Digital trends

Over the years from the introduction of the Internet to Web 2.0 there have been many shifts in our usage behaviours surrounding developments in technology and social paradigms.

Internet technologies evolve rapidly and potential uses and power appears unending. With devices that allow for the rapid transfer of data of various formats by crowds of users, creativity flows and networks flourish.

Five examples noted from the 'Did You Know 4.0' You Tube clip were as follows:

1. The digital preference of information reflecting the trend of immediacy expected by users due to the capabilities of modern technology used in the information environment.

2. The enthusiasm to contribute and be a part of the global information world in a range of different and dynamic formats such as picture and video. Again the ease and speed of transferring data due to technologies available serve as encouragement.

3. The recognition by commercial entities that the online environment is where they can find and accurately target a wanted audience. Created by the technology and the openness associated with profiling and sharing with social networks.

4. Publishing models are changing from a commercial and discretionary role to an open framework for anyone willing to create. Open source software and content is widespread and contributes to the attitude of user ownership and continued contribution.

5. Portability of equipment and the web itself has changed considerably due to developments in the technological devices able to process data and use wireless networks throughout the globe.

Web 2.0, Comparison of 3 Libraries

A quick check on 3 libraries and their use of web 2.0 tools. To begin with I found that Libraries use a range of tools, ie - they don't all blog or use twitter. Larger libraries and academic libraries are far more likely to use these tools than the small suburban public libraries. That being said, responses varied and the pattern of collaboration that indicates the tool is web 2.0 was achieved to varying degrees. I assert from this that Web 2.0 tools can be downgraded to Web 1.0 tools if used in a way that does not engage the collaboration or conversation of its users and is merely another method to 'mail out' information.


Twitter appears to be the tool of choice for most libraries with short concise messages of a promotional or current affairs nature. Twitter was the only tool that the number of followers could be seen and noted, although it doesn't prove that the message is received, it does show interest.

All the blogs were constructed well and included mainly promotional material, the lack of comments for Charles Sturt University and UTS negates the collaborative effects however there are no measures to tell the usage, the blogs almost take on a bookmark effect highlighting resources but not giving the log (narration, opinion or creative aspect) or discussion. The State Library blogs that included expert knowledge engaged more comments than noted on the other blogs indicating that content has allot to do with the use of this tool and that blogs used for merely promotional purposes are not by nature collaborative.

The Live chat function included on most libraries can be considered a web 2.0 tool due to its instant messaging styles, conversation being a key pattern of web 2.0. Although restricted by hours and days, the hours appear to suit the university environment but I would have expected the larger state library to include more availability. Analysis of usage of these services would be required to make a more accurate assessment of their usefulness.

Web 2.0 tools are implemented to meet user needs, it appears that content is a key factor in the usefulness or to attract user engagement thus making the tool worthwhile. A 2.0 Library is a user expectation that must be analysed with particular focus on content and what the tools convey rather than the tools themselves.

Librarian 2.0

Essential knowledge, skills and attributes of of an information professional in a Web 2.0 world:

I think number one is to be curious and cautious, adventurous yet careful, about new technologies and the needs and uses of them in the particular library environment you are in.

I think flexibility and experimentation can be bolstered by analysis and research into both user needs and behaviours along with analysis and trials of the technology. At the same time, as Meredith Farkas (2007) has pointed out, we should not strive to be perfectionists, what I am suggesting is that it should more of a trial and error learning method rather than a hit and miss. Trial and error indicating more of a experimental approach involving hypothesis, theory and practical application and responsiveness to feedback and experiments, whereas a hit and miss approach suggests a reckless adoption of all technology or as Meredith Farkas (2007) describes "techno lust".

Librarian 2.0 must be aware and eager to learn and teach new technologies, and be aware that they may be part of a bigger picture. That the technology they use today may have to be discarded and replaced or accompanied with something new regardless of our attachment. I personally log straight onto my face book site whenever I sit down to the computer, but I still check my emails (considered a web 1.0 tool). This means we must have the ability to develop with web 2.0 whilst using a range of tools that meet the needs or preferences of the users.

