I think YouTube is a very good site. It’s great that it makes video available to people everywhere. I do agree with Helene Blowers though, that you will find good and not so good content posted here. A benefit of libraries using social video sites is that they can be used to make online tutorials or presentations available to staff and students regardless of where they are. It a convenient way to get messages across to those who don’t come in to the library often, who might have missed an important session, or to complement the face-to-face interaction with library staff. It is useful too, that anyone who uploads content to the site has to create a profile, so anyone else who likes what they have posted can subscribe to be alerted when new content from them becomes available.
The video I am choosing to share with you all from You Tube, is set in a library, where Japanese participants play a game of chance to see who the “lucky” one is who has to undertake each of the quite bizarre (funny) challenges. All the while, people are working, reading, studying around them, and the “actors” have to try and be quiet. Who knows if it is a set-up? I would think it would have to be, because no-one around them gets frustrated by their antics (although this may be part of the Japanese nature). But it is funny. Enjoy!
Friday, February 22, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Thing # 19. Choosing a tool of my own to explore using the Web 2.0 Awards List
What a great list. I will be coming back to it again later It shows the top three Web 2.0 applications in 41 categories for the year 2007, as voted by ‘…a team of 25 of the most knowledgeable, well-respected experts in the field…’. Categories include Blog Guides, Books, Collaborative Writing and Word Processing, Mashups, Mapping, and Social Networking. Because 23 things only introduces a small number of Web 2.0 tools and there are so many out there, this thing asked participants to explore the list, or pick a particular category, to find their own tool to explore. I chose the Bookmarking category and Furl, because this is a tool I would have had to explore eventually, to prepare me to write the post on social bookmarking and tagging for the 21 lunges program. So what a good opportunity.
Furl has the same premise as del.icio.us: it allows a person to create a listing of bookmarks (links) to favourite/useful websites, tag them with useful keywords so they can be grouped together in categories, or easily searched, descriptions can be added to know why a link is useful, and bookmarks can be shared with others – the social aspect.
I can also see what links have become recently popular, based on what others on the sites are doing, can search within both to find other links that interest me, and can add buttons to my browser to easily add links I find while surfing the net.
I really like the idea of bookmarking tools, because all the links I use regularly, or just like, are in one place and can be accessed wherever I happen to be regardless of the computer or browser I use. And that you can also explore other people’s bookmarks around you is a great thing. I’ve written in my post on del.icio.us how bookmarking could be useful for libraries and academia generally.
Del.icio.us is easy to use and navigate, because of its simplistic colour scheme, it has a very clean look, it is easy to add, delete and share links, and help is identifiable. Furl is not so easy or intuitive. Furl is not cluttered and the colour scheme is fine, it looks like a good page when a person logs in, but it took me a while to realise that the four links across the top, ‘Welcome’, ‘Tools’, ‘Save’ and ‘Explore’, are expandable menus (it didn’t help that I have been having trouble with my computer either). So, I was going to the bottom of the page instead to use (some) of the options. There is no ‘Help’ at the top, this is also at the bottom, and I felt the ‘FAQ’s’ weren’t as detailed as I would have liked, and I thought the ‘How People Use Furl’ link would be Help-based, but instead it provides quotes from people on ways they use it. Also, I wanted to edit some of my links after initially including them. Nothing explained how to do this that I could see and only after a bit of exploring did I realise that the “orange f” next to each link added is expandable too (you have to get the mouse just right), with edit, delete, and other options displayed. I also don’t understand the ‘Latest Headlines option’: a search on this seems to return news-related links based on the keywords used. But I’m not sure, as it isn’t explained.
I do like the fact that Furl saves a copy of the page you bookmark, so if it ever goes down, the cache is still available, and that you can choose from predefined tags, as well as include your own free-text keywords for searching. Furl also allows full-text searching (finding all instances of words searched in the results returned). The template used to populate information about a new link is good. It would take some getting used to, I don’t think it Furl is “bad”, but of both bookmarking tools explored (thus far), del.icio.us is superior.
