Protecting user privacy in the age of digital libraries

This article is a about the authors experiences in trying to establish protocols to protect library usage data. Although libraries have a right to, and perhaps and obligation to do so, she found very little guidance in how to do so -especially with the ILS. This, as a result, became an onerous and technical task that required a lot of investigative work.

It becomes clear in the article that a standard of privacy protocols need to be established within the profession. It's one thing to say that this is a duty, but real change will not come about unless the there is actual guidance to do so. This means requiring ILS and other service providers to adhere to these guidelines to ensure that all patrons enjoy the same protections in all libraries.

The question is whether is if such standardization is possible or if the will is present to do so?

Coombs, K. A. Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries. Computers in Libraries v. 25 no. 6 (June 2005) pp. 16-20

The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright

Although I'm not an intellectual property attorney, I still can attest that the laws governing it in the United States are fundamentally flawed. They no longer serve the purpose intended, to encourage innovation and creativity. Essentially, the laws were put in bridge the incentive dilemma that present in copyrighted work. These shelters ensures a market will exist for the art. This is often forgotten.

This article goes into depth the legal conflicts that Google's efforts to build a digitize libraries. It is of my opinion that most of the points made in this article are moot because it describes problem in an outdated system. The only way to properly deal with the problem of copyright issues.

The problem is that if we don't someone else will. We have the potential something that no other civilization has ever accomplished before. For a small investment we can digitize every book that ever existed. The law should allow this. The law should also accomodate a reasonable means to ensure artist have an incentive to produce. And this dosen't mean that a work is almost forever protected. Not everything retains value. In fact, most things lose value, but some also gain. The same rules should apply to art. Further, and most importantly, it must be acknowledged that not all countries share the same intellectual property laws. It's inevitable that information will find it's way to those countries with more porous intellectual restrictions.

When it's all said and done, we will all sit back here and wondered where we went wrong. We will try to understand why we didn't just put in law that were more compatible of the times. Instead we just tried to interpret this mess in the courts, which never works. And all the meanwhile Congress just makes things worse by adding more antiquated amendments to the law. so in essence, we are on the road to failure without any chance of getting off.

The question that needs to be discussed is whether if the potential for these new capabilities will eventually influence copyright law in the right direction?

Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright

Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned

This is another post about a library redesigning their website. Here they are going from a HTML site to one the utilizes a content manage system (CMS). Although this would have been a great step forward, they also focused on usability to ensure a user friendly web site.

to accomplish this a consultant was brought in. This person helped created a testing environment to help the simulate an end user experience. However, it became apparent that the librarians had a fairly good grasp of what was needed, so they took a much larger role in determining the content of the site. But the consultant still provide valuable testing measures to ensure a high degree of usability was still maintained.

My question is whether since this study, if there's has been any standardization in usability in library sites.

Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services. 21(3). pp. 156-166

Yeah, I Found It! Performing Web Site Usability Testing to Ensure That Off-Campus Students Can Find the Information They Need!

When libraries make websites, they need to make sure that their clients can use them. The problems is that often sites are made from the perspective of the designer rather than the end user. Further, to properly engineer a useable site requires a good degree of work. In the case of this article, the author provides a glimpse of what amount energy goes into such a project.

This article focuses of the testing of an educational website. They use task-based testing, focus groups and cognitive walkthroughs to ensure usability. By taking these steps ensures that the final product is useful and user centric. However, it seemed that they took a of effort in ensuring this. Each step was very well thought out and thorough. But the end product was a useful site that encourage use. 

My question is how much does fragmentation between library websites affect usability and whether a standardization would help in these efforts. 

Beth Thomsett-Scott (2005). Yeah, I Found It! Performing Web Site Usability Testing to Ensure That Off-Campus Students Can Find the Information They Need. Journal of Library Administration, Volume 41, Issue 3 & 4. January 2005 , pages 471 – 483

Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities

This article gives a breakdown on the different Library 2.0 systems and how they are designed. It gives a example of how an open-sourced OPACIAL would be developed and the features that would be included. Also, the article goes in depth on how Web 2.0 technologies are already being incorporated.

It looks like as if many of these systems are becoming popular. But as I stated in my last post, I think that there are some privacy concerns that need to be addressed. Even in the system architecture diagram, there seems to be storage of information of outside users.

Given this, should libraries consider adopting a code a privacy?

Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries

I'm going to just say that I hate the term 2.0. In fact, I hate the concepts of Web 2.0. I still don't understand how that social interaction technologies is what survived from the Dot.com bust. And no, I really don't think that libraries should adopt the concepts of this movement. 

The article was just about how libraries are integrating Web 2.0 into libraries. The author lists a bunch of technologies, and demonstrates how they can be incorporated in libraries. This includes new media formats like streaming. Then he calls this the Library 2.0 movement. 

I find this absurd. I think that libraries should focus on remaining useful than social. Although, admittedly, that greater interaction with patrons would be helpful,  I think most of this is overblown. Further, I think that given Web 2.0 also presents huge privacy concerns. Essentially Web 2.0 was a means to make users the product for advertisers. And now that more libraries are being privatized, I think so of these concepts creates too many privacy conflicts. 

So my question is what are any other downsides for libraries becoming more social?

*Maness, J. (2006). "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries". Webology, 3 (2), Article 25. 

Re-Integrating the integrated library system

This is article is a past and present critique of ILS. The author feels that ILS technology did not keep up with the times -compared specifically to the web- and that it is now struggling to keep up with new media. Further, the author points out that the lack integration in the available solutions creates an unfriendly user experience.

The blame is pointed to the procurement process in how these systems are chosen. The author believes that libraries are too stringent and should allow the companies that provide solutions to be innovative. Without a certain degree of creativity, libraries will essentially will never get a handle on potential future problems.

I disagree. I feel that the problem is using a proprietary model for an open sourced problem. Proprietary solutions will not be able to give libraries that flexibility needed to tackle the problems rapidly. When every needed functionality comes with a price tag, it makes it difficult to keep up. Moreover, open source would be a way to help integrate the system as a whole. If the parts of the entire system can be easily manipulated to accomodate the other functions, a single system can be easily achieved.

Given this, my question is why not open source?

M. Breeding (2005). "Re-Integrating the integrated library system" Computers in Libraries: 25(25).