Web 2.0, Hip or Hype - A Library Perspective


Published on

Ever hear the terms Web 2.0 or Library 2.0, but don't know what the heck they mean? Chad and Shane will do their best to explain these terms, and what these terms mean for libraries today and in the future. Learn about interesting new "2.0" applications in the library world as well as the web at large and discuss what libraries can do to harness the potential of the collective intelligence.

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
  • nice presentation. Can you email the copy at agung@stikom.edu?

    Thank you
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Presentation title should be Verdana Bold, extended, 30-36 pt., black, centered Secondary title should be Verdana Bold, extended, 22-26 pt., white, centered
  • Web 2.0, Hip or Hype - A Library Perspective

    1. 1. Chad Fennell & Shane Nackerud University of Minnesota Libraries EQS 2007 May 2, 2007 Web 2.0 Hip or Hype
    2. 4. 10 years later...
    3. 5. Semantic Web Proposal <ul><li>Enrich every piece of the data on the web with metadata conveying its meaning </li></ul><ul><li>Added context will help computers and users find more meaningful data </li></ul><ul><li>Berners-Lee Proposal from 2000 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/DevelopmentProposal </li></ul></ul>
    4. 6. ???
    5. 7. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Coined by Tim O’Reilly in September 2005 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web based applications that allow for collaboration and sharing of information </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 applications change based on user expectations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perpetual beta </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 applications allow for the reuse of data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mashups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 applications are easy to use </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 applications encourage users to help build the information environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User trust </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 </li></ul></ul>
    6. 15. What does Web 2.0 encompass? <ul><li>RSS </li></ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul><ul><li>User supplied reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Tags and Folksonomy </li></ul><ul><li>AJAX </li></ul><ul><li>New interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><li>Social bookmarking </li></ul><ul><li>Gaming </li></ul><ul><li>Mashups </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendation functionality </li></ul>How have libraries reacted?
    7. 16. Library 2.0 <ul><li>Library 2.0 is all about library users -- it's about participation -- involving users in service creation and evaluation. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.squidoo.com/library20/ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Creating user friendly services that people expect, and encouraging participation </li></ul><ul><li>Any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Areas of change: policy, programming, physical spaces, and technology </li></ul>
    8. 17. Focus <ul><li>Technology for technology’s sake is wrong </li></ul><ul><li>What are you creating a blog for? A wiki? RSS feeds? </li></ul><ul><li>Hopefully to meet a user need </li></ul><ul><li>What are our goals with these technologies? </li></ul><ul><li>How can we really “add value”? </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the user experience </li></ul><ul><li>Get in the flow of the user </li></ul>
    9. 18. Attention and Workflow <ul><li>Then </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources scarce, attention abundant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users built workflow around the library </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Now </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attention scarce, resources abundant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The library must build its services around user workflow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lorcan Dempsey – “Getting into the Flow” (2007) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How does Web 2.0 fit in? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Users expect it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users prefer it </li></ul></ul>
    10. 19. What can you do? <ul><li>Easy Stuff </li></ul><ul><li>mashups, reuse of data, RSS feeds, using external 2.0 technology </li></ul><ul><li>Challenging Stuff </li></ul><ul><li>building your own 2.0 projects </li></ul><ul><li>Hard Stuff </li></ul><ul><li>meeting expectations in existing applications </li></ul>
    11. 20. Catalog/Amazon Mashup Want to use it? http://www.lib.umn.edu/site/firecat.phtml
    12. 21. Add your catalog to search <ul><li>Add your catalog to Firefox 2.*, Internet Explorer 7 </li></ul><ul><li>OpenSearch Technology </li></ul>http://www.opensearch.org/Home
    13. 23. Easy to build search box Blog RSS Feed Aleph X created RSS Feed LibData RSS Feed
    14. 24. Our home pages are widgets Universal Widget API from netvibes: http://dev.netvibes.com/
    15. 25. Challenging Stuff Building your own 2.0 applications
    16. 26. Wisdom of Crowds <ul><li>British scientist Francis Galton went to the fair </li></ul><ul><li>Watched the crowd try to guess the weight of a fat ox </li></ul><ul><li>The ox weighed 1,198 lbs. </li></ul><ul><li>The crowd’s average guess (about 800 people) was 1,197 lbs. </li></ul><ul><li>No one person got close, but the crowd collectively made the best guess </li></ul><ul><li>Critical Mass </li></ul>
    17. 28. Benefits <ul><li>Promotes intellectual freedom </li></ul><ul><li>Connects the library with the traditional academic enterprise </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 50% of the active blogs on the system are class based </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Helps the library retain the cultural memory of the U </li></ul><ul><li>Google PageRank </li></ul><ul><li>Changes perceptions </li></ul><ul><li>Creates relationships </li></ul>
    18. 30. Benefits <ul><li>Allows for tagging in local systems and better control of data </li></ul><ul><li>Ties better to UPenn link resolver </li></ul><ul><li>Creates local communities / classroom communities </li></ul><ul><li>Extending code to do more </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Image collection ala Flickr </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does it contain the critical mass needed? Is that important? </li></ul>
    19. 31. Staff Wiki
    20. 32. Benefits <ul><li>Chance to learn technology in a non-threatening way </li></ul><ul><li>Revolutionized staff pages </li></ul><ul><li>Gives all our staff the chance to give a major 2.0 technology a try </li></ul><ul><li>Encourages staff to consider new ways to use the technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are wikis appropriate for public web pages? In a library setting? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do we have enough “radical trust”? </li></ul></ul>