Furl has the same premise as del.icio.us: it allows a person to create a listing of bookmarks (links) to favourite/useful websites, tag them with useful keywords so they can be grouped together in categories, or easily searched, descriptions can be added to know why a link is useful, and bookmarks can be shared with others – the social aspect.
I can also see what links have become recently popular, based on what others on the sites are doing, can search within both to find other links that interest me, and can add buttons to my browser to easily add links I find while surfing the net.
I really like the idea of bookmarking tools, because all the links I use regularly, or just like, are in one place and can be accessed wherever I happen to be regardless of the computer or browser I use. And that you can also explore other people’s bookmarks around you is a great thing. I’ve written in my post on del.icio.us how bookmarking could be useful for libraries and academia generally.
Del.icio.us is easy to use and navigate, because of its simplistic colour scheme, it has a very clean look, it is easy to add, delete and share links, and help is identifiable. Furl is not so easy or intuitive. Furl is not cluttered and the colour scheme is fine, it looks like a good page when a person logs in, but it took me a while to realise that the four links across the top, ‘Welcome’, ‘Tools’, ‘Save’ and ‘Explore’, are expandable menus (it didn’t help that I have been having trouble with my computer either). So, I was going to the bottom of the page instead to use (some) of the options. There is no ‘Help’ at the top, this is also at the bottom, and I felt the ‘FAQ’s’ weren’t as detailed as I would have liked, and I thought the ‘How People Use Furl’ link would be Help-based, but instead it provides quotes from people on ways they use it. Also, I wanted to edit some of my links after initially including them. Nothing explained how to do this that I could see and only after a bit of exploring did I realise that the “orange f” next to each link added is expandable too (you have to get the mouse just right), with edit, delete, and other options displayed. I also don’t understand the ‘Latest Headlines option’: a search on this seems to return news-related links based on the keywords used. But I’m not sure, as it isn’t explained.
I do like the fact that Furl saves a copy of the page you bookmark, so if it ever goes down, the cache is still available, and that you can choose from predefined tags, as well as include your own free-text keywords for searching. Furl also allows full-text searching (finding all instances of words searched in the results returned). The template used to populate information about a new link is good. It would take some getting used to, I don’t think it Furl is “bad”, but of both bookmarking tools explored (thus far), del.icio.us is superior.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Thing #18 Online productivity tools – Zoho Writer
I understand the premise behind something like Zoho Writer. It allows people to collaborate on a document, not dependent on a particular type of word processing software or a particular computer, access anywhere, anytime. That the history of a document (edits) can also be tracked is beneficial.
I did get to have a quick play with the tool, but now it appears to be “freeze-happy” when I attempt to login at the sign-on page, so who knows? It reminded of a Word document template, with all the key shortcuts on a toolbar. I can choose the type of font I want, if I want to bold important text, create HTML links, cut and paste, anything I would expect to be able to do with Microsoft Word. I can export a document originally created in Word to Zoho Writer to work on it here. Two things that I can’t do with Word are adding emoticons to a document, and tags as a way to organise my documents on Zoho.
I’m not sure whether I would regularly use a tool like this in my work, because most of my colleagues use the same applications as I do, so there are no problems with compatibility, (although it might save track changes) people may find it a trial to go and the web and sign in to edit a document, when they could just as easily do it from a program on their desktop, and having just learnt about wikis, couldn’t a wiki be used to collaborate, create, edit, express ideas with others, just as well?
I did get to have a quick play with the tool, but now it appears to be “freeze-happy” when I attempt to login at the sign-on page, so who knows? It reminded of a Word document template, with all the key shortcuts on a toolbar. I can choose the type of font I want, if I want to bold important text, create HTML links, cut and paste, anything I would expect to be able to do with Microsoft Word. I can export a document originally created in Word to Zoho Writer to work on it here. Two things that I can’t do with Word are adding emoticons to a document, and tags as a way to organise my documents on Zoho.
