Walt at Random

A couple hours I posted the announcement for C&I 9.3 (below), there was a comment on it on FriendFeed from Polly Potter, noting my suggestion that people not use white text on a dark background in their blogs. She noted that light gray text on a light background can also be difficult to read.

Which is true enough (and is one of my complaints about FriendFeed, actually: comments appear as light gray text), but I wondered if it was more pointed…

OK; after looking at it, I’ve changed the template so that block-quoted text (and some other odd varieties that don’t happen very often), instead of being color #777, a fairly light gray, are now color #222, a very dark gray (on my display, it’s indistinguishable from black).

Better or worse? Less elegant, I think, but more readable–a choice I’m willing to make.

---

Update: I played with it a little more. It’s now #333, which is distinguishably lighter than black on a good display, but still very high contrast. Now if FriendFeed would use something closer to black for comment text…

Cites & Insights 9:3, February 2009, is now available for downloading.

The 30-page issue is PDF, as usual. Three of the essays are available as HTML separates (using the links below). The first, which is also the longest, is available as a PDF separate–the inclusion of embedded Excel graphs within the document made HTML creation more cumbersome than I was willing to deal with.

This issue features the article versions of my two presentations for the OLA (Ontario Library Association) SuperConference, held just over a week ago in Toronto, Ontario. The first article is a longer version of my session “Shiny Toys or Useful Tools?”; the second article includes “My own take” as the first set of Tech Trends, and that was my initial commentary during the “Top Tech Trends” session.

Issue contents:

Making it Work: Shiny Toys or Useful Tools? (pages 1-9)

Blogs and wikis aren’t shiny new toys for libraries and librarians any more. They’ve moved from toys to tools. This article includes the only defensible definitions of blogs and wikis that I know of, some comments about planning library blogs, and sections on the state of liblogs and library blogs in December 2008. Included–for the first time in C&I–graphs, eight of them. (As noted, the link is to a 9-page PDF.)

Perspective: Tech Trends, Trends and Forecasts (pages 9-18)

It’s that time of year again–time for lots of trendy commentaries. For a change, I begin with my own set: The trends I see “as vital for thinking about libraries, technology and life.”That’s followed by tech trends and commentaries from nine different sources, six of them library-specific; two sets of general trends, one of them just full of trendy neologisms; and three sets of forecasts (short-term predictions), one of them coupled with a scorecard for 2008.

Interesting & Peculiar Products (pages 18-23)

One long commentary on “budget” high-end audio systems and “the rule of 10,” plus comments on seven products (or groups of products) and seven editors’ choices and group reviews.

Trends & Quick Takes (pages 23-29)

Four longer commentaries and six quicker takes.

My Back Pages (pages 29-30)

Four brief commentaries.

Here’s a mystery, although I’m sure Dave could explain it: At the moment, this little blog is #2 in the Hot or Not hit parade...just below In the Library with the Lead Pipe and above ALA TechSource Blog.

And my other blog, PLN Highlights, is #26.

Which, since PLN Highlights posts are repeated here, suggests a correlation…

I’m surprised someone hasn’t recorded their blog’s ranking each day over, say, a month, and published the resulting graph. (No, I’m not about to do that; I only check this once a week or so, purely for amusement purposes, mostly to see which odd set of blogs is in the top 5 or 10. Today, Dion Hinchcliffe, UK Web Focus, Sintoblog, Library & Information Update blog, Coffee|Code, The Gaming Zone, Ramblings of a Remote Worker fill out the top ten–which means six of the “hottest” ten library blogs are ones I’ve never really read or heard of. That probably says more about me than about them. Yes, Dan, Coffee|Code is the one other than the top three that I do read regularly.)

Tomorrow? I might be back down to #300 or so. But I probably won’t know…

The lesson here, obviously, given the #26 ranking: Use the PALINET Leadership Network. It will make you hot. Or at least better informed.

I wrote these some time ago, in preparation for the OLA SuperConference and as part of a Trends & Quick Takes Special for the February Cites & Insights (not out yet–maybe in a week or less?). I didn’t post them here because I wrote them for C&I; I did, however, include them in a Technology Trends article for the PALINET Leadership Network.

