• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Web 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers
 

Web 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers

on

  • 5,760 views

Brian Kelly, UKOLN, gave a talk on "Web 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers" at the ILI 2006 conference in London on 16 October 2006. ...

Brian Kelly, UKOLN, gave a talk on "Web 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers" at the ILI 2006 conference in London on 16 October 2006.
See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/ili-2006/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,760
Views on SlideShare
5,756
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 4

http://www.slideshare.net 2
http://www.techgig.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Web 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers Web 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers Presentation Transcript

    • Web 2.0 and Library 2.0: Addressing Institutional Barriers Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email [email_address] UKOLN is supported by: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/ili-2006/ Acceptable Use Policy Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, Blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) ili2006 tag used in del.icio.us
    • Contents
      • Web 2.0 / Library 2.0
        • It's great
      • Organisational barriers
        • Technology is immature  Legal risks
        • It's too costly  It's scary
      • Addressing the barriers
        • Understanding our culture
        • Risk assessment and risk management
        • Deployment strategies
      • Safe Experimentation
        • Examples of uses of Web 2.0 (refer to handouts and online version of slides)
    • Web 2.0 and Library 2.0
      • We've heard how:
        • Blogs allow our users to easily create content and share their views
        • Wikis allow communities to easily collaborate in creation of content
        • Social networking services (e.g. Flickr, del.icio.us) allow communities to share resources (e.g. photographs, bookmarks)
        • Syndication technologies (e.g. RSS, Atom) allow communities to be easily repurposed
        • Messaging technologies (e.g. MSN, Jabber, Skype) allow people to communicate
      Web 2.0 So we will all be deploying these services within our institutions. Are we?
    • Takeup Of New Technologies
      • The Gartner curve
      Developers Rising expectations Trough of despair Service plateau Enterprise software Large budgets … Early adopters
      • Chasm
      • Failure to go beyond developers & early adopters (cf Gopher)
      • Need for:
        • Advocacy
        • Listening to users
        • Addressing concerns
        • Deployment strategies
      This talks looks at approaches for avoiding the chasm
    • The Barriers
      • There are barriers to the deployment of Web 2.0:
        • It's scary: I've just mastered CSS; we've just spend a lot of money on a CMS; …
        • It's immature: I've heard it all before (XML, Semantic Web, …) . This is just new hype
        • It's scary: I've just mastered CSS; we've just spend a lot of money on a CMS; …
        • There are legal risks: Copyright infringement; data protection; protection of minors; …
        • Infringement of guidelines: Web 2.0 infringes our AUP; accessibility legislation; e-Gov legislation; ..
        • Institutional inertia: We'd like to do it but we have large existing systems; reluctant colleagues; …
      Web 2.0 Barriers How do we go about addressing these barriers? (And should we – what if the concerns are legitimate!)
    • Nobody Likes Us - The Users' View
      • IT Services – prvoding the answers or blocking the users?
        • Don't understand learning and teaching and think that students only ever use the Web for messing around.
        • Have no interest in what the users actually want and generally prefer to give the users what they themselves think they want. (I've seen senior IS staff dismiss the data gathered in formal user requirements gathering exercises because it doesn't fit their own viewpoint.)
        • Tend to work in silos (example: student information systems team which won't talk to the VLE team), and will do anything to avoid working with others outside of their own silo. They have no concept of team working across services or with academic staff.
        • Consultation usually consists of them telling you what they are going to do . If you tell them what you want they don't listen!
      IT Services Barrier Do these comments ring any bells? If not, how can you be sure?
    • A Blairite Vision Of Control?
      • The government wishes to introduce:
        • ID cards
        • Greater powers of arrest
      • in order to minimise the dangers of global terrorism
      • IT Services (esp. networking staff) seem to wish to:
        • Manage applications used by users
        • Ban certain software
