Web 2.0: How Should IT Services and the Library Respond?

Web 2.0: How Should IT Services and the Library Respond? Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY Email [email_address] UKOLN is supported by: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/emuit-2006-11/
Acceptable Use Policy
Feel free to use WiFi network to support aims of meeting
Recording / broadcasting is not permitted
Confidentiality related to the talk & discussions should be respected.
This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) emuit-meeting-2006-11 tag used in del.icio.us

About Me
Brian Kelly:
Employed as UK Web Focus since Nov 1996
Based at UKOLN, a national centre of expertise in digital information management
Located at the University of Bath
Funded by JISC & MLA
Background:
Computer office at Loughborough from 1984-90 (applications support, information & training)
Information Officer at Liverpool U. from 1990-91
Information Officer at Leeds U. from 1991-95
Discovered Web in Jan 1992 & evangelised it since
Senior Trainer at Netskills from 1995-96

About This Meeting
Talks given on:
“ What Can Internet Technologies Offer? ”, UCISA Conference 2004
“ IT Services: Help or Hindrance? ”, UCISA Conference 2006
Aims:
Raise awareness of Web 2.0 technologies & challenges these present to IT services
Encourage IT Services to respond to the challenges
Succeeded! So this meeting will look at ways of responding
http://connect.educause.edu/blog/stuartyeates/ brian_kelly_gesticulating_wildly_about_it_services/2111

Timetable Feedback 12.10-12.20 Conclusions 13.50-14.00 Implementation 13.30-13.50 Web 2.0: A Recap [BK] 11.40-11.55 Finish 14.00 Addressing the Concerns [BK] 13.00-13.30 Lunch 12.20-13.00 Web 2.0: Your Concerns 11.55-12.10 Introduction 11.30-11.40 Session Time

Web 2.0
What Is Web 2.0?
Marketing term (derived from observing 'patterns') rather than technical standards - “an attitude not a technology”
Web2MemeMap, Tim O’Reilly, 2005
Characteristics Of Web 2.0
Network as platform
Remix and mash-ups
Syndication (RSS)
Architecture of participation
Blogs & Wikis
Social networking
Social tagging (folksonomies)
Trust and openness
Clean URIs
Always beta & long tail
Web 2.0

Takeup Of New Technologies
The Gartner curve
Developers Rising expectations Trough of despair Service plateau Enterprise software Large budgets … Early adopters Web 2.0
Chasm
Failure to go beyond developers & early adopters (cf Gopher)
Need for:
Advocacy (this morning)
Listening to users
Addressing concerns
Deployment strategies
…
We now need to look at approaches for avoiding the chasm

Blogs – A Steer From Management
Warwick’s Blog service illustrates how an institutional Blog can provide a thriving community (and isn’t this a key part of the university experience?)
Web 2.0 http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/ http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/...
John Dale’s Blog shows how:
IT Service staff can engage with their users
A more egalitarian approach - the IT Manager know something about IT, but users may know more! (this reflects current learning orthodoxies)
Michael Webb, Newport is an example of a Blogging IT Director

Blogs – Grassroots Approach
Science librarian at University of Bath has set up a Blog on Blogger
Users love it – “ Why isn’t there a Blog for the rest of the library ”
http://bathsciencenews.blogspot.com/ Q : Should I be doing this? A : No – make a recommendation to your manager; write a proposal; if accepted then WG set up; it reports back and recommendations probably deferred! This is a good example of Web 2.0 philosophies of “user-focus”, “always beta” and “trust”: trust your professionals do be innovative in supporting their users & to be flexible & learn from experiences

Wikis – Grassroots Approach
Same librarian used a Wiki for a group planning production of a Podcast guide to the Library:
User engagement in process
Users (including students) make use of emerging technologies (Wiki, Podcasts)
http://bathlibpod.wetpaint.com/
Advantages:
No waiting for IT Services evaluation of Wiki software
Can feed experiences back to IT Services
Can address non-IT issues
Grass roots experiences can feed into process for an institutional solution, including technical; training & strategy issues

Wikis – Institutional Approach
There’s an awareness of a need for institutional Wiki strategies.
Addressed at UKOLN’s “ Exploiting The Potential Of Wikis ” workshop, Nov 2006
Need for Wikis seems to be agreed. Challenges:
http://wiki-workshop-2006-11.wetpaint.com/
Wiki strategy options:
Centralised Wiki provision (and the best is …)
De-centralised Wiki provision (horses for courses)
Bundled Wiki provision (it comes with the VLE)
Out-sourced Wiki provision (Thatcherite or Web 2.0 network as an application provider)
Confluence and MediaWiki seemed preferred options at workshop.

