Internet Infrastructure Works-
I thought that this article did a good job in describing how the internet worked, and how everyone was connected though the internet. I have noticed that when I have attempted to read articles similar to this in the past, I was not able to understand it completely due to the incredible amount of buzz words use. I thought that this article offered very accessible concise statements about the internet infrastructure. The only part that was a little bit confusing was when the author discussed binary. Binary is really not that hard to read once you figure it out. It takes me a while, but I can for the most part do it. I don't know what it is about binary, but when ever anyone talks about how to read it or use it, I have not idea what they are talking about. I think the more random examples they use trying to clarify what they have said, the worse it is.
Dismantling Integrated Library Systems-
I was thinking about what the author suggested "Some of the best ideas in online library services have come not from vendors but from librarians themselves." This makes complete sense. I was curious to know if libraries are ever polled about their thoughts on library services, and if these polls are taken seriously at all. I know that CMU is redoing some of their system because it simply does not function easily. All of the information is there, it just is not user friendly.
Google Video
I thought the map that was shown showing all of the people using Google was really interesting. It made me think of John Willinsky’s book when he talked about how important it is to extend scholarly communication to third world locations. I also liked the idea of 20/80 concept. Even though it would be more efficient to do the 20/80 I prefer the 80/20.
2 comments:
I strongly agree that, as you illustrated with the example of binary, people often make all of this stuff a lot more complicated than it should be. More guides need to be straightforward and use plain English to explain things that do not require sophisticated jargon to be understood. This is a huge problem in two areas that concern us: computers, and library science (I recently had to discuss "deaccessioning." Why is this not called "removing" or "getting-rid-of"?).
Your curiosity about whether libraries are polled makes a lot of sense. If they were, maybe things would be easier to use and make more sense (i.e. card catalogs). Or maybe not -- some librarians have been in the library too long, and their methods may not make sense. I think the customers/patrons are the ones who really need to give input.
I also agree that 80/20 is much cooler than 20/80, because 80 is bigger than 20.
I've worked as a database manager/user support person for years, and it would amaze me if the librarians weren't consulted because user input is so important. However, as Dustin has pointed out, librarians aren't the only users. Yes, library patrons should be consulted and maybe they haven't been which is why these ILS systems are cumbersome. And I think you may need different systems depending on the library setting - academic, research, public, corporate, etc.
Post a Comment