LAUC Technology (4)

From LAUCWiki
Revision as of 15:31, 6 February 2012 by Phoebe (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


• Librarians need more and more training on technical (and management) issues to develop new skill sets

• Data curation will be huge. We need expertise.

• Scholarly publishing will increase.

o Cross-training within the library (7)

• Technology – related to infrastructure, there must be a universal technology used at all

• Technical Services has expertise that should be utilized in facilitating this change.

• WorldCat local is complicated by how difficult it is to access electronic content and how difficult it is to determine local availability. (8)

• Patrons expect that electronic materials have replaced print. (3)

• Mobile technology in all areas. They are a part of the job environment. We will provide mobile devices for students to use. (21)

• Challenge for us to help patrons in unfamiliar electronic environments via tools such as QP. (4)

• Digital delivery of any digital content (e.g. UC pays for any request, like Questia articles) (6)

• Federated searching that is less helpful than a user wants or needs (4)

• problems reconciling local v. more union-like catalogs. (6)


All groups expressed satisfaction with the internet (read Google) and the library although the library came in for complaints for difficulty in retrieving information--as opposed to finding it. The recommendation from those surveyed was to improve the library by making it more like Google.

Dervin, B., Reinhard, C. D., Kerr, Z. Y., Song, M., and She, F. C.: Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase II: Sense-making online survey and phone interview study, Institute of Museum and Library Services School of Communication, Washington D.C. Columbus, OH, 2006.

-With language as its object of study, the humanities can benefit enormously from digital technologies that can speed up the analysis of language.

- Among the digitized collections in existence, it is easier to find works prior to 1923 than afterwards because of copyright conditions.

-There are problems with the quality of scanning stemming from the limitations of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology.

-Many documents are available in snippets. Collections do not overlap as much as one might suspect.

-It further appears that there are deeply ingrained cultural patterns in humanities research based in the use of print resources. For these reasons, the report, for the foreseeable future sees a mixture of print and electronic resources instead of a wholesale conversion to digitization.

Henry, Charles, and Kathlin Smith. Ghostlier Demarcations: Large-Scale Text Digitization Projects and Their Utility for Contemporary Humanities Scholarship. Washington D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2010.

-Both UC Berkeley and UCSF have launched programs for accessing their websites from small mobile devices to increase accessibility to their collections. UCSF offers a range of capabilities for patrons accessing remotely. UC Berkeley allows patrons to search the library catalog with their cell phones and copy citations directly into the phones. More about each program can be found here:


UC Berkeley

-Tools included a use of Google Forms as a spreadsheet; innovative uses of twitter; tools for arranging and holding meetings over distances, time zones, and language barriers; debugging tools for web pages; cataloging tools and more. A link to the event is provided below. However, much of it had to do with professional work and communication between other professionals, a breakout technology to interact with the vast activity of social networking among students and patrons did not appear and has yet to be found.

A wiki page for the event can be found at:

- An overwhelming percentage began with internet search tools before moving to the library.

-chat reference - working with remote campuses not efficient; staffing issues pose a barrier to more service

-communications technology: e.g. libguides, Second Life, chat reference, Skype (bibliographer groups), Facebook, YouTube,

-new hardware to support communication and mobility (headsets, microphones, webcams for live video, choice of laptop vs. desktop computer)

-training & technology support for new project initiatives and content creation: opportunity to explore the use of new and old technologies in a "sandbox environment" to foster our in-house creativity, collaboration and peer-to-peer learning (requires rethinking of budget and time allocations, initiated by librarians with systems support)

-security/permissions issues stand in the way of using some useful technologies; (these restrictions, in some cases, originate at the campus level)

-social networking may not be relevant to the library's future; publicity tools not reference

-tutorials limited by rapid change of databases which make them irrelevant; tutorials may be viable if limited to major resources or perhaps as links to tutorials by vendors

-library chat for each reference desk: needs to be localized to campus rather than current 24/7 which brings in questions throughout the system; chat should incorporate text messaging

-Next Generation: inadequacy of Next Generation interface; overwhelming resource which floods the user with information; retain local catalog with local notes, easy search of UCDavis titles; improved accuracy/precision of a local catalog

- preservation/archiving technology: currently lack infrastructure to support digitization (produce, access), onsite; increased coordination necessary with CDL

- Endnote offers opportunities for new involvement with research practices

-use of clickers under consideration

- optimal future: local catalog, improved infrastructure to support digitization; shared cataloging; mobile versions of catalog and small mobile applications to support general library research (undergraduates)


Issue 2: Next-Gen Melvyl

Pros: • faceted searching; many international institutions are listing their materials; one place to search for information, books, journals, articles • Only catalog that offers my library, UC libraries, OCLC libraries, all libraries • Will be possible to see all in-process records • Each campus may adapt default display Cons: • federated search doesn't look for articles from all dbs we license

What are the most important pieces of advice that you would give to the designers of Next-Gen Melvyl?

