Library Revolution

I haven’t had much blogging time in the past week or so, but I hope to remedy that soon. In the meantime, I just want to mention one thing. Call it a little pet peeve I have developed in the past 16 months or so.

If your business caters to parents and small children, for God’s sake make your space stroller friendly. And that means your library (or at least your children’s room!), too.

Yes, yes space is at a premium.  But it just pisses me off when I can’t fit the stroller through the maze of chairs, displays, racks, and random crap that both businesses and libraries seem to enjoy arranging between me and the stuff I want to get to. It’s got to be a fire hazard of some kind, too.

Once again, it’s time to think more like our customers. What is important to them?

Bloglines had a meltdown on me today and started spitting up all sorts of older posts, seemingly at random. At first it was really annoying, but it may have been a blessing in disguise, as I happened to rediscover a few things I had read.

Here is one of them. Take a look - It’s a nice, concise post about the phrase that makes me bristle more than any other: “I didn’t get an MLS to do that!”

And the comments are great, too. I love Terry Dawson’s comment that:

“I didn’t get an MLS so I could shelve books, pick up scraps of paper off the rug, or clean restrooms. But in the 31 years I’ve had the degree, I’ve done them all. And doubtless will again.”

This particular post focuses on the argument that librarians are not there to fill up the printer or help format a spreadsheet. But Steve’s core arguments could really hold true with so many of the duties librarians find themselves performing even though they are not strictly “professional activities.”

For me, the bottom line is that professionals do whatever needs to be done in order to fulfill their professional mission. In the case of a profession dedicated to delivering information services, sometimes that means rolling up your sleeves and getting out of your chair to make sure the patrons have access to the information they need. Sometimes it means that you’ll have to answer a phone or place a hold, even though it’s not technically your job. Sometimes it means stepping outside of your comfort zone a little. Sometimes it means that professionals need to stop hiding behind their degrees and start going out there and doing whatever needs to be done.

In my opinion, if you are not willing to go all out and do whatever it takes to fulfill the missions of our profession, then you’re not much of a professional at all.

Note:

When I went back to the archives, I found that Steve had followed this post with another excellent post examining where we must draw the line when it comes to the kinds of computer questions professional librarians should be expected to handle. He raises some great points about competency levels (a topic I plan to post on in the near future…), connecting with patrons, and the expectations we set up by even making computers available in the first place.

Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Here are a few anecdotes (true, each one of them!) that will hopefully make my point for me.

• I know of one library where patrons were dropping items off at the circ desk, then running straight over to the OPAC to check to see if their record was clear. The problem was that they did this so quickly that the OPAC display of the patron record did not yet show the items removed from their accounts. The process was about 5 seconds too slow. What did they do? They shifted the nearest OPAC terminal about five feet further away from the circ desk.

• Another library was having problems with the traffic patterns in their beautiful new reference room.  The layout was beautiful, but patrons were unthinkingly cutting behind the reference desks to get from one side of the library to another. The renovations (including immovable, built in desks!) had cost a fortune and the library didn’t really want to reorganize all over again, but this was starting to really cause problems. So they shifted the position of a couple of reading chairs so that they formed a mini reading area right in the path the patrons were absentmindedly using as a cut through.

• After a software upgrade, a library found that their circulation system automatically printed receipts for renewals.  They loved this for most transactions, but complained to a particularly charming and brilliant system administrator that they didn’t want this feature on one of their computers… the one by the phone that was used only for phone renewals. The system administrator (did I mention that she was charming and brilliant?) suggested a fix that worked like a charm and made everyone happy - without a major software rewrite. She told them to unplug the receipt printer on that machine.

• I visited a library that had a lovely built in bulletin board in a somewhat secluded area near to the circulation desk. Unfortunately, patrons were completely missing the program announcements and information posted there. The staff there had resorted to taping flyers to the wall in a more high traffic area (which looked terrible) and the nice bulletin board was basically not used. When I visited again a short time later, I noticed that the situation had changed… the ugly flyers were gone, and patrons were flocking around the bulletin board. Someone had the bright idea to move the cart with newly returned DVDs on it waiting to be shelved so that the cart was directly under the bulletin board. 

• All of the informational brochures in the world didn’t seem to hep one library explain to their patrons how to access their online catalog from home. They had a beautiful, professionally designed Web site and many savvy users, but the catalog just wasn’t getting the use anyone expected. What helped? They outlined the “Catalog” button in a contrasting color. Suddenly it leapt off the page… and patrons started using more!

Sometimes the smallest, simplest changes make all the difference in the world. No complexity required.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am moving to Denmark.

This video, sent to me by Sidsel Bech-Petersen of the Aarhus Public Libraries in Denmark is just that cool. It looks at the Transformation Lab project done to explore new possibilities for the library’s physical space. Awesome.

My favorite part (of many favorite parts!) is the comment: “The users like to become involved, providing it is not too much trouble and there is an instant result.”

There will be a presentation about this at the 17th Halmstead conference in Aarhus this year. The program is called Elevations, and it looks awesome. Maybe some of the European folks who stop by this blog would be interested!

I saw this post the other day, written by Steve Bertrand, Assistant Director of the Kankakee Public Library. Check it out - it’s from a library blog I really love: She Said/He Said:Kankakee Public Library Blog. I always read what Steve and Director Cindy Fuerst have to say. It’s a great example of a library blog where the contributors talk about real library issues in n open, honest, and interesting way. 

This articular post is one I can definitely identify with.  Steve talks about how he isn’t really much of a reader… and neither am I. Sure, I like to read, but I really don’t love it. At least not in the way that a lot of librarians seem to. I mean, so many librarians are really book obsessed! And there isn’t anything wrong with that at all. In fact, it’s a trait I admire and sometimes wish I had more of. And maybe if I had more time, I’d read more voraciously. But probably not.

In using about his similar feeling towards books and reading, Steve poses an interesting question: how do libraries handle dealing with parts of their community who are really not readers? What kinds of services do we offer non-readers, and what are our strategies for reaching out to this segment of our population. (Sorry for the paraphrase, Steve!) He says:

“For centuries, most Libraries’ only strategy for confronting the non-reader was to devise ways to seduce them to start reading. Those who refused were marked up as “lost souls” and ignored… Libraries must understand that non-readers are a tax paying part of our service group who deserve some kind return on their dollar, without having librarians look down there nose at them. As scary as it may sound, people do have a right NOT to read.”

Great comments!  This is a question really worth considering!