Library Revolution

I got a lot of really great, thoughtful comments on yesterday’s post about Gilbert Library’s decision not to use Dewey classification in their new building. Such great posts that I wanted to respond to them in a whole new post so that the conversation is highlighted a bit.

To run down some of the comments:

Dominique commented about how tuning some books cover out and making the shelves shorter might help create a more comfortable atmosphere for customers, although there is a space issue associated with this. It sounds like she and I agree that making people feel at home and comfortable with the library environment can only be a good thing. (She also brings up the information that can be found in the catalog… but I’ll get to that later.) Kay had a great comment mentioning “the utter look of frustration and incomprehension on their faces when we try to explain how we shelve our books….” This really made me smile! Jeff piqued my interest with the idea of “neighborhoods” for the physical arrangement of the library… I’ll be interested to see how the particulars play out. I’m sure Jeff will keep everyone informed!

Karen made an interesting comment about the depth of the new categorizations and how they will be represented on the books. And she is absolutely correct when she says “the DDC does not need to be memorized to be utilized.”

She also made the really interesting comment:

“But overall, I believe that such librarians are abandoning their mission of organizing information to make it more accessible. However, I could be suaded by research that demonstrates improvements in findability.”

The point I would raise in response to this is that librarians don’t necessarily need to abandon the depth of their cataloging just because they are not going to represent the category in a detailed way on the physical item itself. Why do we have catalogs with detailed records if not to organize materials in an in-depth way and make it accessible?

I know I’m making a lot of assumptions on this issue, but I’ll venture to make one more: Patrons and staff are most likely to access materials by either a. searching the catalog or b. browsing the shelves. To me, this means that the arrangement of materials in a “browser friendly” arrangement (bookstore-like, sans Dewey) couples nicely with detailed catalog records that serve to achieve the librarian’s aim of organizing the materials.

If you are searching for a specific item or type of material or a topic, my guess is that you are using the catalog, which many wonderful information rich records. These records contain more detailed information about the item than Dewey can’t even come close to – including multiple levels of categorization. Plus, it tells you where to find the item. Maybe spine labels are practical for this use, but I don’t know why the label itself has to have the extreme level of detail given by Dewey numbers, especially if it takes some level of expertise to decipher that detail. Keep the detail in the catalog where people might actually be looking for it, and lay off the stickers a little.

If someone is browsing, they should be able to find what they need via a well thought out and user-friendly arrangement. With some good (I SAID GOOD) signage and an intuitive arrangement by topic, I think browsers will find what they’re looking for, if with a little help from the librarian (That’s what they are there for!!). No extensive spine label information needed. Find the right section, browse, and for more detail, just look at the item itself.

The other comment that really caught my attention was from Nathan, who comments that

“It seems to me that the purpose of all libraries, in one sense or another, is to comprehensively take account of, organize, and make accessible knowledge of the world for the world, thereby educating the user (through all these steps) – and doing so in a timely manner.”

And goes on to ask an extremely interesting question:

“Do you think that public libraries are giving up some of their educational role in doing this, and if not, why not?”

Nathan, I’m so glad you asked this. I think that every librarian should put a lot of thought into their roles as educators. So here’s my take.

I absolutely, 100% think that one of the primary responsibilities of a professional librarian is and should be to serve as an educator for their users throughout the process of locating, accessing, consuming, using, and in this day of user-created content, even disseminating information. I am inclined to think that education is the single most important part of our professional mission, and it may well be the one that will keep the profession relevant and an important part of the information landscape n years to come. That is, if we give it the right energy and emphasis, education could be the thing that keeps us in business.

But, in my opinion, it’s important to focus our educational energies towards educating our patrons in things that are… well, important. You know, stuff that is actually important to real people and relevant to their lives and needs.

What if we forgot about trying to teach our patrons how to use the Dewey Decimal System to locate books in the stacks, make that part of the information search more intuitive, and spent that time working with them to build an understanding of how to find other resources, how to use the information they find, how to understand and interpret the information… lofty goals, but these are the kinds of information needs that I see as more important to address in this age of being bombarded by too much information.

I guess it’s really all about determining educational priorities and objectives. For me, I really don’t see letting go of old Dewey as letting go of organization of materials or providing access, and I see it as an opportunity to redirect some of the instructional efforts we aim at our patrons towards some information literacy outcomes that could really benefit our patrons and that need real information professionals to achieve.