      • in order to minimise dangers of computer attacks
      The rational for organisations to wish to introduce greater control mechanisms is understandable. But citizens / users may regard such measures as not also necessary and may tolerate some level of risk-taking. (And do any of the above "sex up" the information to achieve these goals?) IT Services Barrier X
    • Beware The IT Fundamentalists
      • We need to avoid simplistic solutions to the complexities:
        • Open Standards Fundamentalist: we just need XML
        • Open Source Fundamentalist: we just need Linux
        • Vendor Fundamentalist: we must need next version of our enterprise system (and you must fit in with this)
        • Accessibility Fundamentalist: we must do WCAG
        • User Fundamentalist: we must do whatever users want
        • Legal Fundamentalist: it breaches copyright, …
        • Ownership Fundamentalist: must own everything we use
        • Perfectionist : It doesn't do everything, so we'll do nothing
        • Simplistic Developer : I've developed a perfect solution – I don't care if it doesn't run in the real world
        • Web 2.0 : It cools, trendy, mustn't get let behind
      IT Services Barrier
    • The Librarian Fundamentalists
      • Librarians:
        • Think they know better than the user e.g. they don't like people using Google Scholar; they should use Web of Knowledge (who cares that users find it easier to use Google Scholar & finds references they need that way?)
        • Think that users should be forced to learn Boolean searching & other formal search techniques because this is good for them (despite Sheffield's study).
        • Don't want the users to search for themselves (cf folksonomies) because they won't get it right.
        • They still want to classify the entire Web - despite the fact that users don't use their lists of Web links.
        • Want services to be perfect before they release them to users. They are uneasy with the concept of 'forever beta' (they don't believe that users have the ability to figure things out themselves and work around the bugs).
      Library Barrier
    • The Problem With The Users
      • The enthusiastic users will be:
        • Here, encouraged by Web 2.0 descriptions
        • Cheering the critiques of the service departments
      • However:
        • Many users are conservative & won't care
        • Many will feel threatened
        • Many won't like WiFi in libraries, lecture theatres, students chatting on IRC, Googling answers, …
        • Many will soon ask for WiFi to be removed, blocked from lecture theatres (including areas where it's not yet available!)
      The Users Barrier
    • Addressing the Barriers
      • How do we address such barriers:
        • A change in culture
        • Being more open (surely what HE & public sector is about?)
        • Revisiting AUPs
        • Developing more sophisticated models for standards, accessibility, open source, …
        • Information literacy; staff development; …
        • Safe experimentation; encouraging enthusiasts; …
        • Developing key principles
        • Ongoing debate and discussion
      Cultural Change
    • Need To Change Catch Phrases
      • Computer Says No!
      • Time to ditch this catch phrase
      Wikis? IT Services says no Folksonomies? Library says no Skype? UKERNA says no Culture Change X Yer, but, no, but, yer Time to embrace the ambiguities acknowledged by Vicky Pollard Yer, like Wikis are well cool, but, OK so I copied my homework, but, like I always copy my homework Images from BBC Web site
    • Implement An Open Approach
      • Implementing an open approach should not be difficult:
        • We have tradition of sharing & using OSS
        • The HE sector is now more open to discussing open access issues (e-prints, financial issues, …)
        • Creative Commons (CC) provides a legal framework
      • What can we do:
        • Make support services resources available with CC licence: see paper on " Let's Free IT Support Materials! "
        • Exploit UKOLN's QA Focus briefing documents: 100+ documents available with CC licence
      Using other's resources and service may be unpopular (job security, ideology, …). For example, should IT services host email, … when this can be outsourced? Cultural Change
    • Acceptable Use Policies (AUP)
      • Is Skype Permitted over JANET?
        • "The Computing Service is frequently asked for a ruling on whether Skype may legitimately be used ... the Computing Service considers that use of Skype contravenes the JANET Acceptable Use Policy, although UKERNA does not concur with this view." (now toned down)
      • Missing The Point?
      • There may be (religious) debates over the interpretation of UKERNA's words. But
        • Did the policy come from God? Is it infallible?
        • Why do we hide behind AUPs?
