RE: Skills for Library 2.0 Leaders

I agree with David and Lisa on this one (in that I think we
should evaluate all new technologies on their own merits). 
I think we've let the Library 2.0/Web 2.0 phenomenon get a
bit out of control.  Honestly, I think it's a fad that will
pass sooner than later.  The biggest problem with it is that
it means something different to everyone.  The result of
that is that we glob every new technology under
"Library 2.0"  5 or so years ago when virtual
reference arose (whther it was IM or email-based), it was
just virtual reference.  And that's what it still is,
although there are new ways to accomplish it.  But now that
we've got a whole slew of people proselytizing about Library
2.0 it's been placed under that useless umbrella term (just
like everything else from what a librairan wears to whether
or not a library has a blog).

I was at SXSW Interactive this past March and the whole tone
of the conference (which is very web geek oriented...it's
like geek summer camp), was that we need to abandon the term
Web 2.0.  These were real hardcore web folks...they're
starting to move past this.  Some panels even renamed their
presentations and took out the term Web 2.0 because of the
backlash against the term.  Maybe we'll catch up in 2 years.
 Anyway, the one thing that stuck most was one gentleman,
Jeremy Keith (adactio.com and clearleft.com), saying that we
need to evaluate new technologies on their own terms, decide
what purpose they really serve, and evaluate what use they
satisfy.  He noted that much of what's out there (especially
in terms of mash-ups) was just fluff.  I'd have to agree.

In my opinion, blogs, wikis, and RSS are a good starting
point for the conversation in libraryland, but we need to
move on.  Thinking that we'll make better libraries just
because we have a blog, a wiki, or RSS feeds seems a bit
ridiculous to me.  I don't see users clamoring for RSS feeds
of library news...in fact, the vast majority of people don't
even know what it is, much less how to use it.  The email
newsletter will still reach more people than an RSS
feed...it's not as sexy, but it is a fact.  Why are we
focussing on something that will have such a small and
limited impact?  Because it's Library 2.0!  It must be good
then right?  When I look around at all the Library 2.0
applications, I have to wonder if we're serving our users,
or ourselves?

As far as programming skills go, I think one needs to be
able to get their hands dirty at a bare minimum.  I realize
most libraries won't have a dedicated web/systems person
(unless they're a focussed on the ILS), but a basic
understanding of how all this stuff works can go a very long
way. 

Respectfully,

Chad Hutchens 
E-Resources Librarian
Montana State University Bozeman 


-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org on behalf of David Kemper
Sent: Mon 4/30/2007 10:11 AM
To: web4lib
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Skills for Library 2.0 Leaders
 
I agree. We should let user needs, issues, concerns
determine what
technologies we need to deploy. If the user encounters
access
problems, we should examine those Web 2.0 technologies that
would best
solve the problem. Wikis, rss, podcasting, IM and supporting
web
technologies give us all more power but we should focus on
how they
can truly benefit the users. First human, then technology.
The other
way around and we'll likely face a revolt and taint Web
2.0's
potential.

