| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | Nov » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
| Who | Amanda Etches-Johnson and I |
| What |
a library user experience consultancy |
| Why | because we love libraries and UX work, so we put them together |
| For | libraries wanting to improve their websites and in-house services |
| How | many ways! |
| What Else |
a blog and a fun contest to kick things off! |
The response to my post “Proposal: The Case Against Innovation in Libraries” has been interesting. Some people have wondered, exactly, what I meant and wanted to discuss the idea. I also got one trolling anonymous email calling me a traitor.
The comments are worth a read. The post did breeze over (as Eli put it) the real issue of what we’ve been calling innovation for the past few years. A more fair title for the post would have been ‘The Case Against “Innovation” in Libraries.’
In large part we’ve been “meeting users in their space” by using social software stuff. Which is necessary and great, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it (when it solves a problem). I’m just not sure that it is all that innovative. Meanwhile, other organizations have been doing research and meeting people’s information needs.
This is what I’m trying to say:
Libraries are a bit top heavy with somewhat aimless experimentation. Learning/experimenting/playing is great. And necessary. Etc. Speaking broadly we’ve done a good job developing those skills. However, learning/experimenting/playing shouldn’t be the end goal. Meeting the needs of our users is the end goal. Collectively we now have nice tools at our disposal. A missing piece though is how we figure out how and when to apply the tools.
Forthcoming: How libraries can transform into something more stable and meaningful:
Eli’s Twitter account will probably have updates.
But like I said before, libraries might not provide content in the future & it’s okay. So come on everybody. Create some meaning for your library beyond shuffling books around.
Let’s get to it.
A great example of how fun design can change people’s behavior. Boundless implications for library buildings and services.
So the IBM Thinkpad was a computer based on a pad of paper.
Here we have pads of paper based on a computer.
These are going to come in handy for my work with the DCPL. We are launching our new website next week and can get around to improving the looks and functionality of our iPhone app.
At the risk of people starting to think that I’m turning into a total retrogrouch (not true, btw) I’ll say that some of my most productive moments of the past year have been far away from a keyboard.
[via ACL]