• Implement an Authority Control for author listings

o Attend to the de-duping problem

• Implement Browse Headings Searches for authors & subjects (like our current OPAC)

• Change display from relevance to alphabetical by author name or subject heading

o Sort facet searching by author name or other reasonable way, not by # of records

• Provide guidance on how to search vernacular for materials published in non-Latin scripts

• Make smaller icons, so less scrolling needed

• If reporting locally, UCLA materials should be the default display

• Implement options for focused searches--Catalog only, Catalog + articles, Articles only

• Include RLF paging mechanism

• Include notice to users that it doesn't search all licensed databases

• Make it easier to find E-books:

• Add types of searches--

o search for specific item--e.g., Nature (journal)

o Call number

o better book series searching

o Searching: known item or subject – “start of” for titles, subjects, & keyword in subject

• Graphic design of records daunting--info spread out all over page; hard to figure out what sort of item you're looking at

• Ability to select items from search list to email, rather than have to go into record to email

• Option to display brief or detailed record

• Allow log-on users to do customize their displays


4. Technology Essentially all incoming freshmen own a laptop and most of them also have smart phones. Within a few years, all of our constituents will have mobile computing capabilities that enable full access to the resources of the library, any time and any place. In this context, what is the role of the library in providing technology?

4. Technology - To what extent/at what rate do libraries need to incorporate social networking capabilities into our services in order to maintain relevancy to our community of users?


Perhaps one way to go is to become data repositories as opposed to document repositories. That would mean that many librarians need formal training in mining that data. It is its own specialty. There are requests coming in from graduate students and faculty and it’s an area that most librarians are not currently specialists in. It’s all somewhat similar to what we’re currently doing in terms of pointing people in the right direction. Perhaps this is an esoteric position where not all the campuses need or have data librarians. Perhaps 2 or 3 libraries have these positions who act as reference points for all librarians to confer with as the need arises.

CDL does not serve faculty or students directly so they particularly vulnerable to budget cuts during times of budget difficulties. What they do is manage things at a system wide level.

eScholarship program, platform and services have been set up. The role of advocacy and outreach is something CDL has been doing but something we can do as well.


4. Technology Which aspects of technology do you see as ongoing functions of librarians? Which aspects do you see fading away? Which aspects do you see evolving, and how? What are some practical approaches librarians should consider in relation to technology functions?

• Areas of technology: o Making technology a separate area of discussion is problematic, because it affects every area of our jobs, and every topic of discussion -- from public computers in the building, to the way we access our information resources, to how we help patrons, etc. Technology is a major driver that bears on every one of the topics discussed.

• Adopting technologies to provide: o just because a technology is new and shiny -- do we have to adopt it? should we adopt it? (do people really search databases from their iphones on the bus? maybe!) o for instance, are online books really preferable? Many (most) people seem to still prefer physical books

• Information product interfaces: o how do you get technology to give people the best results? o how do we work with database interfaces, google, etc., to help patrons get the best results? Should we work more on information design? o our own websites (mobile interfaces)

• How far do we want to go to meet people in the library with technologies they use? o for instance, why don't we have unlocked public computers? (this varies between campuses)

• Front end and back end technologies o technology means both the front end that the patron sees (the website and the back end that we work with, e.g. sfx o should we concentrate on making the back end better, as well as our sites?

• Instruction o should we team up with campus systems to teach classes about technologies (word, excel, etc)? o one barrier to offering nice computers and software to the campus population are expectations of support -- we might have to train people/ support it o library technology bootcamp? could we offer focussed, serious programs? (like ICSPR bootcamp for social science grad students) o but we also need to teach basic library skills -- how to use a catalog o we make a lot of assumptions that students know how to use computers, and tech because they are young, but that might not be true at all

• Technology programs o for something like e-science -- it's a big, expensive problem; we could help make connections between people o should something like escience be something that should be worked on centrally, like the CDL; we don't have money, resources, expertise -- but people like local technology programs for the prestige, like local data archives o something like the ICSPR -- they store datasets and articles based on the data; institution based out of michigan