Now if we could just do something about LC Subject headings…

 Share

I’ve been tagged by Amy at Pimp My Library with this 8 things meme that’s going around. So here goes. 8 random things about me.

1. I have a strict personal rule: I will not eat nuts after 3 pm. My husband is deathly allergic to tree nuts and peanuts… which I love. So I’ll eat them at work, but once 3:00 strikes, I won’t touch them. I want any nuts I may have consumed to be completely off my hands, my breath, and on nothing that I have touched. I just don’t want to kill Chris. Not really.
2. I really thought Long Island was part of New York City until I was in college. Or maybe until part way through college. Now I live there, and it decidedly is not NYC. Go figure.
3. When we go to baseball games, I like to keep score in my custom – made scorebook. Chris makes one fro me and one for himself each year, custom designed to accommodate our own individual scoring styles. He has them professionally bound, and we have years worth of games recorded for posterity. Plus, my scorebook makes a great weapon in the bleachers at Shea. Don’t ask – it’s not one of my prouder moments.
4. I don’t like white cars. I just don’t.
5. I read that my house is in a prime hummingbird breeding area, so I tore out the back garden and replaced it with plants that supposedly attract hummingbirds. I tend that garden meticulously, and it’s beautiful. Have I seen a single hummingbird? No.
6. I started out in life as a musician… First as a singer and then as a music historian. I was pretty successful, but I hated the whole thing. LibraryWorld came later, and quite by chance. Except for my MLS, all of my education has been in music. And that’s a lot of education. I still sing with a choir, but that’s the end of it. And no, I do not take requests.
7. I love, love, love bad TV. The worse it is, the more I love it. Reality TV, Soap Operas, Home Shopping Network, Crappy Reruns… bring it on. My brain is rotting as we speak.
8. I can’t knit. Or do anything with yarn. Shhh… don’t tell. It’s sort of a deep, dark secret.

That was hard, hard, hard. Eight is a lot of things.

This has gone through a lot of people already… so I’m going to break the rules and not tag. If you haven’t had your turn yet, let me know and I’ll add some tags.

ETA: Chris wanted to be tagged. OK.

 Share

Came across this article today via Library Stuff. The basic gist is that this library in AZ or someplace is not going to use the Dewey Decimal system for shelving, going instead for a more “bookstore like” approach of shelving things “by topic.”

Hold on just a sec… isn’t that exactly what Dewey does?

Yet librarians are in an uproar.

Let’s make a couple of assumptions here, just for argument’s sake:

• Let’s assume that the Gilbert Library has some kind of online catalog that will help folks track down the section where the desired materials are shelved…. even if the materials cover multiple topics.
• Let’s assume that the Gilbert Library will continue to empoly a knowledgeable and well trained staff who will be available during business hours to help user locate the materials they are looking for.
• Let’s assume that the Gilbert Library will  continue to employ dedicated staff members who will maintain the chosen shelving arrangement to the best of their ability.
• Let’s assume that many public library patrons do not know the Dewey Decimal system by heart… and are not about to learn it just so they can find a couple of measly books.
• Let’s assume that many public library patrons, while they may not know what “915.204″ means, they may have a pretty good idea of what “Travel” means.
• Let’s assume that “topics” the materials are going to be shelved by in this new system may possibly closely resemble the topic categories they would have been arranged by under Dewey… since that’s what Dewey is supposed to do anyway.

Given all of these assumptions,  I just don’t see what the big deal is. Really. The patrons will still be able to find the materials, I’m sure of it. And maybe they won’t feel alienated by some archaic, alien numerical classification system that involves a million ugly, peeling stickers all over the books. Maybe some of the staff will feel more comfortable with it too, when they find that they don’t have to wrack their brains all the time to track stuff down based on a number that’s about 10,000 digits long.

One comment I saw out there in blogland (I forgot where or I’d link!) mentioned that this “dumbs down” out patrons. I heartily disagree. I can’t see how giving people easier, more comfortable access to information resources has anything to do with “dumbing down.” Sure, we have to give up on our dream of making our patrons “mini librarians,” but I’m all for that. Instead of trying to make our patrons fit the services we provide, this is an example of trying to make the services we provide fit the patrons we serve.