David

Archivist, Web Services
IMF Archives

On 4/30/07, Pons, Lisa (ponslm) <PONSLMucmail.uc.edu> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew's commenst. There
are many
> technologies out there that can be deployed, but if you
don't know how
> to turn patron needs into useful applications, it won't
matter.
>
> I often hear staff saying "how can we use a
wiki(or RSS, or
> podcasting)"...but this always seems backwards to
me. We should think
> about how we can make our online services more useful,
and then from
> there decide what technology would be best for that
purpose.
>
> Lisa Pons-Haitz
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
> > [mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew Hankinson
> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: web4lib
> > Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Skills for Library 2.0
Leaders
> >
> > Maybe it's just personal bias, but the singlemost
important
> > technical skill I think a 'Web 2.0' person should
have is an
> > understanding of usability, user interface
design,
> > information visualization and 'humane
interfaces.'
> >
> > Coding and technical skills are necessary, but
technologies
> > such as Ruby-on-Rails or Django are coming along
that lower
> > that barrier, making coding large, dynamic
applications easier.
> >
> > Web 2.0, in my mind, is about removing the
technological
> > barriers of access to everyone participating on
the web, not
> > just the people who know 'the languages.' 
(Languages can
> > include HTML and CSS, but also unnatural
constructs such as
> > searching with Boolean operators.)
> >
> > Until we make our catalogues, websites, databases
and
> > resources a pleasure to use, it doesn't matter
how
> > technically brilliant they are
> > - people still won't use them.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > On 4/30/07, Greb, Jennifer <jgrebtulsalibrary.org> wrote:
> > > Hi, All,
> > >
> > > I'm curious to know what you all (the
experts) think are essential
> > > skills for librarians who might be
coordinating "Library 2.0"
> > > technology in their libraries.  I think that
the ability to present
> > > trainings, build teams, make plans, etc, are
essential, but I'm
> > > especially interested in knowing about the
technical skills
> > needed.
> > > Does one just need to know how to use RSS,
wikis, blogs, and so on,
> > > and contract with vendors or others to make
it work with
> > the library
> > > website, or do you think such a staff person
needs to know
> > ColdFusion,
> > > PHP, and other very technical skills?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On a secondary note, what job titles have you
heard of that would
> > > describe such a position?  I've heard
Internet Librarian, Virtual
> > > Branch Manager, and various others...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks so much!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer Greb, Coordinator
> > >
> > > Ruth G. Hardman Adult Literacy Service
> > >
> > > Tulsa City County Library
> > >
> > > 918.596.7958
> > >
> > > jgrebtulsalibrary.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/


_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

A-freakin-men.  Good post.

However, I do take exception to one small sentence of your
post:

"Honestly, I think it's a fad that will pass sooner
than later."

While I agree that the term 'library 2.0' or 'web 2.0' will
rightfully
fade from everyday use ("Information Superhighway"
anyone??), it's
serving as a useful way of identifying a particular meme
that, until
it gets embedded into society, people can label something
and say
'this is Web 2.0.'

So, while I think that the term will pass, I don't think
what web 2.0
*stands for* is a fad that will pass.  What this fad has
brought is
the idea that anyone can participate in the internet, the
single-most
important human innovation since the book, and with the
potential to
surpass the book in terms of fast, effective, multi-media
communication of ideas.

Libraries, etc. that want to get on board with
participative
technologies are, as was said in a previous post, often
looking to
deploy a solution without an existing problem. Often it's
because they
read somewhere that Library X implemented a blog for its
reader's
advisory group and participation went up a gazillion
percent, and they
think "Hey, that should work here too, right?"  I
don't think so, and
as I mentioned in my first post to this thread, there's so
much more
we can do with our *existing* tools to make them more user
friendly,
humane and effective, and we should focus on that.  If more
people
find your catalogue easy and pleasing to use, I'd say that's
a perfect
example of building a 'web 2.0' technology: focusing on the
person,
and not on the computer.

Library 2.0, I also think, is a similar shift in focus: not
on the
collection, but on the people using it.  If you were to
abstract both
of these ideas out to their barest minimum, I would say that
the
'2.0's' are recognizing that people are the most important
things, and
that the most important thing we can do for those people is
to lower
the barrier of entry to the tools we have.

