The CIA’s library has a copy of “Danger Man” aka “Secret Agent.”

originally uploaded by goppenheim

P.S. I did some spy work on my own and noticed that the CIA’s holdings appear to not be in worldcat.org. Huh.

Our DVD player died after over six years of heavy use. The only logical replacement was a PS3 since it can play DVDs (and upscale them), Blu-ray discs and of course games. This will probably be the last physical media device we buy. Crazy!

The system came with a copy of “Spider-man 3″ on Blu-ray that is hopefully going to find its way into the NPPL’s collection. Once we get this cataloged correctly I’ll likely buy a few more Blu-ray titles. Just enough so that we can advertise that we have a small collection. Not only will it serve as a good experiment to see if the discs are popular, it will also serve as good marketing for the NPPL. Even if swarms of people don’t have Blu-ray players (yet) it will showcase the library as a place with exciting new stuff that understands what’s happening in the larger information world. All that for $200? A bargain! It doesn’t always take much to try new things.

We’ll make our Blu-ray discs non-holdable for a month, just like our other new materials. Yes, this slightly diminishes the spirit of library sharing and maybe inconveniences some non-NPPL patrons. However, it drives some in house traffic to our relatively new beautiful library. While that sounds like a library-centered policy (bad!), it isn’t *fully* library-centered. The non-holdable period keeps new and popular titles around for people in North Plains to browse. This makes residents of North Plains happy and increases the library’s “placeness,” making it interesting and vital.

I’m posting these quotes as a continuation of my thinking process about what I see as a developing reactionary movement in librarianship. Not that there hasn’t always been a “let’s do it the old way” contingent in libraries, but I think it is perhaps more unified than in the past. I hate to be pessimistic and/or so centered on this very moment of the profession, but I can’t help but think that, like much of the information world, we’re at a crossroads. I’m not sure we’ll collectively choose the right direction. I hear about great things happening in some libraries, but I also hear about too many things similar to the quotes below. Once upon a time my jaw dropped when people would report things like this. Am I jaded now? As requested, I’ll protect the sources that have emailed me or passed these along in hushed tones in libraries and at conferences.

Where: A long range plan meeting.
Who: The library director.
Quote: (multiple times throughout the meeting): I hate computers, I hate computers, I hate computers.

Where: A library redesign furniture meeting.
Who: Adult Services staff.
Quote: (in response to the high table and stool combo being unusable for laptopping): We don’t want them to be too comfortable!

Where: An everyday conversation.
Who: IT staff.
Quote: (in response to installing Firefox on public computers) But then they would have a choice.

Where: Circ desk.
Who: Circ clerk.
Quote: (in response to a patron asked to place a reserve) Sorry, that’s not my job. [walks away]

I don’t think I need to comment on these quotes except to say that they’re so bad they’re caricatural.

Let’s not end the work week on a negative note. Michael Casey’s post It’s About Me, and You is about responding to disagreeable comments in meetings and it really resonated with me. Libraries won’t progress unless committed individuals stand up and respond to things that make them bristle. Now is the time for boldness.

After posting about the WCCLS website I decided to take a look at the Multnomah County Library Website to see what was going on there. They have 67 really nice pictures that randomly display on the homepage. No, I didn’t keep hitting refresh to find the exact number. I got curious and found their /images directory to be open for browsing.

Reading the staff picks is always fun and they do a good job keeping the content fresh. What I’d really like to see are the staff behind these staff picks. It is nice to know that these books are liked by a librarian, but it would be even nicer to know who exactly is doing the recommending. The choice to keep these selectors anonymous keeps the issue of the librarians’ privacy and level of exposure at bay. Devoting some effort to working this out could take their already very pretty site to the next level. I have no idea if they’ve had these discussions, but it might be as easy as asking people if their willing to put themselves out there. There isn’t much information about them, but I like seeing pictures of (what I assume to be) the librarians behind the Hennepin County librarians’ blog on some of their subject guides.

I wonder if we’ll see “Feels comfortable being a personality on the web” in a library job description anytime soon.

In my last post, late night wifi, an opportunity for libraries?, Eric Frierson comments that he liked the idea, but also that he’s

…not sure why it should be a *library* venture if the purpose is to provide coffee, free wifi, and non-circulating magazines.