Communications – Skype
Skype:
Evil bandwidth-stealing proprietary software – use SIP software
Innovative, easy-to-use, immensely popular software – and all my friends & colleagues use it
Case studies:
Ban
Buy network shaper box to “remove illegal P2P traffic in order to provide quality Skype service to users”
Respond to user concerns in halls by banning, but allow managed use on campus, until better solution available
Educate user: don’t use over WiFi; … (AUP at UKOLN Wiki workshop)
Just-in-time accessibility: participants missed train, but used Skype (and Gabbly) to take part in Accessibility Summit. Conclusion: have Skype ID just-in-case (and as carbon-quota plan)!

Syndication - RSS
Syndication is a no-brainer:
Simple, neutral format
Allows content to be reused in many places; on many devices; …
Challenges:
Creation model (from CMS; transform; …)
User viewing tools (Web-based; dedicated; training; …)
Breaking the presentation-based paradigm
RSS 1.0, 2.0 or Atom issues aren’t show-stoppers – use whichever works best for you
http://www.netvibes.com/ http://www.google.com/ig/ Does your calendar interoperate with these remote services (and with mobile devices)? If not, you’ve got problems!

Network As Platform
Who uses Google or has Google search box on their Web site?
Evil Thatcherite out-sourcing or sensible, cost-effective use of networking applications, which builds on HE’s use of JISC services & forms part of JISC’s E-Framework strategy and SOA development approach? http://www.lboro.ac.uk/search.html
Applications can be provided on network:
Disk storage & CPU cycles (Amazon)
Middleware services
Application services: Blogs; Wikis; email; spreadsheets; …
http://docs.google.com/

Learning Through Games
Not my area (too old – “ when I were a lad … ”!) but:
Well-established theoretical basis
How do today’s kids learn?
Service such as Second Life have strong business models & communities
JISC & funding bodies fund R&D in this area
Issues:
Should IT service have the rights to ban such stuff?
How do we (can we) differentiate between learning & playing?
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Campus/

Other Web 2.0 Aspects
A Culture of Openness
We’re addressing this in areas of open source & open access. This is a key part of what HE is about!
HE has a culture of openness & sharing (e.g. UCISA, SCONUL, …) We’re well positioned to use social networks to build on this.
Always Beta
Learning is about taking risks
Innovative lecturers & researchers will want to explore the potential of emerging technologies
Trust Your Users
Do you trust your staff? Do we want to provide a supportive framework for students to be creative
Won’t industry expect us to provide graduates who are experienced in Web 2.0 technologies and (more importantly) in the non-technical aspects of their use?
The Long Tail
Your minority area has a potential large global audience (cf. selling to niche markets

Discussion Groups
Web 2.0: Your Concerns
You’ve had a brief overview of Web 2.0 benefits
Colleagues and users may be making similar points
But:
What are the technical obstacles?
What are the legal obstacles?
What are the organisational (national, institutional & departmental) obstacles?
What are the user barriers?
What are the cultural obstacles?
Describe the barriers – we’ll look at solutions later
E Web 2.0 Barriers

Questions
Any brief questions or comments?
More challenging issues can be addressed in discussion groups

Feedback
Please provide your feedback
Assessment, quality, resources, feeling threatened, public perception, … Ownership, control, power, threats, … Performance, security, interoperability, … Data protection, copyright, IPR, FoI, ... Barriers Technical User Legal Organisational Cultural User needs, millennials & non-millennials, training, trust; information literacy, …

Addressing The Barriers
Predicting the Future
Understanding, then changing, your culture
You’re the problem!
No, the users are the problem
Maybe the technology is the problem
Assessing and managing the risks
Being user-centric
Safe experimentation – low-hanging fruits
More sophisticated model
Working as a community
Addressing The Barriers The following ideas are intended to stimulate discussion here, but, more importantly, to take back & implement locally. Feel free to use any of the material you find useful,

Predicting the Future From The Past
What were the big issues back then? What did we expect of 2006? Were we conservative or over-optimistic?
XML, Semantic Web (SW) New job. W3C will deliver all good things. PC, not Unix, is the future Discovered Web. “It’s the future!” “You’re crazy” Gopher will rule; PCs vs Mac vs mainframe battles Honey Multics will rule; can students have email? 2000 1996 19951993 1990 1984 I was right : Importance of the Web; ubiquity of PC I was wrong : W3C alone would drive the vision; SW; commercialisation (good & bad); VRML I don’t know : OSS vs proprietary vs networked service; the mixed public/private sector IT provision; trust; openness vs privacy; cultural change; … Vision For The Future

Predicting the Future
What will think we like in 2010?
Will significant numbers of students be Blogging? What about staff & researchers?
Will mobile devices (phone; video; sound; WiFi) be ubiquitous?
Will collaborative authoring of student work; research papers; etc. we seen as the norm?
Anybody feel this will not be the case?
If not, the challenge is the deployment strategy, not the underlying principles!
Vision For The Future Paraphrase of talk by Bill Thompson, Bath 8 Nov 2006 The future for 2010 has already arrived. We just need to disseminate it, deploy it & make mainstream. So look at what the kids, the innovators & the rich are doing today – the stuff will be easier to use & much cheaper then.