I’m posting them here for two reasons:

1. First, because it may be a while before C&I comes out (various disruptions, not to worry)
2. Second, because Steve Lawson posted a really terrific “Top Tech Trend” item that has some overlap with mine–and after I noted that on FriendFeed (a comment that was intended to be along the lines of “great minds rest in the same gutter,” or whatever the saying is), he added a link to the post that suggests that he’d seen me offering similar ideas. And, you know, the more I think about it, the more I think that’s probably not true–that Steve monitored the same trends I did, had the same sense about them, and came up with his commentary wholly independently. (OK, maybe we chatted about it on LSW Meebo, back when I was showing up there once in a while. Maybe not.)

I think Steve’s post, regarding the “social software deathwatch,” is relevant and interesting in ways that my little set of trends may not be. But, for what it’s worth, here’s what I have to say. Think of it as a preview of one small portion of one essay in the February 2009 C&I.

My own take

In the Midwinter 2009 issue, I quoted from my 2004 mini-essay on the “top technology trend,” quoting Cory Doctorow and Boing Boing. Repeating part of the beginning of Doctorow’s entry: “The last twenty years were about technology. The next twenty years are about policy…” I believe that’s still true-and maybe the economic reality that emerged last year and will be with us for some time to come demonstrates that better than everything. Technology helped get us into this mess; I don’t see any way that technology will get us out of it.

Beyond that, I see these trends as vital for thinking about libraries, technology and life:

• Limits: They exist. Your financial resources are limited; you can’t keep borrowing against tomorrow indefinitely. Deny them as we might, limits–natural resources, time, attention–don’t simply disappear. Denying limits and hiding them under various odd assumptions can lead to disasters of various sorts.

• Business models: They matter. When you’re considering how various services for your own work and your library’s work will work, think about business models. To what extent are you relying on free services that don’t appear to have any source of revenue? What happens to your service if those services disappear? Do you have any rational basis to believe that they’ll continue to exist, grow and be developed without clear revenue sources? Your library has a business model, typically that of a community service: People pay in advance in order to fund a common good.
• Trusting the cloud: Set aside the jargon–the cloud’s just software and services on someone else’s servers. “Trusting the cloud” has three key aspects, one particularly important where library functions are concerned: Trusting that the services will remain (see “business models”); trusting that your data will be safe; and trusting that confidentiality will be preserved. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t use the cloud; I am arguing that you should think several times before relying entirely on the cloud.
• Valuing existing users and services: Yes, you need to see how you can serve emerging needs of your community (your community)–but times of limits make your existing services more valuable than ever. Don’t ignore your existing users in order to court a minority of people living the digital lifestyle; find some balance. And if you find that some portion of the digerati really do have all the money to satisfy their instant-everything demands and have no intention of using your services–well, in fact, you can’t please everybody, and there’s a limit to how hard you should try.
• Real communities: What technologies and balances serve your users in your community? The answer’s considerably different for a town in which 99% of residents are wealthy and have high-speed broadband and smart phones (if such a town exists) than it is for a city where many people aren’t online at all (except at the library), many more have only dialup at home, and $100 a month for a smart phone data service is an outrageous expense. Where’s your community–and how does your library serve your users effectively?
• Taking back the language: That’s a group heading for a number of language-related issues. It means understanding that “Essentially free” means somebody somewhere is paying a lot of money. It means thinking to yourself “what you mean we?” when someone pronounces something that “we” or “we all” do or think. (The full phrase, from a brilliant song by Oscar Brown, Jr. regarding the Lone Ranger and Tonto, is slightly politically incorrect–although, you know, a majority of those using unfounded “we”isms are indeed white men.) It means flagging “inevitable” as a typically nonsensical substitute for argument. It means honoring skepticism while trying to avoid cynicism.

So there you have it. And do read Lawson’s commentary; it’s excellent. (Now to close this and add portions of his commentary to my Trends article–and, tomorrow or the next day, larger portions to the PLN article.)