Bookstores are far from perfect, but we have to remember that we are dealing with a public that has a certain level of expectations when it comes to  dealing with a retail outlet (which is exactly what a public library is, like it or not!).  We don’t have to fit each one of those expectations, but if it brings what we have to offer into the user’s comfort zone a little more, then why not? All I see that doing is increasing access and use in the long run.

If, for some places like the Gilbert Library, that means letting go of old Dewey, then so be it.

 Share

My son, Robert, is 15 months old. At least a month ago, he figured out that Mommy’s computer mouse has two buttons. And clicking those two buttons makes different things happen, depending on which button you push. He just played around with the mouse and figured this out.

Let me reiterate. He’s ONE.

So why do I need to explain this so often to librarians?

 Share

Hi had two separate conversations last week that involved copyright issues - and I found myself both times fielding questions about and explaining Creative Commons. But I can’t (obviously) explain it better than Lawrence Lessig himself. So here is a video from 2006 where he gives a quick overview.

 Share

Last night, I had a funny interaction with a woman giving a telephone survey about grocery stores. Now, I hate telemarketers as much as the next person, but surveys are OK by me, as long as they’re short and not too invasive into personal information. In case you haven’t noticed, I always seem to have an opinion to express.

Anyway, this lady called with a survey, and I was game to answer, so I did. (Of course, I lied on the first question: “Are you the person in your household who does most of the grocery shopping?” Hell no. My husband does that kind of stuff. For one, I hate it, and for another thing, I apparently exhibit an utter disregard for the cumulative value of cents-off coupons, especially combined with store sales. So I’m not allowed. But I digress.)

I actually had a good time answering the questions because the woman who called was personable and had a sense of humor, and we had a nice conversation. It was a good experience all around. She got the info she needed for hr survey, I got to express my opinion about the poor selection of baby food at one local market, and we both got a good laugh over a couple of silly answers. Plus, I updated her on the American Idol finale show, so she didn’t miss anything while at work. Hey, you have to have priorities.

So I got to wondering about libraries and phone surveys. I know that libraries tend to do a lot of paper surveys, and I think that’s a great step towards creating services based on the input of our customers. But phone surveys? I don’t now of library efforts at this around here… which doesn’t mean they don’t exist. At the very least, I don’t think they are all too common around this area.

At a very, very quick glance, phone surveys strike me as a good, relatively inexpensive way to reach out to the population your library serves, not just the active users and not just the folks who don’t ignore mass mailings/paper surveys. Sure, I’m a library user, but mass mailings and emails go right in the trash. End of story. End of survey.

I’d be interested to know about some libraries who have done phone surveys of their population… I know you must be out there. What did you do them for (New services? Building projects? Budget?)? What was the result? The community response? Legal issues in this age of “Do Not Call”? Would you do it again? Any advice for libraries thinking about this approach?

 Share

I had a really great compliment paid to me the other day by John Klima of Library Angst.

What he said is that sometimes I make him angry.

While I really appreciate all of the supportive comments from everyone who agrees with what I have to say here (who doesn’t like knowing they are not alone in their opinions??), I feel like this is one of most promising best responses I have gotten so far.

There was a lot of talk in the library blogoshphere a short time ago about things being a bit echo chamber-y and nicey-nice with everyone just loving what everyone else had to say without much critical commentary. I don’t know that I 100% agree with that (See! Disagreement!).

Of course there is going to be a certain level of agreement among Library bloggers as we all come to blogging with a certain amount of shared assumptions. For example, that blogging (and libraries) are worthwhile. So a lot of agreement on basic points is to be expected.

But debate is healthy in any field, and to be desired. Disagreeing and then discussing our disagreements is the way that a profession grows and flourishes. Intellectual discourse is exactly what most of us are really looking for. So it’s great to see that many people don’t agree with a lot of what I have to say here.

Not only that, but I was happy to see that John didn’t just disagree with me. I make him angry. How flattering!

I was a great fan of Kathy Sierra’s Creating Passionate Users, which is now, sadly, no longer an active blog. (Go back and read through her archives if you are unfamiliar with this blog. I guarantee you will learn loads.) One of the great lessons I learned from her is that to create passion (and by extension, motivation and discussion!), you have to avoid the “Zone of Mediocrity.”