I think also that time needs to be devoted to the upkeep and collaborative function of all web 2.0 tools, if we have to do it on top of everything we already do, or if its not considered a priority, then great tools can be left by the wayside and considered useless. This points out that we must facilitate their uptake and continued use and relevancy through dynamic, innovative and appealing content.

We need to be up with whats hot, not just with web 2.0 tools but with hardware, using Ipads, phones, laptops, and any other gadget that's out there to draw in users. My sons DSi has wireless internet connectivity plus he can make and edit small videos on it (not to mention online gaming capabilities), put the two together and we engage our youth. Its important to know hardware and software tools to offer complete relevancy.

The long tail and the digital divide were also two points brought up in Harvey (2009). To reach the long tail, there is a greater reason to be gadget and web 2.0 savvy as mentioned above. More and more our society's individuals are moving away from the mainstream, as seen in the recent Australian federal election. I think this is a trend we will see more of, and the range of technology and tools available supports this individuality and specialisation. No longer do we just have an email address (an indiscreet letterbox) but we have profiles which build a picture of our personalities, beliefs, wants, needs and sentiments.

The digital divide is always an issue that libraries will be involved with. In response to user needs, much of the floorspace is devoted to providing the facilities for users to get connected. I think libraries need to be more innovative in this area too, providing not only computers but the use of more portable Ipads or laptops, kindles etc that can be used throughout the library, opening up the digital experience to all of its users.




Abrams, S. (2007). Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and Librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 world found at http://2009.online-information.co.uk/files/freedownloads.new_link1.1080622103251.pdf

Farkas, M. (2007). Building academic library 2.0.Symposium of Librarians Association of the University of California retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uOKFhoznI

Harvey, M. (2009). What does it mean to be a Science Librarian 2.0? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (Summer). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/09-summer/article2.html

Effective Library Website Design

My own set of criteria of an effective Library Website design:

1. I like the modern look and agree that the a visual of a libraries website does make an impression on users perception of the type of library it is. Two examples are:

Camden Council Library Services:

And Campbelltown Library:

I think both sites are effective and happen to know that both are great local government libraries but the visual difference between the two, leads me to believe that one is easier to use than the other. The Campbelltown Library site fits more into the home page but it is cluttered and for the most part generic and formal, the Camden Library site is more visually attractive because of its use of colour, icons and wigits along with the addition of pictures. Although Campbelltown Library includes web 2.0 by prompting following on twitter, providing RSS feeds and blogs in my opinion, Library 2.0 has become lost on the busy home page.

2. Easy navigation - Users want fast and effective navigation and not have to read through lists of items to find where they want to go, especially if they are unsure of where to look and have to do some searching.

The camden Library includes a serch window in all segmented areas of the site.

The campbelltown library includes a google search function, but searching is carried out over the Campbelltown council web domain, of which the Library is a part of, searching is not focussed on the Library site only and thus includes irrelevent material.

3. Promotional material in prominent places.
The Camden Library home page displays coming events in the centre of the page with pictures and promotional text. The promotional material on the Campbelltown site is again lost in the lists on the homepage, 'follow us on twitter' appears as a listed item but in a different colour which does highlight the feature but could be better shown with the twitter icon.


4. Segmentation - I agree that creating a space for separate and destinct users is wise and appeals to that group more. For example a kids or youth page where specialised librarians can contribute to the content and web 2.0 features geared toward that particular group.


5. Current information that is updated on a regular basis is essential. Regular use of web 2.0 technologies to interact with users is part of this. If the web page or contacts made through web 2.0 technologies are neglected then so will the participation in the site and may effect the usage of the library.

Advice from Meredith Farkas

Five key pieces of advice from Meredith Farkas on Library 2.0:

1. Planning - was one of the first points and one of the 3 p's of Library 2.0 (planning, partnership, privacy). We need to consider not just what we want but how it will be delivered and ensure that it focuses on the needs of the constituency.

2. Focus on the user and go where they are - ie use YouTube, Facebook, MySpace or whatever their using as social networks and integrate into their worlds, also the formation of partnerships with student groups, faculties etc.

