Danah Boyd on glocalization

September 20, 2006 at 8:34 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Danah Boyd gave a great talk on glocalization (she does point out how ghastly that word is) at a March, 2006 O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference.  She discusses how local culture and globalization collide in the area of social software design.  The social software examples she looks at (MySpace, Flickr, and craigslist) all have “embedded observation” from the designers of the systems.  These organic communities with embedded observers can be quirky, individual, and “real”; they can also be exhausting and frustrating for the embedded observers/creators, especially as the communities grow.

“Embedded observation takes into account the cultural forces that can not be systematically tested or modeled. As a result, the designers are aware of social problems when they materialize and can work immediately to try to influence change. Their efforts at understanding culture and evolving the design alongside it create a meaningful bond between the users and the designers.”

Community growth leads to culture clashes as a greater variety of people enter the community and form sub-communities.  “Language barriers make it hard for people to communicate. Cultural barriers make it hard for them to understand each other. Social barriers make them not care. Just because people _can_ connect globally does not mean they want to.”

I also like her statement: “Don’t design for perfection – design for reinterpretation. No matter how perfect you see your design, it will be modified, altered or manipulated in use. If you design for perfection, you will be disappointed in what people do. Design conscientiously but plan to react immediately after something goes out. Make sure you’re able to make changes on the live server quickly and in response to what people are doing. You may have thought something that you threw out there was culturally sound, but it might not be – be prepared to change it.”  I wonder if that could apply not just to social software/communities, but also to more formal spaces such as a digital library?

Advertisements

More more better faster cheaper…those guys at Cornell

September 15, 2006 at 5:13 pm | Posted in conference presentations, Cornell, future of libraries, more better faster cheaper, RLG | Leave a comment

Again with the RLG Members Forum presentations. Jim LeBlanc, head of database management services at Cornell University, presents “More, Faster, Cheaper: Pragmatism and Paradox in the Quest for Better Bibliographic Access.” I guess that “better” is present in the latter half of the title, but it took me a while to notice it, and I thought it was telling that at first glance the emphasis is just on more, faster, cheaper, not better.

It’s an interesting presentation but he sure likes a good hysterical and self-congratulatory analogy now and then (cataloging a backlog is like emergency military field medicine! Uh, yeah). I have mixed feelings about the efforts at Cornell. On the one hand, eliminating backlogs IS important. It doesn’t do researchers any good to have things hidden away in tech services. And maybe their backlog was so big, they had no choice but to cut corners.

On the other hand, there are questions….of course there is the issue of “any access may be better than no access, but is just any access actually good access?” which I think others have addressed. What I also take away from his talk is that Cornell achieved what it did partly through backing away from being a full participant in the shared cataloging community (and I think LC is doing the same thing these days). You saved time by not examining, correcting, and replacing OCLC copy cataloging, or by inputting minimal-level records. Good for you. But bad for any other library who now has to pick up the slack and correct that erroneous or minimal-level record itself.

My guess is that many cataloging departments at smaller institutions cut back on staff as LC and other big players were able to share their high-quality records (and other services, such as contributions to the authority file, LCSH, etc.) more easily in the modern shared cataloging environment. (Are there any stats out there for this?) And maybe it’s not fair for LC and Cornell and other big guys to have to shoulder more of that responsibility–but, on the other hand, they have bigger staffs, budgets, etc. than smaller libraries. So what happens as the “big guys” drop their own contribution to the greater good (of shared datasets like WorldCat or LCSH) and say, “Screw you, these records are good enough for us, if you want to see them enhanced you’ll have to wait for someone else to do it”? When do you run out of “someone else”? How many libraries without enhance capabilities, or the ability to submit NACO headings, will be left hanging because a) the big guys aren’t doing it and b) the barriers to becoming one of the big guys are too high?

MBFC visual resources cataloging, and Yale’s cross-collections search

September 15, 2006 at 2:25 pm | Posted in conference presentations, digital libraries, federated searching, mint royale, more better faster cheaper, RLG, visual resources cataloging, Yale | Leave a comment

Another presentation from our friend the More, Better, Faster, Cheaper forum from RLG. Katherine Haskins of Yale talks about visual resources cataloging, and I like her intro:

“…I will argue that for us to achieve more better faster cheaper descriptive practices, we would do well … to acknowledge that the best descriptive practice is as much a public as a technical service. [WHOOOO go Yale lady!!!!] … process improvement and a focus on stakeholders are the obverse and reverse of the same coin.”

(I haven’t heard anyone use the word “obverse” in several years.)

A few random notes: Yale uses Luna Insight for image management and delivery. I like their emphasis on “listening to stakeholders” in this project, though they have the advantage of having a well-defined group of stakeholders in this case.

Here’s a link to a 2006 ALA Big Heads report from Yale which includes a few notes about their DPIP (Digital Production and Integration Program), which sounds a tiny bit similar to our DIMP program, and the IDIR (Integrated Digital Image Resources) program that Ms. Haskins runs. We should look into these.

I also notice that Yale has an awesome “cross-collections search” feature for their digital collections. I can’t believe they chose white-text-on-black-background for it (owie my eyes!!) but I love that they offer it at all, and I love that there are links right there on the page to the advanced search screen, too. I wonder if the different collections included all use the same type of metadata.

In terms of user-friendliness, I wish the search feature (dare I call it…a catalog?) had its own icon to make it easier to find, and I wonder if patrons find & use it very much. I also wish so many of my search results weren’t “You are not authorized to view this page,” but I think that has to do with campus-only resources being included.

More, better, faster, cheaper, whatever

September 15, 2006 at 2:25 pm | Posted in conference presentations, future of libraries, more better faster cheaper, RLG | 1 Comment

The RLG Programs blog pointed me to the online presentations from the recent RLG Members Forum, “More, better, faster, cheaper.” I love the fact that they’ve made mp3s of many of the presentations available online–so much more useful than just someone’s skeletal PowerPoint slides, and I’m working my way through the presentations gradually.

I really enjoy the keynote speech by Mark Dimunation, the chief of the rare books/spec coll section at the Library of Congress. Lately some cringe-worthy ideas have been coming from LC (not the fault of most of their employees, of course) and it was refreshing and inspiring to hear from someone there who still believes in traditional library strengths and services.

I particularly enjoyed his story about (paraphrasing wildly, sorry) a young, enthusiastic digital librarian type who, at a presentation to LC staff about the digitization project he had been working on, lamented the need for organization and categorization of the material, even having controlled subject access….until someone at the back of the room piped up with, “Hey, kid, you mean like LCSH?” Har.

Here’s the quote that is getting quoted elsewhere and I think it’s pretty good:
“Most of us in this room hold substantial arrearages of research materials that are inaccessible, because they lack some level of cataloging description. Most of us, including this speaker, still work with a bibliographic catalog that is only partially converted to digital form. It is difficult for me to carry my collections into the 21st century when we haven’t yet finished the work of the 20th century. […] We cannot jettison the work at hand in mid-stream, just because the future is coming. Posturing toward the future does us little good. We cannot embrace the future empty-handed. We must bring the past forward into the greeting. It is time for us now to work quickly and to work smart.”

what the hey

September 15, 2006 at 2:25 pm | Posted in intro, mint royale | Leave a comment

Hello. This is a collection of notes on what I run across in the library/cataloging literature (etc.) so I can keep up with them without having to write out notes in hardcopy. Since my employer doesn’t see fit to supply notepads to employees and all. Cheers!

hey–clicking the “Publish” button is what actually PUBLISHES the post. Learn something new every day.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.