Having people love you (or agree with you) is great. Having people hate you (or in this case, making people angry) is great, too. What you want to avoid is “Eh.” Passion and motivation come from love and hate – everything in the middle is apathy-inducing drivel.

So I hope that I can keep on making people angry, and I hope that other members of the Library blogging community will strive to do the same. With all due respect, I want to piss some of you off. And I’ll do my best to do so – so that we can discuss what’s pissing us all off… and hopefully make some changes.

I should say that I think the same could be said about libraries. Make your users love you by making them hate you.

 Share

I hate to post the same thing as everyone else, but this article (which has been all over today!) is just too good.

Everyone who reads this blog undoubtedly scores a 4 out of 4.

So pass it on to someone else who doesn’t.

 Share

Great post today from Pimp My Library about Perfection. Great post, Mary! From one reformed perfectionist to another!

Perfection has been on my mind lately, and I feel like it’s definitely not a concept we can effectively apply to all things library. This is not to say that we should not be detail oriented, or even exacting in many of the things we do as librarians. Please. You won’t find a more detail-oriented person than me!

But it’s time to stop obsessing about making things perfect before considering them usable for our libraries. (Because I am who I am and I do what I do, in my mind this has a lot to do with the way we develop, promote, use, and change Web-based library services. But I don’t see why this all couldn’t apply just as well to other areas of library service, too.)

Too often I see library services get nitpicked to death by people trying to make them perfect before bringing the service out to patrons. Too often the life of the project gets sucked out of it, and the timing gets all off… we tend to miss the boat a little, I think, when it comes to getting something started while people are still excited about it.

And most of all, building a library service in the back room, making it perfect, and then presenting it users for use and feedback after it has been more or less perfected… this model of development makes it so hard to make any real changes to the service based on user feedback. Sure, we can try to address user complaints, but the framework by that time is more or less set in stone, and all tweaks need to be done within that framework. And major changes down the road are hindered, since you’ve set up a development model that is a real bear, meaning any changes require a huge project and time commitment.

What’s so wrong with letting your users in on a new service (or an old service, revised!) that isn’t really “done” yet? As long as you put that service out with the goal of getting feedback that can be used in refining the service, and then really do it, then what’s the big deal?

Put out your library blog without forming a committee to discuss (for months!) the exact content, layout, structure, etc. Just get some basic guidelines and go! Then see how your public reacts (by asking them and listening to their answers!) and make changes accordingly!

Start your new literacy/homebound/outreach/whatever service without a giant to-do (there is a lot to be said for the so-called “soft roll-out”). Then have some meaningful conversations with the first users, and see where that leads!

Skip the focus groups and committee meetings with your new OPAC design… put something together, and do a little usability testing in your library. Nothing fancy, just communicating with your customers. Then you don’t feel like you’re limited to  “the plan” whensomethign pops up that just doesn’t work.

Businesses, especially Web-based ones, are moving towards this sort of a “throw it out there and be ready to be flexible” model, and it’s really working for them. And no, their products aren’t perfect. But by skipping initial perfection, I think we can more effectively work towards the eventual goal of creating more perfect library services.

 Share

If you only read library blogs, think twice. One of my favorite categories of “non-library” blogs is the marketing blog. Marketing blogs give great insight into the psyche of our patrons and they always seem to clue me in to the ways that the business world is/can/should be tapping into their markets. Invaluable advice for libraries, IMO. I count 14 marketing blogs in my aggregator as of today. Tomorrow there will probably be more.

Take Drew’s Marketing Minute. If this post isn’t applicable to LibraryWorld, then I don’t know what is. Drew talks about the customer of the future and the likelihood (certainty??) that online social networking is here to stay! He asks the important question:

If the 17-34 year olds are already engaged in social media, do you suppose they’re going to unplug when they hit 35,40 or 50?

And he doesn’t even get into the possibilities for the generation after that! I mean, they’re starting ‘em really young these days…

So I have two very disjointed points:

1. Social Networking isn’t a fad that’s going to disappear next year. So how are we going to go about adapting library service  to appeal to a populace that loves their online networks? And how will we address their needs?

2. Read some marketing stuff today. You’ll be a better public servant and library professional for it.

 Share