The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that the concept of a cafe branch is a great idea. Libraries are doing the reverse and putting coffee shops in libraries, why not go all the way and put a library in a coffee shop? The idea doesn’t seem that radical to me. Here are some characteristics of my hypothetical cafe library branch:

→ provides access to information
→ has some computers available
→ provides help finding things (if asked)
→ provides access to content (magazines, newspapers, some books strewn about)
→ is a community gathering place
→ holds some special events
→ has reservable group study space

Pretty traditional stuff, right? People might bristle at this idea not because of the traditional services it would provide, but what it would lack. In particular, a collection of books.

Now before anyone gets bent out of shape, let me be clear. I’m not saying that all libraries should be like this, just that this model is an option. Libraries can certainly be much more than what I’m describing here, and they should be. However, libraries don’t always have to strive to be their full incarnation 100% of the time. Just like a small neighborhood branch probably doesn’t have an extensive collection of periodical back issues, so my hypothetical cafe library could shed some library baggage to free it to explore new territory. The geographical language is appropriate. Without large collections to house, the relatively small cafe library can fit into spaces that other branches couldn’t. (Wouldn’t it be great to have space for picking up and returning holds though?) This might allow it to be located in vital and busy areas with tons of foot traffic.

I know you didn’t get a Masters degree to serve coffee. No big deal, it wouldn’t be part of your job. The “shift supervisor” could be a “for real librarian,” managing staff and doing other librarian work like monitoring the library’s IM reference service.

I’m not convinced this idea would work in every context or community, but sitting here in Little Beirut where many people are fueled by their neighborhood coffee shops, I can think of a number of cities where this would work.

This library cafe branch would not just be a means to the end of getting people to use other library resources. It would be legitimate on its own, but wouldn’t it do a good job marketing the larger library too? Among the locally made art on display there would be adverts for relevant library events. Each time someone logs into the wifi network they’d be greeted with list of library resources and be authenticated into library databases. Oh, and how about this? People don’t need a library card to access the wifi, but customers get a 50% discount on coffee and food when they sign up for one. And a 10% discount on each transaction when they present the card.

In a certain sense, a cafe branch would be for a niche market. This is a good thing because we know that niche markets can become obsessively enthusiastic about their interests. Because they’re often concerned with trying to be many things to different people, libraries often miss out on capturing this passion. Last time I checked, we want people passionate and excited about libraries. Having a narrower focus might be one way to cultivate more use and zeal for the library.

I haven’t been treated to two thoughtful, synchronous posts like this in a long while. They don’t say the exact same thing but they’re complementary and there’s some overlap. Gobs worth thinking about.

Is Facebook Really The Point? by Casey Bisson

It is essential that we build social features into our libraries. Comments, easy linkability (short, sensical URLs), and findability in search engines are must haves in our systems. But that isn’t enough. We also need outstanding librarians to breath life into them.

Library 2.0 Debased by John Blyberg

Of course, that means we have to have a working framework to begin with that compliments and adheres to our tradition of solid, proven librarianship. In other words, when we use technology, it should be transparent, intuitive, and a natural extension of the patron experience. If it can’t be transparent, then it should be so overwhelmingly beneficial to the user that it is canonized not by the techies, but the users themselves.

One thing I’d like to highlight is that both posts seem to be begging libraries to provide authentic online social experiences for patrons. I don’t think John’s idea of offering technology that is a “natural extension of the patron experience” can occur without the use of technology being a natural extension of Casey’s “outstanding librarian.” The outstanding librarian can’t just understand the importance of the read/write web on a theoretical level. The outstanding librarian must be a participant.

“This stuff can’t be faked” is another way to state this. Faking it, like dabbling with a social networking site (”simply thrusting a MySpace page in their face”), doesn’t recognize the deep and disruptive nature of social technology that John mentions in the beginning of his piece. He doesn’t explicitly mention this disruptive nature again, but make the implication when he raises the issue of “thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing…”

Like a wise man once said, “Let’s get serious!”

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_vdm/509996632/

“I’m like the Kindle but I’m not going to buy it. I’m going to wait until it can hook up with the library system.”

What do you think of that? I was kind of blown away.