Last night, Chuck was back on with a new episode. Which I only learned because the local paper had a sidenote about it (it wasn’t flagged “new” in TV Guide, and we don’t watch a whole lot of NBC shows).

In 3D.

So, where do you get glasses? The NBC Chuck site sayeth not…just that the whole episode is in 3D (but you can watch it later, on the NBC site, in either 3D or 2D).

Other sites led me to believe that most grocery stores should have them. So, off to one that should. They said they’d had a stack, but they were all gone…oh, wait, one sheet of four pairs. (You can’t get one pair or two pairs, just four at a time.) Apparently, the Big Deal was a superbowl ad in 3D, not a half-hour TV show.

Up to this point:

• NBC does spectacular job of not saying where these glasses would be available–I mean, not on the website itself? Hello?
• Actual distribution mechanism doesn’t work all that well.
• Focus of distribution is a Monsters Vs. Aliens ad, not a 30-minute show.

So we tried the glasses. I wear eyeglasses all the time. My wife usually doesn’t (not when watching TV, for example). We have a first-rate, 11-year-old, CRT-based TV (a 32″ Sony XBR). We were getting a pretty decent signal.

My wife tried the glasses for about a minute, then stopped…dealing, instead, with the slightly strange color and focus issues of a 3D picture viewed in 2D. Why?

• The glasses darkened the picture so much that she could barely see at all out of one eye and mostly saw blurs out of the other.
• The glasses were so uncomfortable that she didn’t want to deal with them.
• Because of the first issue, she never really saw 3D effects.

I tried them a little longer, but eventually gave up as well.

• Yes, I saw the 3D, and it was in fact far more natural than most previous efforts.
• But the picture was too dark to enjoy, and I didn’t think 3D really added anything to the show.
• The glasses were not, shall we say, great when used in front of regular glasses, and hopeless behind regular glasses. If I don’t wear my regular glasses, I’d see nothing but blur…

After the show, I realized who would find the picture more acceptable: Owners of LCD TVs with “torch mode” settings (what you usually see in the showroom), bright enough to cause headaches under normal conditions. Torch mode might balance the darkness of the 3D lenses to yield a plausible picture. (And if you got a headache, you wouldn’t know whether it was torch mode- or 3D-induced.)

All things considered, I look forward to seeing Chuck in 2D next week…

What? You really expected a meaningful post with a title like that? Sorry.

This isn’t a proper post-conference summary. Between congestion and the results of two back-to-back conferences in cold & colder climates, together with a travel day that was even longer than expected, I’m still not fully up to speed…but thought a few notes might be in order.

Overall

The OLA SuperConference was a pleasure, with thousands of librarians of all types attending an astonishing variety of programs. I didn’t attend quite as many as originally intended (running tired throughout, so I tried to save whatever energy I had for the two sessions I was doing), and there was a real collision of programs I’d have liked to see on Friday afternoon when I was doing one. Still, a really good conference. I’d certainly return under the right circumstances.

My sessions

Shiny toys or useful tools?–my presentation on blogs and wikis, mostly blogs–was well-attended. They had to bring in more chairs. I’d guess there were at least 80 people there, and only a few left during the session. Unfortunately, I forgot to preface my talk with my general approval of the Law of 2 Feet: “If this isn’t what you expected or you’re not getting much from it, feel free to leave–I won’t be offended.” I was told later that OLA people tend to obey the Law of 2 Feet in any case.

As it was, the session was about half advice on setting up and using blogs and wikis and about half status updates on library blogs and liblogs, based on my books and a late December 2008 set of snapshots. I suspect the talk would have been even better if more of it was “how to do it well and what to avoid” with a few facts thrown in for balance.

A longer version of the talk, in article format, will be part of the February 2009 C&I, maybe out in a week, maybe longer, depending on how long it takes to regain some energy…

Top technology trends–where I was one of three panelists, along with a public librarian and a school librarian–was very well attended (it’s a spotlight session). Probably 250-300 people. My “trends” (not specific technologies, but issues) have already appeared on PLN and will also be part of a big Trends article in the February 2009 C&I. The others had excellent presentations. (Apparently, Meredith Farkas also spent less time on specific toys and more on overall aspects and policy issues.) I thought it went very well, but I’m the wrong one to judge.

