Office 2.0: This time... it's personal(ised stationary)

I wasn’t really too familiar with the idea of “Office 2.0” – or, at least, I wasn’t aware that I was. As it turned out, when I went into Google Docs to complete the task for Thing 19, I actually had some documents already in there! It would appear that I have viewed attachments from my Google Mail account in the past, and I have opened them with Google Docs instead of an actual locally-installed piece of software. So seamless is this latest technology that I’ve been using it without even knowing it!

I’m quite happy with Google Docs, and although basic compared to, say, Microsoft Office, it is more than adequate for the kind of documents I would want to access on the move or easily share with others. I didn’t actually know about the sharing function, so that is an extra string to its bow as far as I am concerned. I can certainly see its benefits. With computers and web-based tools using more and more memory, it makes sense to move your everyday software functions into the “cloud” that is the internet. I can imagine if you move around a lot, or don’t actually have your own computer, it would be fantastic to be able to log onto any computer with a live internet connection and not have to worry about what software it has installed. It actually almost makes redundant the relatively hassle-free notion of carrying around a tiny memory stick.

ThinkFreeOffice is quite a bit more advanced and actually resembles Microsoft Office almost exactly (aside from the obvious convenience of not needing to connect to the internet to perform word processing, it almost makes me wonder why you would bother paying to own the software). I had a play with the features for a while and the list goes on and on. There is an extensive range of fonts to chose from, advanced formatting tools, the ability to find text, insert tables, a spellchecker and dictionary, clip art to chose from, even the ability to save in pdf format. Basically I am impressed. I had a go at uploading a pre-existing document that was saved on the desktop and it was a seamless (identical) reproduction. A slight complaint is that I did experience the pre-warned s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n as the computer struggled with memory, but it’s a slight niggle. I would definitely use ThinkFreeOffice again, especially if I am away from home. I think I will be more inclined to use Google Docs for most things, as it is handily built into my email account, but this is better for more advanced projects. Thank you 23ThingsOxford for bringing it to my attention! 

and when she was bad she was WIKI!

I have long been a fan of Wikipedia and despite constantly having to remind myself that everything on it must be taken with a pinch of salt I have for many a year been known to lose myself in Wikipedia “sessions” for an hour or two. As such, I have a bit of Wiki experience under my belt (Wikiperience?). The first thing I learned with this task is that Wiki is the Hawaiian word for “fast.” Always good to know these nuggets of information! The second thing I learned was that there are other great and comprehensive wikis besides Wikipedia out there - I’m not sure I’ve ever even dared venture outside the Wikipedia behemoth.

I found Wetpaint to be a very pleasant site and I had no trouble getting use to it and exploring its pages and features. The Oxford web 2.0 wiki was particularly comprehensive and I was most impressed with it (if not a little embarrassed to have never heard of it before!). There was way too much information to absorb in one sitting, so I concentrated on a few select topics and was most pleased to discover such a thing as a SOLO search widget that can be embedded into your facebook page – what a great idea! I was particularly impressed with the “Easy Edit” tool, literally transforming the entire page into one interactive, editable page with easy-to-insert features, layout tools etc. Admittedly, this tool does not seem to work on Internet Explorer (as warned), which is not so much of a problem as there are a lot of Firefox converts these days, but still. All in all, this is the nicest and best editing tool of this nature I have come across. My contribution was limited to adding a link to the Sainsbury Library facebook page and doing a bit of the suggested “OULS spotting” (soon to be a national hobby, surely?), of which I managed to find one example. The biggest OULS “spot” of all, though, must be the web address http://socialouls.wetpaint.com, though I guess there’s not a great deal we can do about that.

I like Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia a lot. It’s one of the first places I go to after I’ve finished reading a book or watching a film and I want to find out more. I think I’ve even done a little bit of contributing in the past, although I can’t remember what for. I’ve never really noticed, or at least paid attention to, the 'history' and 'discussion' tabs at the top of the page and I was most intrigued to explore them having been promised that they can make for very interesting reading, especially concerning controversial articles or subjects. I decided to read up on, “The Master and Margarita,” figuring that it has potential for controversy, and was most pleased to find a lengthy difference of opinion concerning the new English translation, which still does not seem to have been resolved or incorporated into the main article. For me, this really highlighted the need for the thorough verification of the facts and information included here and the importance of adhering to a journalistic style that is neither so void of opinion as to be uninteresting nor so overtly critical as to be biased – a tough line to straddle. This is both the strength of a user base as large as that of Wikipedia and its weakness. It’s a truly great site for browsing, but you couldn’t site it in an essay.