My Scary Moments
The vision:
‘ Millennials’ comfortable with technology support a well-educated, information-literate society (and pay for my pension)
The nightmare:
Technologies break; are slow; go out of business
Privacy; identity theft; fraud; etc. are prevalent
Government spies on me & everyone – reinvention of analogue phones & F2F meetings
Evil Google empire – “ things were so much better when Microsoft were in charge ”
‘ Millennials’ spend all their time in YouTube & we have a poorly-educated future generation
The backlash
Concerns

The Barriers
There are barriers to the deployment of Web 2.0:
It's scary: I've just mastered Dreamweaver; 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
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; …
Culture : We’ve always first evaluated & then mastered the software; how can we support multiple Web 2.0 service? And it needs to be open source so we can tweak it
Web 2.0 Barriers How do we go about addressing these barriers? (And should we – what if the concerns are legitimate!)

Addressing The Barriers
It breaks accessibility guidelines; open standards; AUPs; etc.
There is a need to ensure existing guidelines & interpretations in these areas are flexible enough to take into account technological developments, emerging usage patterns, etc
See work on holistic approach to Web accessibility
See work on contextual approach to standards
Need for an Acceptable Use Policy Process (AUPP) to ensure that AUPs aren’t used as a control mechanisms but as a means of maximising benefits of services for IT users & providers

Nobody Likes Us - The Users' View
IT Services – providing 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?

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: must do WAI WCAG
User Fundamentalist: we must do whatever users want
Legal Fundamentalist: it breaches copyright, …
Ownership Fundamentalist: must own everything
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 Fundamentalist : Must use latest cool stuff
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

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 sources, …
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 Note see OUCS’s policy on Skype, which has evolved

Avoid Perfection!
In higher education we like to investigate limitations of systems (it’s our job). But:
Need to separate such research from deployment of good enough services
Need to be more user-centred – if users can do it (at home; in Starbucks; from their memory stick) why can’t IT Services provide similar services (students pay enough!)
An always beta approach: the software and its use may not be perfect, but that’s not a barrier to deployment
Cultural Change If the Sun can provide Blogs, it’s very strange if HE can’t! http://www.thesun.co.uk/ portal/site/mysun/

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 & financially stable.
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?

Users Are The Problem!
Warwick Blogs contains swearing, trivial remarks, insults and copyright infringements * & not just insightful observations from staff contributors!
Background:
They expected this!
They got buy-in from University SMT
They actively promoted service to students
http://search.warwick.ac.uk/... Issues: is this a serious barrier, or something to be dealt with (cf. misuse of email, Usenet, …). Derek Law: If students download ‘flesh-tone images’ in their halls at 3 am on networks they’ve paid for, is it our problem?

Safe Experimentation
How can we gain experiences of Web 2.0:
Safe environment
Which minimise risks
Which allow learning
Possibilities:
Encourage enthusiasts
Using technologies at events such as this!
Supporting the services which your users use (e.g. Google!)
Using services which require minimal effort
Working with your peers elsewhere
Piloting Web 2.0

LibraryThing
Can you try this for a departmental Library:
Gain experience
Use by administrators, who’ll be unconcerned about technical dogma
Explore social network benefits
See recent Blog posting
Safe Experiments http://www.librarything.com/

Slideshare
A digital repository for slides
Do you have a digital repository?
Are you planning to install or develop one?
If so:
Look at services such as Slideshare
Read Andy Powell’s Blog about the advantages of this approach

Over To You
What can you do?
You’re unconvinced – so you’ll need to be able to justify this
Areas of safe experimentation – what works for you, your department, your organisation?
Culture change – how?

Conclusions
To conclude:
Web 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 a social network with peers based on openness, trust, collaboration, ..
Conclusions

Web 2.0: How Should IT Services and the Library Respond?

by Brian Kelly on Nov 12, 2006

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 7

Statistics

Web 2.0: How Should IT Services and the Library Respond? Presentation Transcript

http://www.techgig.com	4
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk	3