Andrew


On 4/30/07, Hutchens, Chad <chutchensmontana.edu> wrote:
> I agree with David and Lisa on this one (in that I
think we should evaluate all new technologies on their own
merits).  I think we've let the Library 2.0/Web 2.0
phenomenon get a bit out of control.  Honestly, I think it's
a fad that will pass sooner than later.  The biggest problem
with it is that it means something different to everyone. 
The result of that is that we glob every new technology
under "Library 2.0"  5 or so years ago when
virtual reference arose (whther it was IM or email-based),
it was just virtual reference.  And that's what it still is,
although there are new ways to accomplish it.  But now that
we've got a whole slew of people proselytizing about Library
2.0 it's been placed under that useless umbrella term (just
like everything else from what a librairan wears to whether
or not a library has a blog).
>
> I was at SXSW Interactive this past March and the whole
tone of the conference (which is very web geek
oriented...it's like geek summer camp), was that we need to
abandon the term Web 2.0.  These were real hardcore web
folks...they're starting to move past this.  Some panels
even renamed their presentations and took out the term Web
2.0 because of the backlash against the term.  Maybe we'll
catch up in 2 years.  Anyway, the one thing that stuck most
was one gentleman, Jeremy Keith (adactio.com and
clearleft.com), saying that we need to evaluate new
technologies on their own terms, decide what purpose they
really serve, and evaluate what use they satisfy.  He noted
that much of what's out there (especially in terms of
mash-ups) was just fluff.  I'd have to agree.
>
> In my opinion, blogs, wikis, and RSS are a good
starting point for the conversation in libraryland, but we
need to move on.  Thinking that we'll make better libraries
just because we have a blog, a wiki, or RSS feeds seems a
bit ridiculous to me.  I don't see users clamoring for RSS
feeds of library news...in fact, the vast majority of people
don't even know what it is, much less how to use it.  The
email newsletter will still reach more people than an RSS
feed...it's not as sexy, but it is a fact.  Why are we
focussing on something that will have such a small and
limited impact?  Because it's Library 2.0!  It must be good
then right?  When I look around at all the Library 2.0
applications, I have to wonder if we're serving our users,
or ourselves?
>
> As far as programming skills go, I think one needs to
be able to get their hands dirty at a bare minimum.  I
realize most libraries won't have a dedicated web/systems
person (unless they're a focussed on the ILS), but a basic
understanding of how all this stuff works can go a very long
way.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Chad Hutchens
> E-Resources Librarian
> Montana State University Bozeman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org on behalf
of David Kemper
> Sent: Mon 4/30/2007 10:11 AM
> To: web4lib
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Skills for Library 2.0 Leaders
>
> I agree. We should let user needs, issues, concerns
determine what
> technologies we need to deploy. If the user encounters
access
> problems, we should examine those Web 2.0 technologies
that would best
> solve the problem. Wikis, rss, podcasting, IM and
supporting web
> technologies give us all more power but we should focus
on how they
> can truly benefit the users. First human, then
technology. The other
> way around and we'll likely face a revolt and taint Web
2.0's
> potential.
>
> David
>
> Archivist, Web Services
> IMF Archives
>
> On 4/30/07, Pons, Lisa (ponslm) <PONSLMucmail.uc.edu> wrote:
> > I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew's commenst.
There are many
> > technologies out there that can be deployed, but
if you don't know how
> > to turn patron needs into useful applications, it
won't matter.
> >
> > I often hear staff saying "how can we use a
wiki(or RSS, or
> > podcasting)"...but this always seems
backwards to me. We should think
> > about how we can make our online services more
useful, and then from
> > there decide what technology would be best for
that purpose.
> >
> > Lisa Pons-Haitz
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
> > > [mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew Hankinson
> > > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:02 AM
> > > To: web4lib
> > > Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Skills for Library 2.0
Leaders
> > >
> > > Maybe it's just personal bias, but the
singlemost important
> > > technical skill I think a 'Web 2.0' person
should have is an
> > > understanding of usability, user interface
design,
> > > information visualization and 'humane
interfaces.'
> > >
> > > Coding and technical skills are necessary,
but technologies
> > > such as Ruby-on-Rails or Django are coming
along that lower
> > > that barrier, making coding large, dynamic
applications easier.
> > >
> > > Web 2.0, in my mind, is about removing the
technological
> > > barriers of access to everyone participating
on the web, not
> > > just the people who know 'the languages.' 
(Languages can
> > > include HTML and CSS, but also unnatural
constructs such as
> > > searching with Boolean operators.)
> > >
> > > Until we make our catalogues, websites,
databases and
> > > resources a pleasure to use, it doesn't
matter how
> > > technically brilliant they are
> > > - people still won't use them.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > On 4/30/07, Greb, Jennifer <jgrebtulsalibrary.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi, All,
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious to know what you all (the
experts) think are essential
> > > > skills for librarians who might be
coordinating "Library 2.0"
> > > > technology in their libraries.  I think
that the ability to present
> > > > trainings, build teams, make plans, etc,
are essential, but I'm
> > > > especially interested in knowing about
the technical skills
> > > needed.
> > > > Does one just need to know how to use
RSS, wikis, blogs, and so on,
> > > > and contract with vendors or others to
make it work with
> > > the library
> > > > website, or do you think such a staff
person needs to know
> > > ColdFusion,
> > > > PHP, and other very technical skills?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On a secondary note, what job titles
have you heard of that would
> > > > describe such a position?  I've heard
Internet Librarian, Virtual
> > > > Branch Manager, and various others...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks so much!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer Greb, Coordinator
> > > >
> > > > Ruth G. Hardman Adult Literacy Service
> > > >
> > > > Tulsa City County Library
> > > >
> > > > 918.596.7958
> > > >
> > > > jgrebtulsalibrary.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > > > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