      Revisiting AUPs Proposal : An AUP is meant to work on behalf of an organisation, helping to ensure the effective use of IT by its users. An AUP should not be used as a control mechanism to prevent usage which IT staff may frown upon.
    • The Need For An AUPP
      • AUPs:
        • Shouldn't be cast in stone: technologies change; usage changes; culture changes (e.g. AUPs banning social use; email; Web; messaging; …)
        • Therefore need for mechanisms for changing AUPs and engagement with users
      • Proposal:
        • We need an Acceptable Use Policy Process (AUPP)
        • We need mechanisms to ensure users can input into the discussion process
        • We need more flexibility in our AUPs (e.g. to reflect blended learning, pervasiveness of IT; …)
       Cultural Change
    • Risk Management
      • IWMW 2006 has taken a risk management approach to its evaluation of Web 2.0 technologies:
        • Agreements : e.g. in the case of the Chatbot.
        • Use of well-established services : Google & del.icio.us are well-established and have financial security.
        • Notification : warnings that services could be lost.
        • Engagement : with the user community: users actively engage in the evaluation of the services.
        • Provision of alternative services: multiple OMPL tools.
        • Use in non-mission critical areas: not for bookings!
        • Long term experiences of services: usage stats
        • Availability of alternative sources of data : e.g. standard Web server log files.
        • Data export and aggregation: RSS feeds, aggregated in Suprglu, OPML viewers, etc.
      Taking Risks Note that you also take risks in not providing a service! Will your users go elsewhere?
    • Safe Experimentation
      • How can we gain experiences of Web 2.0:
        • Safe environment
        • Which minimise risks
        • Which allow learning
      • Possibilities:
        • Using technologies at events such as ILI!
        • Supporting the services which your users use (e.g. Google!)
        • Using services which require minimal effort
      Piloting Web 2.0 Let's review how Web 2.0 was used at the IWMW 2006 event, June 2006. Slides taken from " Web 2.0: Behind The Hype " panel session
    • Encourage Enthusiasts
      • Rather than a top-down approach to development, encouraging enthusiasts to develop solutions in areas of interest to them may be an alternative approach.
      • The University of bath Library has experimented with:
        • Blogs to provide information on news in the areas of science
        • Wikis for planning deployment of a library Podcast
      • Benefits:
        • Staff development
        • Engagement with users
        • Feedback on potential elsewhere ("why isn't there more of this"
      http://bathsciencenews.blogspot.com/ http://bathlibpod.wetpaint.com/ Other examples of simple deployment areas are given in handout
    • Blogs
      • Blogs:
        • We link to Blogs by IWMW 2006 delegates & recommend a tag (IWMW2006) to make it easier to find other Blogs, photos, bookmarks, etc. about the event (e.g. using Technorati )
        • This is great for impact analysis ( .. IWMW-2006 was fantastic: at its best it was like living in some kind of experimental utopian always-online community, and even at its worst … it was always interesting and thought-provoking. )
        • Note use of ILI2006 tag for this event
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/ http://iwmw2006.blogspot.com/ Why? Facilitates sharing of thoughts about event. Effort : None – the Bloggers are doing the work! Risks : They say nasty things; upset people; … Blogs Users Syndication
    • Wikis
      • Wikis:
        • Used successfully at IWMW 2005 and UKOLN / UCISA events for note-taking in breakout groups, social use, …
        • Available at IWMW 2006:
          • UKOLN Wiki (MediaWiki)
          • Other Wikis (for various parallel sessions – in order to gain wider experiences of software)
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2005/wiki-test/ Why? Wikis have proved popular at other UKOLN events Why diversity : To allow us to gain a feel of different Wikis and their strength & weaknesses. Wikis Users Syndication http://iwmw-barriers.pbwiki.com/
    • Maps
      • Google Map of University of Bath embedded on Web site
      • Provides:
        • Usability (rescalable and repositioning through use of AJAX)
        • Can be personalised (map from my home)
        • Effective use of scarce resources (avoids techies duplicating existing services)
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2006/maps/ Risk : What if Google go out-of-business? Response : What if local staff leave? What if other development work they should do fails to get done? Note : Northumbria have better examples APIs AJAX Mashups Syndication
    • Building A Community
      • Building a community for your Web site can:
        • Maximise impact by allowing interested parties to discuss their shared interests
        • Provide you with feedback & ideas
