Pardon the redundancy, folks. Obviously, we started delving into Meebo in the last Thing, but I think what sets the tasks in this Thing apart are the requests to experiment with Meebo Rooms and to explore embedding the MeeboMe widgit into library web pages.
Actually, I'd already taken part in a Meebo Room chat as part of RUSA outreach initiative aimed at soliciting input on boosting participation, and I felt that the platform was well-suited to that type of discussion. I could follow and participate in the conversation, submit questions without disrupting the flow of the exchange, and I was even able to send quick text messages to other participants outside of the context of the group discussion. I participated in a similar chat as part of a NoveList-sponsored exchange that sought input on upgrades to the database's interface. While face-to-face exchanges are preferable, Meebo Rooms offer a nice alternative when everyone can't be there or when you're dealing with a group that's dispersed all over the state and/or country.
The MeeboMe widgit is also cool, and I definitely think this is something MCPL should consider embedding in our catalog. Obvious spots include the "no results" page in the PAC, the "Research Tools" page, and on our "Help" pages (e.g. the Help page in the PAC and as an adjunct to AskUs).
Now Twitter is another story. This is a tool that I really see no redeeming value in whatsoever. Wow. I mean, there are Web 2.0 tools that are veritable wastes of time, and then there's Twitter. This thing, in my humble opinion, takes the cake.
I'm struggling not to say something extremely negative about Twitter (and failing) because I don't want to upset those who do like it. But I really don't get it. However, something that David Lee King said about Twitter in one of the linked web pages really struck a chord with me (and offered me a more diplomatic means of dismissing this tool). He mentions that some in the library blogosphere may be pondering the usefulness of Twitter. He states that if you're one of these people, then perhaps it's simply not the tool for you. And that really does hit the nail on the proverbial head--and is applicable to more Web 2.0 tools than Twitter.
I'm currently only up to Thing 7, and I've seen a few tools that have real library potential. Really cool stuff. But I've also run across a few applications--like Twitter--that seem pointless. And perhaps that what we as a library need to do: weigh the good and bad of these tools and then make a decision about which one's we'd like to experiment with. Honestly, is there a reason to try each of them out, or can we draw some conclusion via research and save ourselves the trouble of facilitating an implementation that only ends up wasting staff time and library resources? I'm inclined to think we can, indeed, draw reasoned conclusions without implementing each and every tool. In fact, all of this makes me think of an article I read recently over at Mashable.com. The question asked in the article is: can you join too many social networks? The answer, obviously, is 'yes'. These tools should boost productivity, not hinder it. This means we need to figure out which tools boost productivity; and if a tool has the potential to both boost and hinder it, then we need to figure out which features boost productivity and only use those features.
My two cents.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thing 6 - Communication Tools
Ah, communication tools. I'm a real sucker for them because I'm a sucker for communication. It's up there with mastication, hibernation, and...well, you get the point. Anyway, communication tools. Good stuff.
The first "thing" I was asked to consider was electronic mail (i.e. email). I've experimented with all three: Gmail, YahooMail, and Hotmail. I started on Hotmail back in the previous millennium, and I've stuck with it 'cause I'm lazy. YahooMail, which I teach to the public in the tech classes, is just like Hotmail except you are subjected to a lot more advertising and logging in via the Yahoo! main page is a pain in the tuckus. Gmail is an entirely different animal, and, I must admit, I'm intrigued. The idea of organizing emails via tags instead of folders and managing back-and-forths as "conversations" is starting to grow on me, and I may eventually ask my friends to start contacting me there. What's especially appealing about Gmail is the fact that you can adjust your settings so that you are always logged in via a secure connection (i.e. https) and that any data you send is encrypted. No, I'm not planning anything illegal, but--call me crazy--I still value my privacy.
When it comes to email ettiquette (or, as I like to call it, e-tact), I think I do pretty good. When it comes to productivity, I probably do allow myself to get distracted by email. As such, I thought the productivity hints were good, though the only one that potentially applies to me is the need to ignore new messages as they come in and instead tackle emails in chunks. Yet, in IS, it's kind of a given that we keep up on incoming messages. I also subscribe to four listservs, and the volume of emails can overwhelm (I receive about 100 a day); however, one trick I've found for managing listserv messages is to set up filters that put them directly into folders other than my inbox. This is nice because in Outlook you only get on-screen prompts for emails that show up in your inbox, so the filters are working to reduce distractions.
I also thought the email ettiquette tips were good. At one point in time (that lasted all of three weeks), I did think it was "cute" to write in all lower case letters, but now I can't stand it (irks me almost as much as getting emails in ALL CAPS, which I equate with shouting). Email hoaxes and viral emails are another story. My mother is notorious for forwarding me spam/virus hoaxes, and I'm constantly emailing her back links to Snopes.com, which does a purty darn good job of debunking these things.