Twit or tweet?

Well, twitter’s a nice little site, isn’t it? Having previously blogged about my reluctance to join up and start “tweeting” (may as well get down with the lingo), I now can see why it’s taken the virtual world by storm. On one hand, it is (as one fellow Oxford 23 Thing-er has already blogged) very much like the status feature on facebook, where you write a short description about what you are doing for others to comment on. I feel it falls somewhere between that and text messaging, with a few little bells and whistles thrown in for good measure. Really, though, the beauty of twitter is in its simplicity. You may only say a few words on a particular subject, and you may link to a picture or a web page, and you may share it with all, but there’s no room for getting bogged down in lengthy discussion. There are plenty of tools available for more elaborate forms of expression and conversation, forums and blogs among them, so it’s nice to have a simpler, less time-consuming alternative.

My limited experience with twitter so far has been positive. It’s a very attractive and easy-to-navigate site, and signing up was pain-free. Once again, the ability to trawl through my gmail account for potential contacts was a useful feature. I have found searching for other users much easier than, say, linkedin (which was, frankly, abysmal) and I have had a fairly successful match rate. I didn’t really know how twitter worked and have been confused in the past by the @ symbols peppering people’s posts, so I had to read the instructions pretty carefully and actually learn how to use it. I must say I feel a little bit old for this one (and I’m not out of my twenties, yet!) and it really does feel like it’s what the kids are using, but it’s straightforward, easy, and I can see how it would be fun. I had no real problem getting my head around the concept and have followed a few people, replied to a few posts and even had a go at retweeting with no real hassle.

I was pleased to see that there is a CILIP twitter account, which can be followed, that posts lots of interesting links that might be of interest to librarians. This way, I was able to find a story of interest from the guardian entitled, “Libraries are vital community hubs”. I then “retweeted” for all my (vast, many) followers to read. Admittedly, I couldn’t figure out how to add the #ox23 hash tag for all participants in this programme to read, but still, I think this gives a good indication of how twitter could be used to benefit library-based folk such as our good selves.

linkedin? Can I opt out?

Like a few other people doing this Oxford 23 Things… thing(!), I wasn’t too impressed by linkedin. I like the idea of a networking tool designed to bring people together through a particular workplace or line of work, but, sorry, this just isn’t as easy to get on with as facebook. It isn’t helped, I should imagine, by the fact that it doesn’t have anywhere near the quantity of registered members (and, therefore size of people databases) to search through, and as a result, I am left with hardly any contacts to test the features out on. Worse still, I found it difficult, if not confusing, to search for people I do know. The search box in the top right corner allows you to search for a choice of people, jobs, companies etc, but choosing any of the search options seems to bring back companies only. Even searching for my own name brings back “Carl Jones Design.”

Signing up was easy enough, and the ability to quickly search your email account (via a few email providers available) was a nice feature, but it didn’t bring back many results. The most disappointing part of the sign-up process -a fairly significant part, too- was the lack of a “Bodleian Library” or even “Oxford University Libraries” category to choose from. As a result I have plumped for the generic “Oxford University” thus sharing my “line of work” with researchers, professors and the like. Not especially useful when attempting to connect with work colleagues and those in the same field.

I’m sorry, linkedin, it’s not looking good, is it? I’m inclined to think that facebook is perfectly adequate and better equipped at connecting work colleagues as it is, so is there really need for a site like this? Perhaps I will give it another try when I have more time to play.

13: Unlucky for some!

I’m quite happy in my own little world of “not exactly a luddite but generally one step behind the latest thing.” As such, I use facebook and have for a while, but am not yet prepared to make the bold leap to twitter. I was first introduced to social networking via myspace, which I joined once I realised that just about everyone else had joined already. Facebook, I believe, started up as a means of keeping University students in touch with each other after graduation and it actually took a long time before a valid university email address was not required to become a member. I joined around about 2007 when a friend, whose opinion I trust dearly, told me he had “officially” ditched his myspace in favour of a facebook account. For me, it’s just about the perfect net-based tool and it’s what I think of before anything else when talking about Web 2.0. In fact, I’ve been waiting for it to come up in 23 Things Oxford for weeks!