        • Allow you to provide targetted information
      http://www.frappr.com/iwmw2006 Web 2.0 services such as Frappr, Blogger, MySpace, etc. allow Web communities to be easily set up (and may be particularly valuable to the 'Net Generation')
    • Del.icio.us
      • Del.icio.us social bookmarking service available for use to:
        • Provide access to resources mentioned in talks & workshops
        • Allow others to bookmark related resources
        • Allow users to view others’ bookmarks
        • Monitor who’s bookmarked your resources
      • Note use of ILI2006 tag
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 Tags AJAX Collaboration http://del.icio.us/gardnerr http://del.icio.us/url/cce31782b323dd77ab48f5ff54ead71c http://del.icio.us/lisbk/iwmw2006-web2.0-panel Tag misuse? Not needed in some areas (e.g. citation analysis, other people interests) So if misspelt still gain benefits.
    • Mashups
      • Mashup - aggregating content from various sources
      • IWMW 2006:
        • Set up IWMW 2006 Suprgru page
        • Mashup from:
          • IWMW 2006 Web site
          • Third party services such as Blogs, Wikis, bookmarking services, Flickr, search engines, …
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 Syndication Why? Simple demonstration to encourage debate about the issues. Effort : Simple (fill in a Web form) Experiences : Superglu service not always available (so what, use Netvibes.com, PLEX, …)
    • Microformats
      • Pages on IWMW 2006 Web site have microformats
      • Plugins such as Tails display contact and event details & allow them to be uploaded to Outlook, Google Calendar, etc
      Further information on microformats given in " An Introduction to Microformats " QA Focus briefing document no. 100" Web 2.0 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2006/sessions/kelly/ Tags Collaboration
    • Podcasts
      • Podcasts:
        • Used at IWMW 2005 (prior to general public interest)
        • Podcasting session at IWMW 2006
      http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/ workshops/webmaster-2005/podcasts/podcast.xml Why? Gain experiences at popular technology; explore difference usages and technical and non-technical issues Effort : Non – work being led by workshop facilitator. RSS Users Syndication
    • Communications: Chat
      • IRC chat facility was popular at IWMW 2005/6.
      • Gabbly being evaluated:
        • If no systems effort available
        • On-the-fly chatting
      • How long to set up:
        • Go to < http://gabbly.com/ >
        • Create chat on your institution’s home page
        • How long?
      • This provides on-the-fly creation of chat facilities 
      Web 2.0 and IWMW 2006 Too good to be true? Suspicious of anything this simple? See risk assessment page Users Collaboration AJAX Syndication
    • Communications: Sound & Video
      • VoIP, Access Grid technologies, streaming video, … have rich potential in supporting events:
        • Speakers who can't travel
        • Delegates who can't travel
        • Maximising impact
        • Reaching potential delegates
        • Reaching sceptics
        • Just-in-time speakers (cf Blended Learning 2006 conf.)
        • Accessibility (ill, slept in, …)
      Issues : Technical difficulties; privacy; trust; business models; … Plans : Evaluate; reflect on issues & act accordingly; …
    • Wikipedia
      • Summary of IWMW series available in Wikipedia:
        • High profile location
        • Google friendly
        • Maximise impact
        • Community can update
        • Good guys seem to win
        • CC rights assigned
        • Clean URI
        • May provide stable URI
      • Shouldn't all information professionals be helping to improve the quality of information in such a popular service?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWMW Clean, stable URIs? Mashups, integration, annotation, etc. helped by use of clean (e.g. application independent) and stable URIs URIs Wikis Collaboration Note see advice provided to Museums community
    • Summary
      • We have seen:
        • Several lightweight example of how Web 2.0 technologies can be used
        • Examples of the benefits of Web 2.0 attitudes (user-focus; benefits of collaborative approaches; trust)
        • Ways of minimising risks and costs
      Conclusions
    • Conclusions
      • To conclude:
        • Web 2.0 / Library 2.0 can provide real benefits for our users
        • However organisations tend to be conservative
        • We therefore need:
          • Advocacy
          • To listen to users' concerns
          • To address users' concerns e.g. through a risk management approach
        • We can all benefit by adopting Web 2.0 principles of openness and sharing. So let us:
          • Share our advocacy resources, risk management techniques, etc.
          • Have an ILI 2.0 social network based on openness, trust, collaboration, ..
      Conclusions