The Digital Librarian

It has been a little over a week since My iPad was delivered, and in that time I have had the opportunity to try it out at home, at work, and on the road. In fact, I’m currently typing this entry on it from the hotel restaurant at the CNI Spring task force meeting. I feel that I have used it enough now to provide some of my insights and thoughts about the iPad, how I am using it, and what I think of it.

So, how best to describe the iPad? Fun. Convenient. Fun again. The iPad is more than the sum of its parts; much like the iPhone, it provides an overall experience, one that is enjoyable and yes, efficient. Browsing is great fun; I have only run into one site where because of the lack of flash support was completely inaccessible (a local restaurant site). A number of sites that I regularly peruse have some flash aspect that is not available via the iPad, but typically this isn’t a big loss. For example, if there is an engadget article that contains video, I won’t get the video. However, the NY Times, ESPN, and other major sites are already supporting HTML 5 embedded video, and I expect to see a strong push towards HTML 5 and away from flash. In the grand scheme of things, most of the sites I browse are text and image based, and have no issues.

Likewise for email and calendaring – both work like a charm. Email on the iPad is easy, fun, and much better than on the iPhone. The keyboard, when in landscape mode, is actually much better than I expected, and very suitable for email replies (not to mention blog posts). I’d go as far to say that the usability of the onscreen keyboard (when the iPad is in landscape mode) is as good or better than a typical net book keyboard. Also, an unintended bonus is that typing on the keyboard is pretty much silent; this is somewhat noticeable during conference sessions where a dozen or so attendees are typing their notes and the clack of their keyboards starts to add up.

So, how am I using my iPad? Well, on this trip, I have used it to read (one novel and a bunch of work-related articles), do email, listen to music, watch videos, stream some netflix, browse the web, draft a policy document for my place of employment, diagram a repository architecture, and take notes during conference sessions. Could I do all of this on a laptop? Sure. Could I do all of this on a laptop without plugging in at any point in the day? Possibly, with the right laptop or net book. But here’s the thing – at the conference, instead of lugging my laptop bag around with me, my iPad replaced the laptop, my notepad, and everything else I would have dragged around in my bag. I literally only took my iPad, which is actually smaller than a standard paper notebook, and honestly I didn’t miss a beat. Quickly jot down a note? Easy. Sketch out an idea? Ditto. It’s all just right there, all the functionality, in a so-much-more convenient form factor.

Is the iPad perfect? By no means – the desktop interface is optimized for the iPhone / iTouch, and feels a bit inefficient for the larger iPad. Because of the current lack of multitasking (something that Apple has already announced will be available in the next version of the OS), I can’t keep an IM client running in the background. There is no inherent folder system, so saving files outside of applications is more complex then it should be. Fingerprints show up much more than I expected, though they wipe away fairly easily with a cloth. The weight (1.5 lbs) is just enough to make you need to shift how you hold the iPad after a period of time.

Again, here’s the thing: the iPad doesn’t need to be perfect, it needs to be niche. Is it niche? Ask my laptop bag.

So I was completely wrong about the iPad sporting a nifty ZUI. Reading some of the “expert” commentary regarding the newly announced Apple tablet, it appears that there is a great deal of disappointment in the device due in large part to a seeming lack of innovative technology. Steve Jobs didn’t convince a lot of folks about the need for the iPad – he positioned it as being better at a variety of things, but I believe people were wanting it to be great for at least one thing, and it’s not clear yet if it is (or will be).

That being said, I think the potential is there with the tablet, but that a lot will depend on the user experience (no surprise there) and how Apple improves the product over time (both through software updates and hardware enhancements). My biggest disappointment is that there is no camera – it seems a little bewildering that Apple would push out such a device without the capability for video chat and conferencing, not to mention the use of a camera for recording presentations and other imaginative uses. Otherwise, I’m actually enthused about the device, if the user experience lives up to expectations. Beyond the cool factor, a few things stand out as important:

* Apple has managed to work a carrier deal that doesn’t lock you into a contract. Sure, it’s AT&T, but I’ll take AT&T without a contract over anyone else if they are going to require me to be locked in. At least for now.