Other sessions, once over lightly

My notes are sketchy and I think you’ll find most of these presentations online. I thought John Dupuis was interesting and enlightening on the use of Web2.0 tools in the science community. A session on using technology to see how users navigate online interfaces compared and contrasted in-person observation and remote computer-based observation; an interesting session, but not without problems. I wondered about the observer effect, and I really wondered about a remote observation technique that requires participants to download software that includes a keylogger! It felt as though the session was mostly about testing techniques, not about the things being tested, and maybe that’s OK. A “debate” on whether reference needed librarians had a slight misdescription in the program–it was really about whether reference desks needed professional librarians, a very different question.

Beyond the sessions

I noticed a couple of things about the conference:

• The receptions–and there were quite a few of them–had full bars, not just wine and beer. Maybe I don’t get invited to the right receptions at ALA, but that struck me as different.
• Some of the Canadian speakers used “North America” or “North American libraries” as shorthand for “United States and Canada,” omitting another N.A. country with roughly three times Canada’s population. But then, those of us in the 50 states frequently use “America” as shorthand for the U.S., so this is not a criticism.
• I don’t think there’s much to say about famed Canadian politeness. Let’s face it, library conferences tend to be fairly polite gatherings in any case…
• It was a VERY packed conference, with sessions starting at 8 a.m. and running well past 5 p.m., and with as many as 31 or 32 simultaneous programs (rarely fewer than 28 except for plenaries). Talking to some presenters who only had 15 or 20 attendees, they seemed to feel this was par for the course for specialized presentations. (The program does have “Level II” and “Level III” notes on presentations that assume some prior knowledge.)
• The Intercontinental Hotel is joined to the conference center and a real boon for thin-blooded folks like me, unwilling to venture out into sub-zero weather (Centigrade, that is) more often than necessary. The room was fine–but the hotel’s only restaurant was remarkably expensive for dinner (more expensive than the first-rate Frank at the Art Gallery, for example), and with one astonishing characteristic: No Ontario Chardonnays (only one Ontario white wine, a fairly obscure varietal), despite ambitious wine prices. Ontario produces a lot of wine and a lot of excellent wine; the reasonably-priced Lone Star Cafe across the street featured Ontario wines (including Chardonnay), as did the reasonably-priced Loose Moose Tap & Grill (also nearby), as did the reasonably-priced C’est What?, as did…well, almost everybody (certainly including Molson’s at the airport). (Frank offered nothing but Ontario wines, as far as I could see, including some relatively rare ones.) I think Intercontinental should get its act together. (I’m also getting sick of all the business hotels that Proudly Brew Starbuck’s, but I’m probably in a minority there.)
• Three cheers to the Airport Express drivers. The Wednesday driver took his time, so that we arrived a few minutes later but all in one piece (Wednesday conditions were pretty miserable). The Saturday driver was interesting, amusing, making the drive to the airport almost a mini-tour. And the price was right, for carriage in big comfortable buses with good reclining seats and shapable headrests,  lavatory and wifi (not that I took advantage of either). I almost never tip airport shuttle drivers. I made exceptions in both these cases, admittedly with those boring U.S. bills instead of sound Canadian coin.

That may be it for a conference post. When C&I is ready, I’ll add pointers to the appropriate articles (or copies of the articles) to the OLA site. Now to photocopy and mail in expenses…

---

I’m hiding this here under the fold because I’m not sure what to do about it. It’s been suggested, by a couple of people, that I put together a program on effective publishing via Lulu and CreateSpace, as a way for libraries to do short-run books for their own purposes and to encourage community publication. If I did this, I’d work up a Word2007 6×9 book template that uses standard Vista typefaces, with sample text to show how it works.

I’m not sure it’s worth the effort (and I’m sure I wouldn’t be ready to do more than a handful of these presentations). Comments?