I’m not sure whether I would regularly use a tool like this in my work, because most of my colleagues use the same applications as I do, so there are no problems with compatibility, (although it might save track changes) people may find it a trial to go and the web and sign in to edit a document, when they could just as easily do it from a program on their desktop, and having just learnt about wikis, couldn’t a wiki be used to collaborate, create, edit, express ideas with others, just as well?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thing #17 Adding favourite things to PBWiki ??
I tried adding to the Learning 2.0 wiki, but it looks like you can't just create your own login anymore - you need a special one from the administrator.
I have a good understanding of wikis from Thing #16 though, adding to and editing one will have to wait until our own program begins.
Onto Thing #18!
I have a good understanding of wikis from Thing #16 though, adding to and editing one will have to wait until our own program begins.
Onto Thing #18!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Thing #16 A “quick” post about Wikis
In Hawaiian, wiki means “quick”. Ward Cunningham developed the first wiki in 1994, the concept named after the Wiki Wiki bus at the Honolulu International Airport that runs between the airport terminals (Wikipedia).
Wikis are the tool of a democratic web. They allow people to collaborate/participate in creating a web presence to meet a particular need, or for specific purposes. Control is in the hands of many. A wiki is not static: it gains value the more it is added to. Meredith Farkas (who I found is a key voice/player in discussions about Wikis) writes in an article on Web Junction, “Using Wikis to Create Online Communities”, ‘The possibilities for what libraries can do with wikis are endless. At their least, they are spaces for quick and easy collaborative work. At their best, they can become true community resources that can position the library as a [sic.] an online hub of their local community’.
In academic libraries, I can see wikis being useful for project work, saving a mountain of e-mails between participants, being able to flesh out proposals that everyone is happy with and having all the information in one place. That you can also see previous edits, is valuable for this endeavour. They would also be good a way to maintain library instruction manuals or procedures. This would particularly require library staff buy-in to ensure it would be updated when necessary, because of its “long-term” nature. Subject guides is interesting. I can see why a wiki could be valuable here, because new resources always present themselves and others become obsolete. But I’m not sure if libraries could allow something like this to be truly collaborative: if so, these could become a glut of unorganised information. Tools such as the Web 2.0 subject guide tools I discussed in an earlier post and del.icio.us are probably better alternatives.
I understand that there is the possibility of chaos if you allow anyone to edit web pages and so this is a “con” in the discussion of wikis as a collaborative tool and I agree that in certain circumstances this would be true, but for example, a library project wiki should only be available on the private library intranet for those interested staff to participate in. And when a wiki is initially set up, it should still have a purpose and so parameters/initial points to stimulate discussion should be set by the person who originates the wiki.
I had heard about the Library Success wiki, as a place for libraries to share ideas and information about library issues. It saves duplicating effort, if you can find some good resources to start you on a journey of further discovery. Now I have seen it and I love it. Our profession is one that helps people, and has very rich professional connections, so what a great use of a wiki!
I can think of a way to use a wiki in my library in the future and Helene Blowers has provided some great starter resources on the 23 things blog. Shh! It’s a secret.
Wikis are the tool of a democratic web. They allow people to collaborate/participate in creating a web presence to meet a particular need, or for specific purposes. Control is in the hands of many. A wiki is not static: it gains value the more it is added to. Meredith Farkas (who I found is a key voice/player in discussions about Wikis) writes in an article on Web Junction, “Using Wikis to Create Online Communities”, ‘The possibilities for what libraries can do with wikis are endless. At their least, they are spaces for quick and easy collaborative work. At their best, they can become true community resources that can position the library as a [sic.] an online hub of their local community’.
