My Search Enhancement Wish List
Posted on: Sunday, 11 May 2008, 03:00 CDT
By Huwe, Terence K
NOW WE ARE BEST SERVED BY VIEWING OUR USERS AS EXPERTS AND MEETING THEM ON THEIR OWN TERMS. So much is written about search, and the quality of analysis is high and getting higher all the time. The experience of search and usability study are themselves academic subjects, and most of us follow the literature. But just when we begin to think we've enumerated all of the qualities that effective library-search interfaces could or should have, new ideas arise. Social networking software, the ReadWriteWeb, and enhancements that show up first on Amazon and Google seem to drive our collective imagination. There are even signs of budding consensus about what kind of search interfaces research libraries should offer. Now, if only we had the money, the partnerships, and the institutional support, we'd be poised for a revolution in integrated search features. It's an interesting fix that most institutional libraries are in: Heavily capitalized firms such as Google and Amazon are reshaping our perceptions of search. Yet at the same time, the library marketplace, not to mention university libraries themselves, could use a hefty increase in research and development funding for digital applications.
Hey-what exciting times we live in! It's a full-time job just staying informed about new applications. But time is so precious that we need to be pretty selective about what we want to drill down into. Fortunately, we can learn quite a bit by shopping online at Amazon, monitoring Google's activity, and keeping an eye on Web 2.0 developments. Our own online shopping and web-goof-off time assures that we're seeing the newest and best interfaces, even in beta test mode. So rather than assess the state of search, list every feature, or discuss the institutional politics of metasearch initiatives, I'll keep it simple and offer up my own idiosyncratic wish list for library web search enhancements. It is organized into two groups.
Group One: Read, Write, Research, and Discovery
There are enoughbloggers and wiki-slingers in the profession now that most of us are aware of the value of matching external services such as blogs to our static websites. What we need to do next, in my view, is to mix together our industrial-strength utilities-like OPACs-with the emerging semantic web. The semantic web uses underlying metadata that will be embedded within the structure of the web platform, enabling enhanced search features. For a groovy example, take a look at Twine (www.twine.com), going into beta as I write. Twine weaves a record of user search behavior into thematic activity, revealing links and associations that individuals discover. This sounds pretty useful for serious research activity.
Emerging applications such as Twine are exactly what we need to incorporate into the library sphere of the web. In a best-case scenario, integrated library systems themselves will take every cue from the semantic web, but that will take time and resources. In the meantime, many applications can be matched seamlessly using external services. This approach works very well in smaller library systems, which can move quickly and design on-the-fly. If we can take these steps, we're taking an early leap into the mainstream of the "ReadWriteWeb," for which blogs act as a poster child. Moreover, we would be setting the design stage for the semantic web, as are so many private firms. (For a full review of the ReadWriteWeb, see www.read writeweb.com.)
But for me, there's a descriptive element missing from the catchall name of ReadWriteWeb. A better way of expressing everything that we can do on the web would be to recast this name as the "ReadWriteResearchDiscovery" Web, or RWRD Web for short. The RWRD Web would combine the best features of interfaces such as Amazon with the best features of integrated library systems. Two-way communication would show up on the web interface to catalogs, licensed content, and "built" content-all common elements in university information ecologies. "Research" and "Discovery" are at the heart of the value point that largescale research libraries offer to the world.
Here's a short list of what the RWRD Web would include if I had a spare billion for development.
Direct links. Whatever the format-MPEG files, PDFs, ejournals, or books-direct links are what people want and need, so provide them whenever possible. Read the reference and download the document. Digital access should be immediate. A corollary to direct access to objects is direct email access to people. Searchers should be able to fold as many transactions into one online session as possible.
Graphics, book jacket art, and tables of contents. Both Google Books and Amazon serve visually enriched pages that show users not only an object that answers to their entry string but also associated book jackets or musical album covers. For books, being able to see the tables of contents at a glance can reduce online search time dramatically by bringing what's inside into the immediate viewing area. Adding these capabilities would make OPACs and databases more pleasurable to use. We are seeing this happen already with ejournals in particular; OPACs need to catch up.
Reviews, professional or not. RWRD Web websites would harvest and add reviews whenever they could be added under license or by agreement. They would also invite users to contribute reviews, lists, and bibliographies. The experience of using Amazon is proof that this kind of enhanced search helps shoppers make informed decisions. The same logic should be applied to basic library research. Besides the programming challenge, this service would also create the need for a content review board. But isn't that what we're supposed to be doing already in Library 2.0? And why not include library users in a broad committee or cohort of "sponsored reviewers"? We've read a lot about "radical trust"; now, let's try it out.