* eBooks – Yes, the books are priced higher than Amazon, but still in the paperback price range. The important thing here, I think, is that Apple is supporting the ePub format. While it remains to be seen if they allow other ePub content to be uploaded to the device (using music on iTunes as a precedent, I’d guess they will), this is a win for consumers and for libraries. I believe the integration of the iBook application and bookstore into the device itself is enough advantage for Apple that they do not have to look at locking users into a proprietary format as well.

* With the iPhone and iTouch, Apple found success in building an integrated function device. The leap they are taking with the iPad is that they can replicate that success with a different combination of functions. This isn’t a Kindle killer (or a Nook killer or a netbook killer); in fact, this isn’t really even about the hardware itself – the hardware is just the gateway to the real prize, and that’s the app / music / movie / eBook distribution channel, i.e. the App store. I’ve stated in the past that Amazon’s goal with the Kindle wasn’t to have the best eBook reader out there; it was to produce a good enough device to move the eBook industry forward and to allow Amazon to become the majority or sole provider of eBooks. In Apple’s case, I believe they do want to make the best device, and use their hardware as leverage to the real cash cow, the App / iTunes store. The most important announcement in yesterday’s Apple event wasn’t the iPad; it was the fact that in 18 months, over 3 Billion apps had been downloaded from the app store. Even if 3/4 of those are free apps (and I’m guessing the percentage isn’t quite that great), that’s still huge. That’s beyond huge, actually; it’s stunning.

* Finally, as much as many pundits expressed disappointment in regards to the iPad’s features, lack of innovation, name, etc., I’m still left with the feeling that people want this. They want this bad. Even if Apple doesn’t come out of the gate with it quite right, there is no one else out there who’s anywhere near as close.

So, my verdict? I’d love to have one, but I’m a gadget guy. That being said, even if I wasn’t, my money’s on Apple on this one.

So, just for fun, I’m going to step a little bit out on a limb and predict that the new apple device that will be announced tomorrow will have a true 3D zoombable user interface – where you can zoom in on (and out of) content. The ZUI (Zoomable User Interface) approach has been around for awhile, and seems a perfect match with a large (larger than iphone) multitouch device.

So, am I good at this prediction thing? We’ll know tomorrow

The iSchool at the University of Washington has released a report entitled “Lessons Learned: How College Students Seek Information in the Digital Age”. This is a very interesting report, and provides a number of facets to consider in relation to both the role of libraries and librarians (and faculty and courses) in the information seeking process. Well worth the time to read.

JISC has posted a guide to microblogging – what it is, why you might want to, and how you should. Excellent stuff.

Lorcan posted a video from JISC regarding the library of the future (a nice video – worth 9 minutes of your day, IMHO). One of the interviewees in the video mentions that she goes to the library to do research and to study because it is a more conducive environment for work than her room. This brought to mind again the idea of how our digital services can work coherently with our physical environment; in this case, I wonder if there is an opportunity for libraries to provide specific work areas where internet access is purposely restricted, the intent being that this would help a researcher, student, learner, etc. cut down on the opportunities for distraction and therefore provide a more supporting working environment. I am not suggesting that libraries restrict internet access as a whole; I am proposing that it would be interesting to see what sort of uptake rooms or areas set aside for ‘distraction-reduced’ internet access might have. I am also not talking about terminals that are used only for catalog access or the like – many libraries already have these. I am talking about setting up wireless (or wired) access so that in those pre-defined areas, only access to library-provisioned resources are available. Obviously, this would restrict internet search engine queries, which would work against research, but depending on where someone is in the research process, this might not be such a big issue.

I’d be interested in hearing what others might think of this concept – I should note that there are tools available for writers that already have a ‘reduced-distraction’ feature, such as WriteRoom.

