joined us on Wednesday to go to Alinea to celebrate a few birthdays, my fiancé’s fellowship, jobs well done, and our engagement. Alinea was an incredible experience; we all left the restaurant with goofy smiles on our faces.

The conference officially started on Thursday, July 9th, but there wasn’t a lot going on. After seeing my fiancé off in the morning, I got settled into my new hotel room, met up with a couple fellow librarians, and had a great meal.

I spent Friday at the Unconference. It was an amazing and intimidating experience to be immersed in a group of so many librarians I had been following on Twitter and the blogosphere. It took a feat of microbravery to participate. But I did it! The presenters were inspiring, and the discussion leaders and other participants were thought-provoking. (A more in depth blog post on my experience at the Unconference to come!)

Saturday, I attended OCLC’s To Be or Not To Be… DRM Free. I arrived a little late, so I missed the speakers names, and I was unsuccessful in locating further information about them online. This discussion had a lot of potential to be a lively debate. However, since it was at 8 o’clock in the morning, it was sparsely attended and everyone who was there seemed bleary-eyed, including me. The basic gist of the program was that “[high] quality content needs DRM” so that publishers can invest in authors. “We need publishers to help filter creators to have high quality content.” “Amateur journalism cannot replace quality content.” My personal thinking is that sometimes publishers publish low quality information, and the reality of content is that there is a spectrum of content. Not all published content is created equal.

Targeted Marketing: Hitting the Bull’s Eye woke me up. Los Angeles Public Library’s Director of Public Relations, Peter Persic, and San Francisco Public Library’s Chief of Communications and Adult Services, Marcia Schneider, spoke about their ad campaigns to change their communities’ perception of the library. It was really exciting to see images of their ads and to hear about their strategies. (A blog post is forthcoming on this program, too!)

Life After 2.0 with Meredith Farkas, Lori Bell, Michelle Springer, and Helene Blowers was really interesting, if a little disjointed. Meredith Farkas’ presentation about why 2.0 services fail in libraries really hit the nail on the head. Instead of just using “Web 2.0″ technology for their own sake, find a problem that needs solving, then find a tool that will help. And, if you’re going to use the tools, make the commitment to continually use them. Don’t abandon them! They’re embarrassing to the organization. She explained:

• Get to know your population’s needs
• Build things to meet a need
• Give staff time
• Plan to market 2.0 projects like any other service
• Make sure it’s in line with the library’s mission/goals
• Continually assess

In the evening, I stopped by the ALA/ProQuest Scholarship Bash. It was my first time attending the event, and I found it a little stiff. Maybe it was the time I arrived (around 8/8:30), but the crowd seemed to be closed off from new people joining conversation. I don’t think I would attend that again in the near future.

I sat in on the LITA Program Planning Committee meeting for the first time on Sunday, in preparation for my 2009-2011 appointment. Jason Griffey, the committee Chair, was awesome, and it was a whole lot less intimidating than I expected. The rest of the committee seems like a promising bunch of librarians, too.

LITA Top Tech Trends was also on Sunday. That was a very cool panel of people: Eric Lease Morgan, Joan Frye Williams, Clifford Lynch, John Blyberg, Geert van den Boogaard, Roy Tennant. Each of these speakers had a lot to say on the current top technology trends. Cloud computing came up, as did the ubiquitousness of mobile devices (mobile devices good for consuming, aren’t good for synthesizing, creating), libraries need to build apps. This was a group of very knowledgeable and engaging speakers. However, it made me wonder what LITA Top Tech Trends program would be like if we had developers of spatial operating environments, active commercial PC and Mac programmers, game developers, and others outside of libraries talk about what’s going on in their industries. Maybe it would have to be called Extreme Tech Trends, but it seems like it would benefit us all to hear about what’s going on outside the library world.

That evening, I dropped by the OCLC Blog Salon. Microbravery, what will you get me into next? It was so surreal to see even more “library celebrities” in such a small space. Unfortunately, timidity won out and I didn’t last for long. Baby steps.

Lastly, on Monday I attended the Content Management Systems in Libraries program. I blogged about it on the LITA Blog.

The programs at the conference got a lot of ideas spinning around in my head, and I’m still trying to sort through them.