A-freakin-men.  Good post.

However, I do take exception to one small sentence of your
post:

"Honestly, I think it's a fad that will pass sooner
than later."

While I agree that the term 'library 2.0' or 'web 2.0' will
rightfully
fade from everyday use ("Information Superhighway"
anyone??), it's
serving as a useful way of identifying a particular meme
that, until
it gets embedded into society, people can label something
and say
'this is Web 2.0.'

So, while I think that the term will pass, I don't think
what web 2.0
*stands for* is a fad that will pass.  What this fad has
brought is
the idea that anyone can participate in the internet, the
single-most
important human innovation since the book, and with the
potential to
surpass the book in terms of fast, effective, multi-media
communication of ideas.

Libraries, etc. that want to get on board with
participative
technologies are, as was said in a previous post, often
looking to
deploy a solution without an existing problem. Often it's
because they
read somewhere that Library X implemented a blog for its
reader's
advisory group and participation went up a gazillion
percent, and they
think "Hey, that should work here too, right?"  I
don't think so, and
as I mentioned in my first post to this thread, there's so
much more
we can do with our *existing* tools to make them more user
friendly,
humane and effective, and we should focus on that.  If more
people
find your catalogue easy and pleasing to use, I'd say that's
a perfect
example of building a 'web 2.0' technology: focusing on the
person,
and not on the computer.

Library 2.0, I also think, is a similar shift in focus: not
on the
collection, but on the people using it.  If you were to
abstract both
of these ideas out to their barest minimum, I would say that
the
'2.0's' are recognizing that people are the most important
things, and
that the most important thing we can do for those people is
to lower
the barrier of entry to the tools we have.