The next part of this Thing was instant messaging. This past week I experimented with IM'ing with some cohorts here in the library. The first thing we realized is that not everyone uses the same chat service. Some use AOL, some Yahoo, and some (like me) Google Chat. As such, we were forced to look into the IM aggregators. The first one we tried was Pidgin, but I had a tough time getting it just right and decided it wasn't for the casual chat user. Next, we gave Meebo a shot. This turned out well. It was very easy to use, and my only complaint is that there's no clean and easy way to leave it running in the background and get prompts when new messages show up without running it in Firefox, which requires users to download a plug-in. Obviously, I need to experiment with it some more, and I think more experimentation is warrented because I really do think that IM has potential not only as a means for enhancing reference service but also as a way for staff to contact IS (and, yes, I've been extremely skeptical of chat reference in the past--and I still am--but it's worth a try).
Ah, texting. That's how I'd like to introduce my examination of the third part of this Thing. Just a simple, "Ah, texting". Now that I've said something value-free, I'll remind all that I was (and am) skeptical of chat reference. I feel the same way about text reference--as long as it doesn't involve librarians staring at a 1 inch by 1 inch screen and tapping out answers on a keyboard best suited for Ken and Barbie's little fingers. If, however, it involves responding to texted inquires via a bona fide desktop computer screen and full-size keyboard, then bring it on. And, indeed, the Reference Librarian article did mention that there is an add-on that converts text messages to emails which can be responded to via email and then converted back to text messages. I say that we give it a shot.
The last part of this Thing is web conferencing. I'll say that I've had positive experiences with it, and I've had lukewarm experiences. The WebJunction article does a good job of encapsulating the features and drawbacks, and I don't have much to add there. I have taken part in a fair number of web conferences and such. We've hosted a handful of remote Polaris training sessions here at MCPL in which the speaker "pushed" PowerPoint slides and spoke through a phone line, and I've taken part in three chat-based NoveList training sessions with a pushed PowerPoint presentation but during which I wore a headset and participated via a chat client. I also partook in a RUSA chat-based conference with a group of younger librarians via a Meebo chat client. All went relatively well, but the real challenge is staying engaged. But isn't that the challenge with any type of learning opportunity? Granted, it's probably a bit tougher to keep folks involved when the "teacher" isn't in the room, but if you're passionate about the subject matter, then any opportunity to participate is a bonus.
The first "thing" I was asked to consider was electronic mail (i.e. email). I've experimented with all three: Gmail, YahooMail, and Hotmail. I started on Hotmail back in the previous millennium, and I've stuck with it 'cause I'm lazy. YahooMail, which I teach to the public in the tech classes, is just like Hotmail except you are subjected to a lot more advertising and logging in via the Yahoo! main page is a pain in the tuckus. Gmail is an entirely different animal, and, I must admit, I'm intrigued. The idea of organizing emails via tags instead of folders and managing back-and-forths as "conversations" is starting to grow on me, and I may eventually ask my friends to start contacting me there. What's especially appealing about Gmail is the fact that you can adjust your settings so that you are always logged in via a secure connection (i.e. https) and that any data you send is encrypted. No, I'm not planning anything illegal, but--call me crazy--I still value my privacy.
When it comes to email ettiquette (or, as I like to call it, e-tact), I think I do pretty good. When it comes to productivity, I probably do allow myself to get distracted by email. As such, I thought the productivity hints were good, though the only one that potentially applies to me is the need to ignore new messages as they come in and instead tackle emails in chunks. Yet, in IS, it's kind of a given that we keep up on incoming messages. I also subscribe to four listservs, and the volume of emails can overwhelm (I receive about 100 a day); however, one trick I've found for managing listserv messages is to set up filters that put them directly into folders other than my inbox. This is nice because in Outlook you only get on-screen prompts for emails that show up in your inbox, so the filters are working to reduce distractions.
I also thought the email ettiquette tips were good. At one point in time (that lasted all of three weeks), I did think it was "cute" to write in all lower case letters, but now I can't stand it (irks me almost as much as getting emails in ALL CAPS, which I equate with shouting). Email hoaxes and viral emails are another story. My mother is notorious for forwarding me spam/virus hoaxes, and I'm constantly emailing her back links to Snopes.com, which does a purty darn good job of debunking these things.