Oregon State University’s Library continues to impress with it’s web presence. This morning I discovered they are providing a mobile version of their web presence. Check out the announcement on their main web page and the very nice Mobile Libraries page they have put up – and if you have a mobile device, try out the mobile version.

(NOTE: One thing that is missing is a mobile search. Since Oregon State runs LibraryFind, and since LibraryFind has a mobile version, I anticipate that this might be added sometime in the near future)

Here are the steps I went through to install Django on Mac OSX Leopard:

First, I followed the steps on this page to get IDLE support (which I may or may not use, but I figured couldn’t hurt).

I then downloaded the latest official version from http://www.djangoproject.com/download/

and followed the instructions for installing from the tarball.

And that seemed to work. The tutorial works fine – I can create a new project and run a development web server. I can synchronize the database using SQLite3. However, when I try switching to MySQL, I get some nasty errors when running ‘python manage.py syncdb’. So, I found this page, which gives the precise steps needed to get python talking to MySQL correctly on Leopard.

After that, everything is apparently working! Not too horrible – just getting the MySQL connection working was a bit tricky, but otherwise, I’m now able to start working with Django.

OCLC has announced that it is moving forward with a strategy to provide most if not all of the services that current integrated library systems provide (i.e. circulation, acquisitions, license management, etc.). I won’t go into the details (you can read them yourself), but for a little more information beyond the official announcement, see Andrew Pace’s blog as well as Marshall Breeding’s.

As Marshall Breeding relates in his blog post, some will view this announcement with great applause, and others will be worried that OCLC may be moving into such a leveraged position within the library community that they will wield too much power and control. I happen to feel a bit of both; the timing is right for providing our traditional ILS functions as “Software as a Service” (SaaS) – this in essence is what OCLC is meaning when they talk about providing library management functions at the network level. OCLC and others should be moving in this direction, and it is to OCLC’s credit that they are indeed doing so. I will be interested to see how the current players in the ILS arena respond to OCLC’s intentions.

While I have many thoughts about the actual services OCLC proposes, the approach they are taking, and other bits related to technology (pun fully intended), I believe it is critical to come back to the issues surrounding OCLC’s proposed changes to its record use and transfer policy. There has already been much discussion and concern around the proposed changes; OCLC has slowed done the process of implementing what it originally proposed, and has now formed a review board to gather feedback as part of the process. My concern here is that this latest OCLC strategic announcement adds some very important context to how the proposed record use and transfer policy changes could affect the library community, and that a great deal of feedback has been provided to OCLC prior to this news. The prohibition in the latest record use policy on “commercial” transfer is broad and ill-defined; now that OCLC is extending its range of services into library management functions, the current records use / transfer policy could prohibit others from providing ILS functions that directly compete with OCLC’s offerings. If another company wants to provide network-level ILS functions, this could be interpreted as a commercial use of WorldCat records as per the new policy, as in essence a library would need to transfer their catalog records to that company’s network-level ILS services.

I am all for OCLC providing network-level services that support libraries, but I don’t believe it is in the library community’s best interests to relinquish control of our data to OCLC or any other single institution. We cannot afford an environment where our future is defined or controlled by a single entity. We need a robust technology ecosystem. To ensure a balanced playing field, we as a community need to not let OCLC dictate the policies of use of our catalog records; we need to let OCLC know that we believe it is our best interests for these records to be openly accessible and usable by all. And if OCLC decides to pursue a policy that does not reflect the wishes of the library community, then the library community should pursue appropriate legal actions if necessary to protect our interests and our data. While OCLC has been and continues to be a great steward of our records, these are not OCLC’s records, these are our records.

The latest issue of the Code4Lib Journal has an excellent article by David Tarrant et al detailing the use of OAI-ORE to enable the transferrence of repository objects from one repository solution to another. This, IMHO, is the first write-up of a compelling use case for OAI-ORE; the ability to migrate repository collections from one repository solution to another is critical in the long-term for most institutions, and having a standard mechanism for doing so would be a huge win. This is a must-read.