    21. 33. RugLinks http://alerts.ub.rug.nl/
    22. 34. Create RSS feeds
    23. 35. Benefits <ul><li>Mashup of two different technologies: SFX and Metalib </li></ul><ul><li>RSS feeds are created to go through RUG proxy server </li></ul><ul><li>Creates RSS feeds for journals that don’t have feeds (and some that do) </li></ul><ul><li>Gives the user one interface to master </li></ul><ul><li>Includes email option for people unfamiliar with RSS </li></ul><ul><li>Is it perfect? No. </li></ul>
    24. 36. Hard Stuff Meeting expectations with existing applications
    25. 37. Plymouth State University – WPOpac
    26. 38. North Carolina State University
    27. 51. In conclusion <ul><li>Web 2.0 / Library 2.0 memes have been valuable </li></ul><ul><li>Forced libraries to reevaluate services and tools </li></ul><ul><li>Re-focused library tools and services on users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease of use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User contribution and participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User needs and goals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is much more work to be done </li></ul>
    28. 52. Web 2.0, Hype Alert!
    29. 53. Disclaimer Fear, uncertainty, and doubt ( FUD ) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt
    30. 54. What the Heck Does 2.0 Really Mean??? <ul><li>“ The term Web 2.0 particularly bugs me. It's not a real concept. It has no meaning. It's a big, vague, nebulous cloud of pure architectural nothingness.” </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/10/21.html </li></ul>
    31. 55. (vague, nebulous cloud)
    32. 56. Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0 <ul><li>“… I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along. “ </li></ul><ul><li>http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.txt </li></ul>
    33. 57. Looking at a 2.0 technology - Tagging <ul><li>folksonomy is a user generated taxonomy used to categorize and retrieve web content such as Web pages , photographs and Web links , using open ended labels called tags . </li></ul>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy#Origin
    34. 58. <ul><li>“ Organizing” Things </li></ul><ul><li>End-User Style </li></ul>
    35. 59. Pay Me Now
    36. 60. Or…Pay Me Later http:// del.icio.us/mendel?settagview =cloud
    37. 61. Controlled Vocabularies <ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes finding stuff easier for everyone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Help users find “everything” – good recall </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to keep current </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High up-front cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terminology issues - “Neoplasms,” not “Cancer” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relegated mostly to the realm of “Professionals” </li></ul></ul>
    38. 62. “ Folksonomies” <ul><li>Pros </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low Up-Front Cost, Low Barrier </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participatory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best for “Personal Refindability” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Amateur friendly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Terrible for helping me find your stuff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deferred Cost Will Be High, Eventually </li></ul></ul>
    39. 63. <ul><li>Build it and they will come? </li></ul><ul><li>On Architectures of Participation </li></ul>
    40. 65. Even High Volume Sites Fail at Tags <ul><li>“Tagging works well when people tag &quot;their&quot; stuff, but it fails when they're asked to do it to &quot;someone else's&quot; stuff.“ </li></ul><ul><li>“If Amazon with its unsurpassed traffic is having trouble, can other ecommerce sites hope to make tagging work?” </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2007/02/when-tags-works-and-when-they-dont.php </li></ul>
    41. 67. On the Subject of “Social” <ul><li>Is “Social” Synonymous With “Good”? </li></ul>
    42. 69. http://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/archives/2006/11/spam-farms-social-web.html
    43. 70. The “Digg Mafia” <ul><li>“ People have started to question the efficiency of its voting system; a system that lets a small minority i.e. ' The Digg Mafia ' decide what makes it onto the homepage or not; something that a wider user base should do. “ -Ajay D’Souza </li></ul><ul><li>http://techtites.com/2007/02/17/why-the-digg-mafia-will-cost-kevin-rose-millions/ </li></ul>
    44. 71. http://digg.com/tech_news/Why_The_Digg_Mafia_Will_Cost_Kevin_Rose_Millions
    45. 72. <ul><li>“ One &quot;games a system&quot; (for example, the tax code) when one acts in such a way that one gains tax advantages by exploiting a tax rule that was intended for some other purpose.” </li></ul><ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence#Purposeful_gaming_to_achieve_unintended_consequences </li></ul>
    46. 73. Extortion, Threats and Lies <ul><li>Buying and selling of feedback itself </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback “extortion” –threats to leave negative feedback unless sellers lower prices </li></ul><ul><li>Retaliatory negative feedback </li></ul>http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3587651
    47. 74. So is Web 2.0 Hype? <ul><li>You decide. Hype is about someone else telling you what to think. </li></ul><ul><li>Make your decision based on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What the Technology IS/DOES </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What you or your users need </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Think Like a Designer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design: “to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan” –Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary </li></ul></ul>
    48. 75. Still, I Design for Web 2.0
    49. 78. Web 2.0 Contextualized <ul><li>Code Snippets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aimed at educational technologists, course designers and web geeks – unobtrusive and puts the user in control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Puts library-generated course pages into users’s context </li></ul></ul><ul><li>EthicShare </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scholarly needs drive the requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not social for the sake of being social – designed around scholarly activities and practices </li></ul></ul>
    50. 79. So, Hip or Hype? <ul><li>You tell us……………… </li></ul><ul><li>Chad Fennell and Shane Nackerud </li></ul><ul><li>University of Minnesota Libraries </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>