Andrew


On 4/30/07, Hutchens, Chad <chutchensmontana.edu> wrote:
> I agree with David and Lisa on this one (in that I
think we should evaluate all new technologies on their own
merits).  I think we've let the Library 2.0/Web 2.0
phenomenon get a bit out of control.  Honestly, I think it's
a fad that will pass sooner than later.  The biggest problem
with it is that it means something different to everyone. 
The result of that is that we glob every new technology
under "Library 2.0"  5 or so years ago when
virtual reference arose (whther it was IM or email-based),
it was just virtual reference.  And that's what it still is,
although there are new ways to accomplish it.  But now that
we've got a whole slew of people proselytizing about Library
2.0 it's been placed under that useless umbrella term (just
like everything else from what a librairan wears to whether
or not a library has a blog).
>
> I was at SXSW Interactive this past March and the whole
tone of the conference (which is very web geek
oriented...it's like geek summer camp), was that we need to
abandon the term Web 2.0.  These were real hardcore web
folks...they're starting to move past this.  Some panels
even renamed their presentations and took out the term Web
2.0 because of the backlash against the term.  Maybe we'll
catch up in 2 years.  Anyway, the one thing that stuck most
was one gentleman, Jeremy Keith (adactio.com and
clearleft.com), saying that we need to evaluate new
technologies on their own terms, decide what purpose they
really serve, and evaluate what use they satisfy.  He noted
that much of what's out there (especially in terms of
mash-ups) was just fluff.  I'd have to agree.
>
> In my opinion, blogs, wikis, and RSS are a good
starting point for the conversation in libraryland, but we
need to move on.  Thinking that we'll make better libraries
just because we have a blog, a wiki, or RSS feeds seems a
bit ridiculous to me.  I don't see users clamoring for RSS
feeds of library news...in fact, the vast majority of people
don't even know what it is, much less how to use it.  The
email newsletter will still reach more people than an RSS
feed...it's not as sexy, but it is a fact.  Why are we
focussing on something that will have such a small and
limited impact?  Because it's Library 2.0!  It must be good
then right?  When I look around at all the Library 2.0
applications, I have to wonder if we're serving our users,
or ourselves?
>
> As far as programming skills go, I think one needs to
be able to get their hands dirty at a bare minimum.  I
realize most libraries won't have a dedicated web/systems
person (unless they're a focussed on the ILS), but a basic
understanding of how all this stuff works can go a very long
way.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Chad Hutchens
> E-Resources Librarian
> Montana State University Bozeman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org on behalf
of David Kemper
> Sent: Mon 4/30/2007 10:11 AM
> To: web4lib
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Skills for Library 2.0 Leaders
>
> I agree. We should let user needs, issues, concerns
determine what
> technologies we need to deploy. If the user encounters
access
> problems, we should examine those Web 2.0 technologies
that would best
> solve the problem. Wikis, rss, podcasting, IM and
supporting web
> technologies give us all more power but we should focus
on how they
> can truly benefit the users. First human, then
technology. The other
> way around and we'll likely face a revolt and taint Web
2.0's
> potential.
>
> David
>
> Archivist, Web Services
> IMF Archives
>
> On 4/30/07, Pons, Lisa (ponslm) <PONSLMucmail.uc.edu> wrote:
> > I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew's commenst.
There are many
> > technologies out there that can be deployed, but
if you don't know how
> > to turn patron needs into useful applications, it
won't matter.
> >
> > I often hear staff saying "how can we use a
wiki(or RSS, or
> > podcasting)"...but this always seems
backwards to me. We should think
> > about how we can make our online services more
useful, and then from
> > there decide what technology would be best for
that purpose.
> >
> > Lisa Pons-Haitz
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
> > > [mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew Hankinson
> > > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:02 AM
> > > To: web4lib
> > > Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Skills for Library 2.0
Leaders
> > >
> > > Maybe it's just personal bias, but the
singlemost important
> > > technical skill I think a 'Web 2.0' person
should have is an
> > > understanding of usability, user interface
design,
> > > information visualization and 'humane
interfaces.'
> > >
> > > Coding and technical skills are necessary,
but technologies
> > > such as Ruby-on-Rails or Django are coming
along that lower
> > > that barrier, making coding large, dynamic
applications easier.
> > >
> > > Web 2.0, in my mind, is about removing the
technological
> > > barriers of access to everyone participating
on the web, not
> > > just the people who know 'the languages.' 
(Languages can
> > > include HTML and CSS, but also unnatural
constructs such as
> > > searching with Boolean operators.)
> > >
> > > Until we make our catalogues, websites,
databases and
> > > resources a pleasure to use, it doesn't
matter how
> > > technically brilliant they are
> > > - people still won't use them.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > On 4/30/07, Greb, Jennifer <jgrebtulsalibrary.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi, All,
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious to know what you all (the
experts) think are essential
> > > > skills for librarians who might be
coordinating "Library 2.0"
> > > > technology in their libraries.  I think
that the ability to present
> > > > trainings, build teams, make plans, etc,
are essential, but I'm
> > > > especially interested in knowing about
the technical skills
> > > needed.
> > > > Does one just need to know how to use
RSS, wikis, blogs, and so on,
> > > > and contract with vendors or others to
make it work with
> > > the library
> > > > website, or do you think such a staff
person needs to know
> > > ColdFusion,
> > > > PHP, and other very technical skills?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On a secondary note, what job titles
have you heard of that would
> > > > describe such a position?  I've heard
Internet Librarian, Virtual
> > > > Branch Manager, and various others...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks so much!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer Greb, Coordinator
> > > >
> > > > Ruth G. Hardman Adult Literacy Service
> > > >
> > > > Tulsa City County Library
> > > >
> > > > 918.596.7958
> > > >
> > > > jgrebtulsalibrary.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > > > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4libwebjunction.org
> > http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/