Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
madcow writes ""[T]here's no doubt that libraries have embraced technology. But speakers said that there was a larger split between students - who are "digital natives," in one popular way of classifying people based on their experience with technology - and librarians, who are more likely to be "digital immigrants." They may have learned the language, but itâ€™s a second language." So says the article at Inside Higher Ed.
"So if this hierarchical model doesn't reach today's students, what will?
James Paul Gee, a linguist who is the Tashia Morgridge Professor of Reading at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the author of Why Video Games Are Good for Your Soul, argued that librarians need to adapt their techniques to digital natives. A digital native would never read an instruction manual with a new game before simply trying the game out, Gee said. Similarly, students shouldn't be expected to read long explanations of tools they may use before they start experimenting with them.""
Devadason writes ""Facet Analysis and Semantic Web" is the topic of a write-up available at:
It examines the recent developments towards "Semantic Web" and discusses the need to take the Librarians' solutions and experience in handling information. Web is no longer just a communication medium, it is a global information system."
Peter Morville says Next year, after the bubble bursts, we will enter the era of Information Architecture 3.0. This wonâ€™t surprise Tim Oâ€™Reilly who slyly positioned the polar bear atop the #1 Google hit for Web 2.0 and commissioned the third edition just in time to clean up the mess.
In fact, this future is self-evident in the undisciplined, unbalanced quest for sexy Ajaxian interaction at the expense of usability, findability, accessibility, and other qualities of the user experience.
The Information Architecture Institute seeks nominations for members to serve on the 2006-2007 IAI Board of Directors. There are seven members of the Board of Directors and four open positions for this board term. Nominations are being acceped until August 31, with the election following in September. If you are interested in serving on the Board, you may nominate yourself, or if you know someone who you think will be an asset to the organization, you may nominate that person. Please contact membership AT iainstitute.org for more information or a link to the nomination form.
Subscribe to the free IAI Newsletter for monthly updates from the institute, including notices about conferences, workshops, volunteer opportunities and job postings.
SEO Google sent over an interesting one By Tim O'Reilly. He says Publishers need to get with the opportunity [electronic libraries], not be afraid of it! The role of "publishing" is rediscovered in each new medium after a period in which everyone argues that the playing field has been leveled once and for all.
Law.com Asks What if the file formats in which we save text documents, spreadsheets, charts and presentations -- all that stuff generated by so-called productivity software -- were not supported by future versions of the programs used to create them today, or by some as-yet-unimagined successor products? Could drifting file formats cause a kind of corporate Alzheimer's that threatens our ability to recall contracts, insurance policies, financial records, payroll data and other critical documents?
inicola writes "I would like to share a pet peeve of mine. I really hate the access issues in most library softwares that access fulltext. I don't think that they are nearly as trck enough to get students interested in them. When in the recent conversation with a cowarker it came up that perhaps one of the reasons for the access as a continuing issue was perhaps that we did not voice our needs or better yeat our clients needs well.
I will state the dread phrase without naming names, "search engines"
No one intends by proprietary nature to make a product poorly but the difference between library and other business softwares begs the question "why?"
Since one of my goals while working in a library was to help the patron navigate and access information I remain perplexed and disappoint at what search engines seem to do so much faster in the mind of the patron...I site a Bisson article of customer perceptions of libraries and search engines...
See the article I refer to:
Let's not beat a dead horse, but let us consistently ask for self aware software, that uses technology to the best of it's potential for directing the most patrons to their target resource efficiently...
Speed is relative and the mark and finish line to what is acceptable in retrieval situation will change as long as someone out in the great "out there" can find, make, suggest a better way...
Yay for paraprofessionals in the mix, because sometimes I think we underestimate our influence and our numbers..."
Search Engines Web tells us that Ward Cunningham, who created the Wiki concept more than ten years ago, is (surprise, surprise) an advocate of collaboration and publicly available information. The article cited includes a lot of background on where the concept came from, but in amongst the buzzwords like "agile development" might be a message for libraries about patron expectations in the future.
"I'm betting on open source being a big trend," Cunningham said, chuckling at his understatement. "And it's not just because of cost, but because of end-user innovation. No end user wants to be a programmer; they just want to get their jobs done," he said. But more and more people with powerful tools and powerful languages will be able to work together to build better systems, he said.
Over at Strange Horizons, James Schellenberg ponders the question, "If there are too many books, then why is it so hard to find a worthwhile one to read?" Considering the various strategies we employ in winnowing out, from the vast array of options available, the next book to read or the next movie to see, Schellenberg suggests that a sequel to a known work can offer a shortcut for the chooser. But of course even the realm of sequels is loaded with too many options and variations ... so Schellenberg proposes a taxonomy of sequels, remakes, and adaptations.
From Schellenberg's article:
I'm a librarian by training, and I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy, so my obsessive side (less politely: my nerdy side) often gets a workout. I was contemplating the proliferation of sequels and their ilk -- mostly when people argue about this stuff, it's to judge between the items. For example, are sequels written by other people inherently worse than sequels written by the original creator? But any argument needs to have its terms defined.
So here is a taxonomy.
Read the article and the taxonomy: "Sequels, Remakes, Adaptations," by James Schellenberg.
(Note that Schellenberg solicits comment and plans to maintain an updated copy of the taxonomy at his website.)
Search Engines Web writes: "The Wikimedia Foundation announced today the creation of the 1,000,000th article in the English language edition of Wikipedia. The article is about the Jordanhill railway station in Scotland, and it was started by Wikipedia contributor Ewan Macdonald. Wikipedia is a free, multilingual, online encyclopedia with 3.3 million articles under development in more than 125 languages."