At any rate, I like Jaap’s idea of libraries developing our own eInk device. If we *really* want to ready ourselves for the future, why are we going to wait for the market to produce a device that we’ll have to shoehorn into usual way of doing things? It would be fantastic if libraries developed a great, free (as in speech) device. I know that librarians are capable of developing a device that everyone will want. Dewey invented the vertical filing cabinet (according to Gladwell but not wikipedia), right? How would we get publishers to work with us? Dunno. Barcode authentication to databases on an ebook would be neat, but would it add value over using a laptop? Not sure.

Whatever the case may be, we can ensure our viability in the future by creating the future ourselves.

Sarah scooped me and posted about the new iPod touch, redesigned iPod nanos. See her post Apple news on iPods and iPhones: prices down, features sweet for some details.

What she didn’t mention though, is that along with the iPod touch’s wifi capability, the iTunes Music Store got wifi capability too. ITMS junkies no longer have to slog over to their computers to buy music. Apple also will be delivering content through Starbucks. The new iPods will provide the details of the song that you’re listening to in Starbucks and of course make it easy for you to buy it. This Starbucks feature is cute, maybe clever, but isn’t as significant as the general concept of wireless delivery of purchased content to iPods.

If this move ushers in the age of anywhere on-demand download of music (which seems eventually inevitable) it will widen the gap between the soon to be normal way of doing things and the library way of delivering content. And will our users feel like crossing this big gap to visit us?

The idea of making the public library experience more game like has been stewing in my head for some time now, so it was with great interest I saw a blog post about The land of oppertunities. A Danish museum had a game created to enhance the experience of their visitors. I can see why this would work. People can develop a relationship with the space and information instead of simply walking around and looking at objects. The game forces engagement. It works via GPS enabled phones which doesn’t help us in the United States right now (though I’m sure that’ll be widespread soon enough).

I’m especially interested in the possible dichotomy of striving to break down barriers to library use (making it easy) and creating an environment in which people must become engaged (and put forth effort) to use. Could the goal of making our OPACs mindlessly easy be a bad idea after all? What if we made our goal mindfully easy OPACs that were actually interesting to use? The ideal goal, I suppose, would be one that’s easy for all to use and also contains various layers of interestingness for those who would like to delve deeper. Our current mindfully difficult OPACs incorporate risk, experimentation, and the need for persistence and collaboration, but not in an appropriate way. Make no small plans, eh?

One reason I’m keen on providing a gaming-like experience for interested library patrons is the success I’ve had with it on a small scale. Wanting the kids from the computer room to interact with the print collection (so old fashioned, I know), one day I offered some manga stickers to the first few people to a) find a book that they’ve read and liked and b) tell me about it. They actually scurried around the YA section with the enthusiasm they usually reserve for Runescape. I repeated the game a few times, and during the last few rounds a few of the boys found books and told me about them immediately. When I asked how they found their books so quickly, they replied that they figured that I would ask them the same question at some point, so they tried to remember the titles and authors of books they liked.

.

Pasta&Vingear has some more comments on the museum game, and there’s a video about it, though it is Danish language.

“Are Reference Desks Dying Out?” is an interesting article besides the drama surrounding its interpretation of the Q&A session of an ACRL panel session. For the drama (and some further discussion of the important issues), see Reference Desk Backlash at Brian Mathews’ The Ubiquitous Librarian.

I’d like to mention two other bits in the article. One, it tells the story of University of California at Merced librarian Michelle Jacobs answering reference questions via SMS while she was in Baltimore for the ACRL conference. Neat. I’d like to hear more about that, in particular if they’re using some system or just her personal phone number.

The other good section is about the “Librarian With a Latte” program from University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. What’s with Ann Arbor and library goodness, anyways?

With a laptop and a wireless connection, he sets aside time to sit at a table at a popular Ann Arbor coffee shop and invites students to drop by for help. Dozens of students showed up for one of his recent sessions.

“‘Going to where students are seems to be a theme in social-networking discussions, and they mean virtually,” he says. “It’s equally important to go where they are physically.” The coffee-shop sessions help establish relationships with students that become online interactions later.

AWESOME.

Incidentally, the article also has a funny quote from Derik Badman (that’s two posts in a row!) about his stapler, even though he spoke with the reporter at length about virtual reference.