Walt at Random

A brief and blind blog item…blind because the blog involved is not within the biblioblogosphere, and I don’t need the hassle.

A biblioblogger (I believe) linked to an open source-related blog post talking about open source and libraries.

The open source-related blog uses blogging software that I don’t recognize as being open source, unlike, say, WordPress. (At least I can’t find any mention of open source or GPL or anything similar on the blogging software’s site, and it’s a priced product.)

That software typically supports printing of long posts in Internet Explorer, but not in the open-source Firefox. Unlike, say, WordPress.

I guess it’s another case of “Do what we say, not what we do.”

In this case, the post looked interesting enough to keep for further study–but it’s considerably more than one page long, so I have the choice of reading it online, copying-and-pasting the text to Word, or …I suppose…using IE. To read more about open source. Bwahahah…

I don’t normally get anywhere near /., but I was pointed to this discussion by a blog that I read regularly (outside my aggregator, for some reason).

I certainly didn’t read all 577 comments (who knows? by the time you read this, there may be 600), but my general sense is that if the slashdotters are this…um…enthusiastic about ebooks, then even the sensible uses for ebooks are in trouble (never mind “replacing dead trees”).

Meredith Farkas informs us that her brilliant unofficial ALA Chicago conference wiki will be succeeded by an official ALA New Orleans conference wiki.

I thought the Chicago wiki was an exceptional source both before and especially after the conference. I regard this as Very Good News.

Congratulations to Mary Ghikas (an old friend) for contacting Meredith Farkas and suggesting the wiki–and to Mary and Meredith both for choosing what’s almost certainly the path of least resistance, for an experienced Wiki hand like Ms. Farkas to set it up at her site.

Important note: “Official ALA wiki” does not mean that ALA will be building the wiki or constricting the flow of information. If you have information (which, for local arrangements, includes opinion, I believe) that should be part of our collective knowledge universe as we return to the not-so-Big Easy, make your voice heard. I don’t promise I’ll be contributing to the wiki, but I’d call the chances better than even.

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle has a column that I find charming, even though it’s by a writer I generally find annoying. It’s available right here. (This columnist was originally an SFGate-only columnist, then the print newspaper added him. Maybe a mistake.)

“Don’t feel any urgency” because the last thing I want to do is add to the epidemic of adult deliberate attention deficit/”continuous partial attention.”

I’m beginning to realize that there may be yet another answer to the old question, “How do I get so much writing done?” While “I’m lazy, but I’m efficient” is an honest answer, another one may be that I don’t try to do two or three things at once (except for watching old B movies while exercising). Focus does wonderful things for effectiveness, and maybe even quality.

I found other things in the column resonated. Maybe I sleep reasonably well because, at home, I have one cup of excellent Kauai coffee around 6:30 in the morning (and don’t drink either regular tea or soft drinks, so that’s about it for caffeine)–and because I don’t make any effort to stay on top of multiple things at once.

As always, YMMV–but I’m increasingly convinced that multitasking as a way of life is a great way to do many things badly instead of a few things well, and I wonder if it doesn’t mess up your mind and body in the process. Time will tell–or won’t, because in our “post-truth society” people will ignore evidence that doesn’t suit them.

[Caution: Mini-memoir ahead, very little relevance to libraries--well, except for maybe SFPL]

The local paper has an urban design critic, which I suspect is fairly rare; it used to have an architecture critic (an irascible and delightful one at that), but the new critic’s charge is much broader. One theme in a few recent items hits home with me: The resistance of too many communities to any new design ideas in buildings. The most recent hook: a strikingly modern building in downtown Palo Alto, a break from all the faux Mission and similar buildings.

It’s an interesting point. It’s sad to see creeping homogeneity–every town having the same kinds of malls with the same set of chain food outlets–and it’s always a delight to find the differences that are around the edges of that sameness. (San Antonio’s a paradox in some ways: the Riverwalk in general is a celebration of locality–but the Rivermall at one nexus could, possibly sans river, be dropped unchanged in any medium-size city with almost no changes. Still, the downtown has regional character, and more local restaurants and bars than chains.)

But while it’s great for a city to have a style, it’s sad if that style becomes frozen in time, with all new buildings being more-or-less successful imitations of old buildings (usually with less panache, frequently with cheaper materials and techniques). There’s a slightly related issue–taking preservation so far that even the crappiest old buildings are hard to replace–but I won’t get into that here.

“and youthful enthusiasm”? Yep. Back oh, say, 35-40 years ago, I used to care a lot about architecture. When Architectural Forum was a Time Inc. magazine, I subscribed for several years (and read every issue: I’m one of those people who really does read every magazine I get cover to cover). I dropped the subscription when it became difficult or very expensive for non-architects to subscribe. I lived in Berkeley then, not a bad place for a lover of architecture.

