... just one more Thing!

So, The 23 Things Oxford Programme: A Wonderful Experience? Discuss.

I have, on the whole, enjoyed the programme, although it has taken me longer to do each Thing than I first expected and I have had to do some of it outside of work, causing me somewhat of a problem as I don’t actually have broadband at home (hello, public libraries – currently blogging from Whitby, no less!) . Many of the Things have been useful, some I knew about already and some I will continue to use. At least I am more aware of what tools are out there, giving me insight into what exactly our readers are using and how libraries can use them as a way of reaching out and communicating with our own members as well as the public at large. I was amazed at the breadth and scope of what is available and the extent to which some things have come along since I was an undergraduate myself (think Office 2.0.)

All the tasks have been good to know about, others I will take into my life (so flickr is not so useful to me as I don’t take too many digital photos), but Google Reader, for example, and delicious have totally transformed the way I use the internet. Even twitter, which I have been reluctant to sign up to, has proven to be a joy and it has genuinely enabled me to connect with other members of staff, some of which I have never properly met, which has been really helpful as a relative “newbie” to Oxford.

Has the programme answered my initial question of whether or not Web 2.0 benefits libraries? Well, yes. There are some concerns –I have already mentioned privacy issues- but let’s not dwell on those. Social Networking tools and blogs are a great way of reaching our readers, keeping them up-to-date and getting their feedback. Technologies such as wikis, youtube and podcasts are a great way of delivering enhanced content to students and our readers. But most importantly as librarians, or, at least, people working with library users, this is a real insight into how students and researchers are working and what resources they have available to them. It is really important that we keep abreast of how the people we serve are using the technology that is out there as we move further into this strange digital world that we inhabit – so thank you 23 Things Oxford!

…Can I have my vouchers now, please?

Widget. It’s got a widget. A lovely widget. A widget it has got. Widget.

I very much enjoyed playing with widgets (and while we’re on the subject, just what is the connection between standalone web-page components and the little ball they used to put inside cans of Guinness?), in fact this marks the first occasion (and 22 Things into this programme, let’s be honest, the last) when I’ve actually done one of the Things before it’s come up as a task! Oh, yes, check out my flickr stream that’s been on my blog for several (you heard me right - several) weeks. Check me out, ladies and gentlemen, check me out. I suppose I simply must be living up to a man’s reputation as being “gadget obsessed”!

I decided to enter into the spirit of things and added another flicker stream to my blog, the “gallery” style widget this time as apposed to the scrolling one I’ve been using, as well as trying out a few more and finally settling on the “twitter” gadget you can see on the right-hand side (if you scroll down). The problem we have is that it’s tempting to over clutter your page and, in fact, I think I’ve probably gone a bit overboard despite my best intentions to keep it simple. This is a side effect of widgets (or gadgets) being so incredibly easy to set up and use, despite them being really quite clever. Usually you only need to select the gadget you are interested in, check or uncheck the features you want, and sometimes add your username, and that’s it – it’s on your blog or facebook page or whatever. Occasionally you can set up a widget from an external site (the mashable link I found very useful) but even then it’s very straightforward. I suppose the downside of this is that it’s making privacy a bit of an issue. If you have an online diary in the form of a blog and it interlinks with your twitter page, your facebook page, your flicker account et al, it would be quite easy for someone to find out quite a lot about you.

I also spent some time exploring the iGoogle widgets, including the suggested delicious widget. This is a perfect example of how easy they are to set up – two clicks and it was just about done. I have included a recent screen grab of my iGoogle page for your viewing pleasure – as you can see, there are quite a few widgets on there, as I have been using it since we set up our iGoogle pages in week 1! Most useful has been the London Underground map and planner widgets for my (very) infrequent trips into London. I think iGoogle has to be my favourite of all the Web 2.0 technologies we’ve discovered.

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.