In terms of how libraries can use facebook, I’m inclined to think that its most powerful asset is its ability to gather members and communicate with them quickly and easily – in short, it is a powerful networking tool. There are arguments for “becoming a fan” over joining a group (although you are welcome to be a fan of something without using facebook. I myself am a secret X factor junkie), and visa versa, but both methods allow libraries to virtually re-create their member database (to an extent – there must be willing on the part of the user) and communicate or share with them what they will. It’s a very effective way of getting members of an organization or group, or people who share a common interest, into a shared “virtual” room. I’m imagining 10,000 “virtual” monkeys crammed into a “virtual” clown’s car!

It’s “click-of-a-button” easy to message ALL group members (up to 5000 members) so this would be a good way of alerting your readers to, say, new or amended opening hours and a great way of advertising an upcoming exhibition (or some public libraries have author events). The informal nature of facebook groups allows fellow readers to meet, discuss topics and, if they so wish, get to know one another (an opportunity rarely allowed inside a library because, as we all know, libraries are quiet areas of hushed tones and disapproving looks). I could imagine a research student encountering a fellow researcher online sharing a similar area of interest, for example. It’s a great, free means for libraries to reach out and find its target demographic and to use feedback to improve its services and you can add rich media to your page allowing interlinking to, say, videos of interest, virtual tours etc.

Best of all, you don’t usually need to be an actual library member to join its group , which perhaps makes a library a little more accessible (scary, intimidating places that they are!). It’s a way of staying connected to readers all over the country and all over the world. The Bodleian has such a fantastic, world-class catalogue, it should appeal to library users and researchers the world over, and it’s another means of allowing everyone to feel more connected.

To all those that say this 23 Things Oxford programme is turning out to be more work than first imagined, I say phooey! This has to be the most enjoyable task I’ve been given. I made a special effort to bring my headphones to work with me (well, that’s not entirely true as I carry my iPod with me for those long trudges up and down Morrell Avenue) and I spent a leisurely half hour of my lunch break listening to whatever podcasts took my particular fancy. I was delighted to discover podcasts for Mark Kermode’s film review show, Zane Lowe on Radio One and a radio version of the Onion! I knew about Podcasts and had a vague idea that you listened to them on mp3 players (or, indeed any piece of software that could play mp3s) but that has always been my method – download an mp3 and play it as you would any other media file. Podcatchers (it’s a great word isn’t it?) or, by default, “Podcatching” is entirely new to me and I was delighted to discover that audio or video feeds could be added to my Google Reader account at the click of a button. I love having all my chosen blogs and podcasts sat side by side, and it couldn’t be easier. I suppose it’s a bit like receiving newspapers and magazines through your door that you subscribe to, only they have little TV screens and speakers attached to them. How fantastic a notion is that?

The biggest revelation to me was the Oxford University podcasts, or more specifically, podcasts featuring academic lectures and talks. I think the potential for students here is amazing. On one hand it is a way to offer supplementary material to that which has been delivered in a particular lecture or talk, but it could also be a way to revisit material relating to a subject or course. This would come into its own if you could not make a lecture, for example, or if you wanted to make further notes (in the style of a journalist conducting an interview via Dictaphone – shorthand will only take you so far, right?). For this, you would maybe need special access via the use of a password or membership number when enrolled on a course. But think of the potential! You could be an actual “virtual” student! You could be a foreign student and never actually visit the academic body you are foreign to… but, yes, why would you want to do that? Certainly, as a means of supporting existing students, it’s great. It’s a bit like ITV2 and other such digital channels that offer repeats and addition material to that which has already been shown. Students have it so good these days!

YouTube I know and am at one with. Was there really ever a time when the internet existed before YouTube? Was there ever really a time before YouTube… period? I would like to think that I am familiar with most of its features and benefits but a completely new feature to me was the YouTube EDU channel. I didn’t know that some academic bodies had their own channels and, actually, I hadn’t taken time to look at the channels much at all. I suppose if net-based media is to replace television, it makes sense that it would have its own channels. I liked the way Cambridge had its own channel with videos including a history of Cambridge and information on admissions. I think this is an excellent means of appealing to potential students – it strikes me as the perfect way of getting a feel for whether you would like somewhere before you take the step of visiting. A virtual tour of the city or the colleges would be a great use of this application. And of course, every channel is peppered with links to its other Web 2.0 strands; facebook, twitter pages etc. I am impressed by how all these web technologies, with their slightly individual purposes overlap and share with each other.

Asked to look for library-related videos on YouTube, I went straight for the Silent Rave that happened at University of York Library. Yes, it really happened and no, I wasn’t there at the time. Take your pick here or here.