3. Keep up - librarians must make time to keep up, it must be part of their job description and be considered important enough to segregate from other duties. This means that we are able to keep up with new technology plus create content to use on the technology and interaction with users who need these technologies and support through them from the library.

4. Let go of the perfectionist ideal - the new information world is fast paced, if we worry about the final product being perfect (especially on the technologies such as blogs, Facebook and twitter) we won't be using it as much and won't get the benefits from regular use.

5. Techno lust - This idea was interesting as I think this happens to everyone, that we just want the next shiny new thing without the planning its delivery to our users or how it will integrate into our systems. Its wise to be sure that it will be a useful tool in facilitating the resources or services of the library.

And - with advice of number 4 - that will have to do.

A - Z of Social Networking for Libraries

Selecting five Library 2.0 ethos that could improve the Library I use:

1. Text - my local library already uses text for overdue notices but without being annoying to the user could use the method to advertise other library 2.0 features, creating awareness of blogs, RSS feeds or changes to the Website. For example library library uses the local paper and its website to promote author visits and although these are mostly successful, they have had to cancel through lack of interest. All advertising is also done by the council advertising department, so control has been taken away from the library. Through texting and RSS feeds or video presentations their coverage could be expanded for promotion of these and other events and also be controlled by the library itself.

2. Video - in the recent past, my local library opened another branch which was considered a state of the art facility, the website has pictures and pictures have been added to flikr (which I actually did during my study visit) but staff are not required to flickr pictures etc and a video tour of the new building on the website and posted to YouTube would be beneficial.

3. Podcasting - this could also improve the success of their author visits by conducting a recording or quick personal interview with the author, it would reach more users and could also satisfy the user needs more as many of the users are commuters and can't be at the author visits because of when they are held.

4. Blogs - would be a useful addition as the aims and direction of the Library and its initiatives and usefulness to the users would be more transparent. They also invite comment and discussion which allows for that interaction and feeling of creation and contribution to the community.

5. Facebook is a popular social networking program that would claw in users by being able to notify them of events, and general library policy, activities and whats available or new. This would be an invaluable tool to gauge user needs and opinion of resources available.

The Library Minute

The ASU 'library minute' presentations are examples of how to capture an audience, through visual and audible entertainment and feed informative and promotional messages about the libraries functions and key features. As these presentations reach their audience, the value of service provided increases through a discovery or reminder of the service plus the added benefit of a memorable imprint in the mind thanks to the mixture of a range of visual and audio learning techniques.

The Library minute is tightly wrapped up with concise points (eg. 'Top 5 Resources for Online Students'), visual examples (such as the laptop theft in 'Security'), effective imagery (such as the visual of the 'Holy Grail' in 'Academic Articles') humorous video clips and music used throughout and also the use of words flashing up on the screen to further imprint their message. The use of a short space of time is also beneficial for attention span and useful to attract busy students.

The clips only present a few points at a time, added together it is possible that they would not have the same impact or maintain interest. The main points presented have on some occasions been covered in more detail in their own Library Minutes, for example there is a 'Academic Articles' and also a 'EBSCO Academic Search Premier' showing the users how to access the academic articles. As they slowly build up the short episodes, users are lead into more detailed information.

The videos are pesented on the ASU website and on Youtube with the ability to subscribe via RSS, supporting the open access style of Web 2.0. They are also clearly user oriented targeting students and their youthful and fun lifestyle whilst supporting their information needs and encouraging their entrance into the academic library environment. The library minute incorporates the 4 C's of social media by the public access and its consultation with its users - ie conversation (or communication) and community.

Other Web 2.0 facilities available through the ASU Library Channel include, RSS feeds to new news realeases or Library Minutes, a Library Blog and twitter all contributing to collaboration, conversation, community and content creation because of the interaction it draws from the users and library staff. The ability to comment or share services and socialise creates network connections useful in providing relevent and useful information to the students whilst also expressing policies and the reasons for them from the librarians point of view.



NB - The four C's of Web 2.0 being collaboration, conversation, community and content creation.