This article discusses the transformation of web technologies within the library environment. It describes how Library 2.0, the theory behind changes to libraries and librarians in the information age, integrates with Web 2.0 technologies to provide an innovative and high service library model.
Maness outlines Web 2.0 as having advanced from textual publications on the web, similar to reading pages from a book, to a web of multi-sensory communications (Maness, 2006, p. P. 2). The assortment of web tools being used in libraries currently supports this theory as it is common place for larger libraries to offer services such as Instant Messaging (IM) allowing users to talk to librarians instantly from any computer, whether from within the library or a remote location, as well as library blogging used for patrons of the library, where they can follow what’s new in the library and any change to library services or as Casey & Savastinuk suggest internal blogging is a very important tool for library staff in today’s busy work place where staff no longer have a chance to catch up with colleagues and participate in social discussion as they did in past decades. Positive working relationships is crucial for staff morale, often facilitating great team camaraderie (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007 p. 78-79).
While Maness outlines many Web 2.0 applications that are improving our library services he suggests that OPAC is static and not in line with today’s Web 2.0 concept of interactive technology. Maness’ reasoning is that OPAC requires users to undertake multiple searches for topics as it does not reply with recommendations similar to what users would receive when using a more dynamic Web 2.0 application such as Amazon.com which collects users data from past searches and uses this data when considering results for the new search item (Maness, 2006, p. 2). While this is true, some responsibility of research should still fall back to the users. If information searches were as simple as an Amazon search, where would it lead our impressionable primary and tertiary school students who are learning and preparing their information search skills for university or the workforce? In the not too distant future would a student merely need to type one word entries to research a topic and automatically every possible result is on their screen? From there could the user simply use their voice recording device to dictate the text to be written in their essay and instantly the assignment is completed? Where is the merit in this type of searching? Lynch attributes the dumbing-down of web searches to a population accustomed to Google searches. He describes a scenario where users tend to carry out one-word searches for a topic rather than searching the idea and this is a habit that needs to be un-learned (Lynch, 2005).
While Web 2.0 technology in libraries is innovative, to be effective and a powerful drawcard for patrons it must be used in unison with the Library 2.0 concept. Maness brashly suggests that the term Library 2.0 should be only limited to web-based services and not library services (Maness, 2006, p. 3). Casey & Savastinuk’s view differs, defining Library 2.0 as a model for constant and purposeful change with libraries empowering their users through user driven services and to service current library users while reaching out to attract non-users (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007, p. 5). If Maness’ viewpoint was to take effect, under what term would the advancement of library services, not web-based, be listed? Services such as space planning, responding to users’ needs, improving library procedures and staff training are clearly not web based but an important part of library evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment