Steve -

A quick thought about free will. In a world where “each time you load the URL, you’re always getting the latest version”(from Dion Hinchcliffe), doesn’t this mean, “If you prefer the older version, tough luck”?

I admit that I can’t think of an example right now, but is there a risk to removing all decisions about upgrades and versions from the users’ hands? Would we be force feeding them?

Dave, I have to be honest and say that seeing this comment made me cringe at its oh-so-librarianness. When was the last time you had a real beef with a web application like a web-based email program? Have you ever had such a problem that you had to stop using the service?

Generally speaking, web-based software is feature poor and tends to be built more on the make each program do one thing well model. This means that the upgrades will fall under two main categories. The first is security, in which case it is a mandatory upgrade designed to protect either the library’s or the user’s data. The second case, if a library is doing its job well and not fixing anything that is not broken, should be the result of purposeful usability testing and solving actual problems that real users have. In this case I think that what we are talking about is “force feeding” patrons vitamins and minerals that taste like candy (or potato chips if you prefer the salty snack…). Good programs of this type will do one thing well and be extensible through interoperability with other programs.

Back to my cringes and winces: if librarians are zealous about not replacing an old feature or way of providing access to information we are going to run the risk of not staying current with new trends and features that patrons are finding elsewhere on the web. Case in point: even though libraries have a much richer set of bibliographic description than anywhere else in the information world through MARC records, WorldCat has half the stature of Amazon or the websites of major corporate bookstores like B&N or Borders when it comes to our patron’s attention. Even more disturbing in this situation is the fact that the non-library sites will only tell you how to pay for a copy of the book and WorldCat will tell you where to get a free copy. What these other sites do far better than library websites is add other kinds of value by mining the data that is available. (On a side note: Brian Lavoie, Lorcan Dempsey, and Lynn Silipigni Connaway have just written an article in Library Journal advocating that we get with the program: Making Data Work Harder.

Again let’s go back to some of the discussions raised in SLIS 450: librarian timidness and refusal to assert authority. It has kept our salaries low. It has kept our stature in the workplace low, be it on a college campus, within government or a corporate setting. I think that we can assert ourselves as information producers, providers and consumers and say, this is a more effective way to find your library materials.

Steve -

Whoa! If there’s one thing I don’t want to be, it’s oh-so-librarian.

A couple of points:

1) I’m only agitating for transparency in updates. I’m not saying that users don’t need your caramel-flavored vitamins, but they need to be told what vitamins they’re getting and why. Security updates are one thing, but usability updates are another. If the updates are for library-specific applications, fine. But when it comes to other web-based applications, users always have a choice – for example, which email to use (Gmail, Yahoo!, etc.). If the latest Gmail isn’t your cookie, just move on to Hotmail. Just a thought, and not a counter.

2) It’s important to remember that WorldCat is a bi-product of a database that was founded for a specific task: cataloging. The OCLC database serves a practical work-a-day purpose for working librarians, and the WorldCat side is a happy benefit. Arguably this benefit is now more valuable than the original intent. That said, the interface of this public side could use some improvements, no doubt. What “other kinds of value” do you mean?

3) Was I really showing “librarian timidness”?

I agree that transparency in updates is good. My worry is when we are reluctant to move forward with new features because someone might like the old one better. If this happens once, no big deal. We don’t need to jump on every bandwagon. When it happens a second time, also no big deal. We are just being cautious by not wasting our time putting a lot of energy into trends 1 and 2 only to replace it a mere couple of months later by trend 3. However, by the time the 3rd, 4th and 5th new things are happening elsewhere online we have a problem with a skill deficit. We have missed out on the progression of skills that have brought the web world to a useful place at 3, 4 or 5. I think that there is a minimum level of slickness that a website needs to put forward in order for a user of the website to feel confident that he will be satisfied with it. Consequently there is a need to keep current with what is happening elsewhere.

The reason I raised the timid factor is because I think that we can state with authority, “We developed this new service and it is better. We know it is better because we have tested it on ourselves and we have tested it on our users and were willing to scrap it if the test results showed that the old way was still more efficient.” Despite being simply a buzz phrase, ‘usability testing’ can be extremely focused on a specific task and you can measure the results of accomplishing that task. You then have evidence to back up your reasons for phasing out an old service on a website and bring in a new one. Remember, if the web development is done well, it will take into account what a patron expects will happen. This will take into account the old methods and processes. I hope that you would trust that I wouldn’t advocate for upgrades to a service willy-nilly with no thought our justification behind them.

As far as your question, ‘What “other kinds of value” do you mean?’, see the link above “Making Data Work Harder.”