Commentary. Blogs started the trend, and Wikipedia confirmed it: Readers get to talk back to experts now. Yes, we admire our leading scholars and policy wonks, and we trust their opinions. But take a look at the reader commentary on the website Common Dreams (www.commondreams.org). Nearly all the remarks, both long and short, are incisive and well worth reading. Call it "radical trust" or whatever, but if we really want to bring library research into the Web 2.0 mainstream, we need to invite our users into a dialogue and give them voices that can be heard online.
More like this. Automated generation of referrals to related content has really come of age, and it did so first on Amazon, years ago. Apple iTunes works the same way, and indeed, iTunes allows users to share playlists, which are anthologies by individual authors. It can be summed up in three words on a search screen: more like this.
Group Two: The Community and the Organization
In our profession, we've often let ourselves be defined by the search process: It had been an area where the information professional ruled the roost. Norma Kobzina, a Berkeley biosciences librarian who taught reference at the former library school, once made this comment: "When the internet emerged, it was really hard for a lot of us to let go of mediated online searching." I think she said it right: You could feel really powerful as an "expert" who did searching on behalf of clients, and in law firms, we billed at a high rate. But now we are best served by viewing our users as experts and meeting them on their own terms.
One way to do this is to fold the entire search process of our library systems into a social software context. Instead of coming to library resources solely to conduct research and retrieve materials, users could instead come to the library for everything else they want to do online too. In my view, many leading public and academic libraries have largely won the physical "space wars" by integrating cafes, all night studying, and innovative "learning spaces." Let's face it: We have some "hits" in the physical world. We need to replicate that success online. Here's my wish list for online community as it evolves in the library sphere of the web.
Have user blogs for students and faculty. In large computing domains such as UC Berkeley, computer-use policies are well spelled out. We have a good policy structure in place, and we're fast approaching a point where it may be feasible to offer users basic services such as blogs, wikis, or even more. With respect to faculty, why not offer to post all course syllabi? Many departments already do, but not all. In our case, one of our promising new sociologists uses our institute web to post her syllabi, and she will even post syllabi from other faculty at other institutions, with their permission. Network traffic bears out that there is a demand for such a service. Offering blogs to students and faculty would be a baby step toward a fuller social networking environment. If we fail to consider the merits of such services, they will be provided by IT departments, who may not share our awareness of the power of "content in context." Indeed, this is already underway: Our local version is called "faspace," and it's pretty darn good.
Replicate Ning. Ning (www.ning .com) is a very simple-to-use community-building tool that enables users to quickly build communities that focus on various topics. This move would also rely upon a robust computer-use policy to assure good community practices and behavior. Having a basic, easy-touse environment that mimics Ning could support classroom teaching as well as socializing. Create a student board for online oversight. One way to engage students is to invite them into the process of overseeing online communities. Based on my wonderful experience of hiring UC Berkeley student employees for many years, I believe that they are more than up to the task and would enjoy it. Participation would also carry career value as a resume builder.
Create a culture of continual improvement. We need to keep up with scholars as they become more comfortable in online communities. In order to do so, it's important for the entire organization to make a commitment to continual improvement. Successful implementations are elusive and subject to change over time. Much depends on inspired leadership at the top and extensive positive support for staff at all levels of the organization. But if we can do this, we free our intellects from the grind of daily politics and open ourselves up more to creative think-spaces for new ideas. There are many visionaries at the helm of large research libraries just now; I'd say that the forecast for reinventing library culture, at the moment, is very good. We need to make sure we take the leap to continual learning for the benefit of good technology planning, as well as for good morale and keeping up with our users.
The Possible and the Improbable
Well, like I said, slip our library-systems offices a spare billion dollars and perhaps we can take another step on some of these features. There is little dissent about the value of such features. The probable next step for many of us is to persuade funding agencies, top administrators, or legislators to provide the support that is needed. But that's just the probable. Another route is already being explored, perhaps a little gingerly: collaboration. It may be that we need to get more serious about partnering with well-capitalized firms (read: Google). That's the improbable. Radical trust has its limits, but in the search for partners, it may be time to put radical trust to work-and make sure the partnership favors our desired outcomes.
WE'VE READ A LOT ABOUT 'RADICAL TRUST'; NOW, LET'S TRY IT OUT.
Terence K. Huwe is director of library and information resources at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California-Berkeley. His responsibilities include library administration, reference, and overseeing web services. His email address is thuwe@library.berkeley.edu.
Copyright Information Today, Inc. May 2008
(c) 2008 Computers in Libraries. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Source: Computers in Libraries
User Comments (0)
RSS Feeds