Some youthful enthusiasms grow into adult hobbies or passions. Some fade. This one faded. I still pay some attention to design, but with no real knowledge to back it up; I don’t read about famous architects or subscribe to any architecture or design magazines. (I never considered studying architecture formally, as I never had or have any suspicion that I would have any talent for design. Quite apart from my inability to sketch or draw…)

One somewhat heretical point kept making itself over the years, possibly reinforced by the fact that my father’s an engineer: Some (many? most?) big-name architects design buildings that are great architectural Statements but lousy Buildings.

If you don’t know what I mean by that, it’s a little difficult to explain; if you do, you can probably think of some examples. Great constructions with wonderful window-to-window joints, which behave like most window-to-window joints: They leak. Always. Magnificent shapes with so many interior load-bearing walls that the building can’t be modified to meet the changing needs of its inhabitants. Buildings that require constant care to keep working at all. Need I mention Fallingwater? There’s also Wright’s design for a mass-produced house; I visited the one example, and was horrified by the extent to which it insisted that the inhabitants live The Way Frank Wanted. Buildings that you can’t walk near because the sun blasts off their swoopy metal exteriors. Auditoriums with awful acoustics.

Not all of them, by any means–either all famous architects or all of their buildings. But too many for comfort. One problem (particularly with leaky roofs and joints, sagging foundations, lousy acoustics, etc., etc.) is that some architects lack respect for engineers and don’t consult them.

I have to admit, I wonder how people will feel about most Frank Gehry buildings, say, 20 years after they’re built–and how well they’ll be used. In some ways, I’m sad to see the great old TWA terminal at JFK being gutted–but I had occasion to use that terminal, and it was a horrendous place to actually use in the last two decades of the millennium (and apparently a bear to keep running).

So maybe it’s just as well that the youthful enthusiasm faded. I’m sure I loved Statement Architecture as much as anyone else; I’d be sad to see so many of those Statements turning into sad legacies. Buildings are for use; that’s not always an easy thing for an artist to hear.

ArchiveGrid became available on March 1. I think it’s an interesting and worthwhile rethinking of access to archival materials–both Mixed Materials catalog (what used to be called AMC, where the RLG Union Catalog has for years been the de facto database of record) and finding aids themselves, which can be long, complicated, and fascinating.

Yes, ArchiveGrid is from my employer, RLG. Full disclosure: I had nothing to do with the project. I may get stuck with involved in providing a complete set of internal reports on usage (nothing that would violate confidentiality, of course); I don’t know yet. But I wasn’t part of the development team.

It’s a new interface, based in part on user studies, with one search box. The results can be a mix of cataloging records and finding aids; there’s also contact information for the archives, since one primary use of ArchiveGrid is to find materials that would need to be consulted in person.

I’ve been fascinated by the results of some searches I’ve tried. Of course I tried “Randy Newman”–and there are three places reporting stuff by or about Newman, including the typescript for “Faust” at The Billy Rose Theatre Collection, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (part of NYPL). “Oscars” yields 14 results, including Walter Brennan’s papers at the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. (”Academy Awards” as a phrase yields 55, including lots of stuff at the Wisconsin Historical Society, Brigham Young, NYPL and elsewhere.)

My home town turns up with 167, surprisingly (actually 188, but 21 of those are for people with “Modesto” as one of their names). Roughly a third of those are at UC Berkeley, but apparently only a third of that third at Bancroft. Interesting stuff. If I was planning to do archival research, I’d make heavy use of ArchiveGrid.

Sidebars along with a result set show the archives and locations included in the result set.

ArchiveGrid is free at least through May 31. (After that…well, I believe RLG is adding considerable value through ArchiveGrid, and RLG is not a government-supported institution: Someone has to pay our salaries and the costs of equipment and software if value is going to be added.) I think the team did a good job; I think it’s worth a look.

Update 3/7: Well, I told you I wasn’t involved in ArchiveGrid. And was unaware of a couple of helpful details about what’s happening. First, as I implied in the paragraph above, if other funding comes through, ArchiveGrid could remain free. Second, in addition to RLG’s usual institutional subscriptions, ArchiveGrid will have individual subscriptions if it can’t remain free, apparently quite reasonably priced–so that independent researchers, genealogists, and the like will be able to use it.

Got something in the mail yesterday we don’t see very often: A USPS notice that there was a letter for me with $0.15 postage due. What could it be?

Today’s my short day at work; came home; walked over to the nearby mall (which also has the postal station at which the letter could be found) for lunch. Went to the post office to pick up that important piece of mail.