The next part of this Thing was instant messaging. This past week I experimented with IM'ing with some cohorts here in the library. The first thing we realized is that not everyone uses the same chat service. Some use AOL, some Yahoo, and some (like me) Google Chat. As such, we were forced to look into the IM aggregators. The first one we tried was Pidgin, but I had a tough time getting it just right and decided it wasn't for the casual chat user. Next, we gave Meebo a shot. This turned out well. It was very easy to use, and my only complaint is that there's no clean and easy way to leave it running in the background and get prompts when new messages show up without running it in Firefox, which requires users to download a plug-in. Obviously, I need to experiment with it some more, and I think more experimentation is warrented because I really do think that IM has potential not only as a means for enhancing reference service but also as a way for staff to contact IS (and, yes, I've been extremely skeptical of chat reference in the past--and I still am--but it's worth a try).
Ah, texting. That's how I'd like to introduce my examination of the third part of this Thing. Just a simple, "Ah, texting". Now that I've said something value-free, I'll remind all that I was (and am) skeptical of chat reference. I feel the same way about text reference--as long as it doesn't involve librarians staring at a 1 inch by 1 inch screen and tapping out answers on a keyboard best suited for Ken and Barbie's little fingers. If, however, it involves responding to texted inquires via a bona fide desktop computer screen and full-size keyboard, then bring it on. And, indeed, the Reference Librarian article did mention that there is an add-on that converts text messages to emails which can be responded to via email and then converted back to text messages. I say that we give it a shot.
The last part of this Thing is web conferencing. I'll say that I've had positive experiences with it, and I've had lukewarm experiences. The WebJunction article does a good job of encapsulating the features and drawbacks, and I don't have much to add there. I have taken part in a fair number of web conferences and such. We've hosted a handful of remote Polaris training sessions here at MCPL in which the speaker "pushed" PowerPoint slides and spoke through a phone line, and I've taken part in three chat-based NoveList training sessions with a pushed PowerPoint presentation but during which I wore a headset and participated via a chat client. I also partook in a RUSA chat-based conference with a group of younger librarians via a Meebo chat client. All went relatively well, but the real challenge is staying engaged. But isn't that the challenge with any type of learning opportunity? Granted, it's probably a bit tougher to keep folks involved when the "teacher" isn't in the room, but if you're passionate about the subject matter, then any opportunity to participate is a bonus.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thing 5 - Online Image Generators
This was the lamest Thing so far. I want to apologize for that. However, I want you all to know that this Thing is a part of every other 23 Things initiative out there. Hopefully "things" only get better from this point forward.Now that I have that out of the way, let me share my constructive thoughts on online image generators. The first thing I did was to take a look at the trading cards created by the staff at Carleton College. These are super cool (and I wish I had one to hand out), but I don't think they were created using any of the tools listed in the 'Resources' section of this Thing. I'm guessing that they were put together using either Microsoft Publisher or Photoshop. That said, I think they're quite nifty. Back when I worked at Janko's Little Zagreb in the late '90s, our Sisco rep, Birch, had a limited number of trading cards that he handed out as business cards. These were made to look like the classic Topps baseball trading cards of the 1970s and were tied to the Sisco softball team here in Bloomington. Like I said, nifty.
And that's really the beauty of the online image generators, they allow you to easily make eye-catching promotional materials like trading cards, motivational posters, faux billboard advertisements, and the like. But another thing that online image generators do is to offer inspiration. Yes, I was disappointed that the trading card template offered by Big Huge Labs looked nothing like that used by the Carleton College staff, but, given the resources at MCPL, there's no reason we can't simply use the ideas and templates on display via the online image generator websites featured in Thing 5 as inspiration for our own in-house creations.
Of the three resources listed, I liked Big Huge Labs the best. They seemed to offer a nice variety of templates, and the site was easy to navigate and use. I was less impressed with Image Chef. Yes, there's inspiration to be had there, but the actual site itself was a tad underwhelming. I wanted to create a book cover and a campaign button, but I just didn't have the control over text size and alignment that I felt was necessary to make creations worthy of sharing. Toon Doo is an entirely different animal altogether.
Toon Doo allows you to create single- or multi-panel comics. I can see this being a purty cool tool for promoting programs geared toward that sort of content and/or toward an audience attracted to the medium (i.e. tweens and teens). I did experiment with the site a little bit, but it seemed to require more time than I had at my disposal.I did go a step further and explored the new ALA "READ" poster generator. Now this is cool, and I've already created three different posters of myself with three of my favorite titles (like the one of me here with my favorite Wilhelm Reich title). And maybe it's just me, but I'd love to see staff posters of this sort on display in MCPL. I mean, the Graphics Dept already owns the bells-and-whistles version of this software, so why aren't we putting it to use?
A final word on how these image generators can be used: PowerPoint. Yes, we don't all use PowerPoint in our daily lives, but I personally grow tired of Microsoft's clip art gallery, and these online image generators offer an alternative to that. Anything that presents an alternative to boring bullet points is worth a moment's consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