In academic libraries, I can see wikis being useful for project work, saving a mountain of e-mails between participants, being able to flesh out proposals that everyone is happy with and having all the information in one place. That you can also see previous edits, is valuable for this endeavour. They would also be good a way to maintain library instruction manuals or procedures. This would particularly require library staff buy-in to ensure it would be updated when necessary, because of its “long-term” nature. Subject guides is interesting. I can see why a wiki could be valuable here, because new resources always present themselves and others become obsolete. But I’m not sure if libraries could allow something like this to be truly collaborative: if so, these could become a glut of unorganised information. Tools such as the Web 2.0 subject guide tools I discussed in an earlier post and del.icio.us are probably better alternatives.
I understand that there is the possibility of chaos if you allow anyone to edit web pages and so this is a “con” in the discussion of wikis as a collaborative tool and I agree that in certain circumstances this would be true, but for example, a library project wiki should only be available on the private library intranet for those interested staff to participate in. And when a wiki is initially set up, it should still have a purpose and so parameters/initial points to stimulate discussion should be set by the person who originates the wiki.
I had heard about the Library Success wiki, as a place for libraries to share ideas and information about library issues. It saves duplicating effort, if you can find some good resources to start you on a journey of further discovery. Now I have seen it and I love it. Our profession is one that helps people, and has very rich professional connections, so what a great use of a wiki!
I can think of a way to use a wiki in my library in the future and Helene Blowers has provided some great starter resources on the 23 things blog. Shh! It’s a secret.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Library 2.0: A new philosophy, or something we have always strived for?
Having done a bit of reading on Library 2.0, I wonder whether its underlying ideas haven’t always been part of the library philosophy, and it is only now that major discussions are taking place about the value and future of libraries, that we are really considering what we do and how we do it. Library 2.0 sprouted from Web 2.0, moving towards a more participatory web, using the social tools that are part of this movement, to create new experiences. Libraries have always been about communities, trying to meet needs and expectations, bringing people together, so what does 2.0 really mean to us? The Wikipedia article on Library 2.0 states that “…ultimately the Library 2.0 model for service will replace traditional, one-directional service offerings that have characterized libraries for centuries”. There is “…an increased flow of information from the user back to the library”. We have always tried to serve our communities better, but now Web 2.0 technologies and the Internet generally, have placed more of the control in our clients’ hands in getting the information and services they need. Information provision is not just in the hands of a few anymore. We have to consider how we are going to keep clients’ coming to us, and by investigating the tools they use to communicate with each other, the possibilities that this offers, we may be on our way.
It has been quite hard to write posts about Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, because what they mean and whether what they propose is valuable, is different in each discussion of them. What I think Library 2.0 is forcing us to look at, is not necessarily the services we provide and the communities we serve, but more HOW we do it. And this is the radical part.
Did that make any sense? I can’t wait for wikis!
It has been quite hard to write posts about Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, because what they mean and whether what they propose is valuable, is different in each discussion of them. What I think Library 2.0 is forcing us to look at, is not necessarily the services we provide and the communities we serve, but more HOW we do it. And this is the radical part.
Did that make any sense? I can’t wait for wikis!
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Technorati
The 14th thing was to explore Technorati and how tags work.
Although I don’t want to register or “claim” my blog on Technorati (yet) or include html (Technorati Tags) to allow Technorati to “crawl” it, (however I think it crawls tagged Blogger blogs automatically) I did want to come back for a look as indicated (implied) in my post on Thing #9. So that is what I did today. A great tool for finding out what the blogosphere is saying about topics of the day and staying current (short and sweet I know, but I didn’t feel like doing a long post).
Although I don’t want to register or “claim” my blog on Technorati (yet) or include html (Technorati Tags) to allow Technorati to “crawl” it, (however I think it crawls tagged Blogger blogs automatically) I did want to come back for a look as indicated (implied) in my post on Thing #9. So that is what I did today. A great tool for finding out what the blogosphere is saying about topics of the day and staying current (short and sweet I know, but I didn’t feel like doing a long post).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)