Which was from a bank or S&L (name not important) announcing that they’d give us $50 if we moved our savings there and performed various other feats. This said on a fairly impersonal big color postcard.

Big color postcard. With $0.24 postcard metered postage.

Oversize postcard. Which requires regular $0.39 first-class postage.

I’m wondering just how many people are going to be attracted to trust their money to an institution that doesn’t know how mailings work…and, of course, the name’s not important because I filed the postcard in the postal station’s convenient big round filing destination right after paying to see it.

Ah, it’s Friday. John Dupuis certainly understands that.

It’s LITA’s 40th anniversary (as a division, not with the current name). There’s a section of LITA’s website devoted to the 40th anniversary celebration. (If you go there, and you look at the PowerPoint of pictures, be kind: I don’t always or even frequently photograph well.)

I was president of LITA in 1992/1993. That was part of six continuous years on the LITA Board (which, given ALA rules, is only possible if you’re elected Vice President/President-Elect in the third year of a Board term–unlike ALA Councillors, Division Board members can’t be re-elected), including four on the Executive Committee. I presided over the program honoring LITA’s 25th anniversary. (If you can do the math, you’ll see that it wasn’t LITA’s 25th, but I did the program.)

The first major award I ever won was the LITA/Library Hi Tech Communications Award (that’s not the full name, which is too long to repeat here), in 1995.

I edited the LITA Newsletter for almost ten years, more than half of its life as a print publication. That included the LITA Yearbook 1992, the one and only book-length issue of the LITA Newsletter (Actually, it was a supplement, and came out of the regular budget–I learned how to manipulate the newsletter budget to get more pages without more money, partly by doing the copy-editing and typesetting myself. The supplement was a 122-page paperback, and the d*nedest annual conference report LITA’s ever seen.)

Fact is, for a very long time I only joined ALA because you had to be an ALA member to join ISAD (LITA’s predecessor) and, later, LITA. LITA was where I met people, where I started writing and speaking within the library field, where I found a few hundred friends and acquaintances.

So I’m a LITA member for life. Right?

Maybe. Maybe not.

It bothered me when the LITA Newsletter disappeared–first moving from print to online publication and dwindling pretty rapidly after that. I nudged about it now and then. I heard encouraging words about steps LITA was taking. Meanwhile, I still have very little idea what interest groups will be discussing at Midwinter, even less idea what happened at Midwinter, and not much help to plan Annual either, except for the formal programs. The LITA blog helps a little, but I still feel somewhat alienated from my division.

It bothered me a lot when LITA increased its dues to $60, the highest in ALA–and, for the first time in my memory, did so without a membership vote. I’ve been asking here and there just what I’m getting for $60 a year…with relatively little response. LITA lost a fair number of members after that dues increase, but as with most sharp increases, the overall numbers apparently look good–but at the expense of a shrinking membership.

Now there’s an ALA dues increase, although at least we get to vote on this one: $30 a year, phased in over a three-year period. So I’d end up paying $190 a year. Plus, of course, increasing prices for conference registration.

I appreciate ALA’s lobbying efforts; I think the Washington Office generally does a fine, effective job. I appreciate American Libraries (even if I wasn’t a good fit as a columnist). I still enjoy Midwinter most years and Annual perhaps a little less; those are still the places I get to meet new colleagues and get in touch with some of my long-standing friends and acquaintances. And, once in a while, even learn something new. I don’t know about ALA-APA, but in any case I’m not a professional librarian, so it’s largely irrelevant.

So is the ALA-LITA combination worth $160 now and $190 in 2009? (OK, so when I retire some time later, the ALA portion of the dues goes down. Doesn’t it?) Am I really going to stick with LITA forever because of my past history with the division? Will I still be part of LITA for its 45th anniversary? (That’s the question in the title. It’s 15 years too late for me to make it to 45 in a more general sense.)

Damned if I know.

Wow. I ran into a complimentary brief post at Confessions of a Mad Librarian.

I offered this comment:

Thanks for the kind words, although I thought of that essay as a once-over-lightly… I’ll go read OJR’s interview!

And got this in response:

Comment Submission Error

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Your comment was denied for questionable content.

I tried again, eliminating the exclamation point and adding “[guess your spam filter is triggered by an exclamation point].” And got the same response.

Now, I know that many of the spamments I get these days have “thanks” or “wonderful blogging” or some such nonsense so that I’ll approve the “comment” (I love the ones applauding my part in the discussion, and commenting on my introductory post.) But I’m not quite ready to add “thanks” to my block list. But I suspect misseli gets a whole lot more spam than I do…

Anyway, Eli, thanks–although I really only did a once-over-lightly on the document in question.