Flickr assignment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30711421@N06/

Flickr

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Screen display photo set

Content from Flickr assignment
Display photos
http://api.flickr.com/services/feeds/photoset.gne?set=72157607399550588&nsid=307...

Thumbnails from Flickr

Content from Flickr assignment 2
Thumbnail version
http://api.flickr.com/services/feeds/photoset.gne?set=72157607399579864&nsid=307...

Jason Vaughn's Lied Library theme article analysis

In this theme article, “Lied Library @ four years: technology never stands still”, Mr. Vaughan chronicles the soup-to-nuts journey of a new library to its established reputation. Written in 2004, his article achieves its goal of relating the challenges faced from inception to reality. I agree that this would be a very useful case study for a new library.

Mr. Vaughan does not omit any detail, from the per-page printing charge remaining static to the issue of air-conditioning in the server room. His descriptions were often clever, i.e., referring to the library’s software images as being everything but “plain vanilla” or simple. The writing was fluid, albeit descriptively heavy at times, and the timeline was documented with knowledge and pride.

Mr. Vaughan addressed an important point towards the end of the article. He speaks of the challenges faced in order to keep up with the maintenance of aging equipment and systems. The challenge of finding ways to fund long-term plans for upgrading software, hardware, etc., is not unique to libraries. It would have been a good argument to place in the article at that juncture.

As Mr. Vaughan’s article was clear and easy to absorb, I look forward to reading more about UNLV’s Lied Library and its plans to collaborate digitally with other institutions and integrate a content management system.

Clifford Lynch position paper analysis

The position paper, “Information Literary and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture” written in 1998 by Clifford Lynch, was very insightful. The author begins his introduction with a humble approach, yet leaves the reader with much food for thought.

I believe Mr. Lynch’s paper centers around the argument of specialization versus generalization when referring to information technology literacy. While educating the masses on the intricacies of an internet 2 access grid, DLA, or rack-mount environment would be advantageous, it is my opinion that most of us can be categorized as specialists or generalists. Specifically, training to that degree is best offered to the specialists; those with daily application of that information.

When Mr. Lynch refers to including “fluency with current tools”, most students would not have the interest to support separate dedicated information literacy training. Although intriguing, the practical application of such a program does not seem feasible.

Mr. Lynch achieves his goal of presenting his arguments for incorporating new components into curriculum for the general student population. He supports his argument citing inadequacies in IT curricula as it pertains to broad spectrum subjects. However, he also counters with an admission of the time needed to impart the complexities of IT and information literacy. His argument concludes with a question of the importance of a “bank” of skills which would aid those in all facets of our society, i.e., commerce or science or other.

With regard to information technology, Mr. Lynch goes so far as to touch on the issue of creating maps of information, such as the context models hypothesized in the previous article. But he also refers to the limitations of digital resources, stating that “much material will not be available in digital form for the foreseeable future” (1998, Lynch, Clifford: Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture). This statement is incongruous to his prior arguments. His closing statements indicate a desire to explore more, as he lists the issues related to information literacy. I look forward to reading more of his work.

Analysis of "Content, Not Containers" report

In the follow-up report, “2004 Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers”, the OCLC Marketing Staff achieves its goals of updating its predictions of format trends. It continues to build upon predictions made in the 2003 report, Five-Year Information Format Trends. The staff dedicates much of the report to “format agnostic” nature of consumers seeking contextual and non-contextual information.

With regard to increased content communication, the staff refers to the “disruptive technology in the content world” (2004 Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers, OCLC Marketing Staff).

According to the bar graph on page 4, email and text message traffic increases exponentially, but the decline in ILL and USPS is relatively small. This is a clear indication of the need to embrace the technology around us; a view not prevalent in the report. The staff introduces a good argument for creating contextual guides, for which it included two excellent models on pages 14 and 15. However, the writing becomes hindered by an overtone of disdain for things of a “techie” nature, i.e., smartphones. The reader is left with a feeling of fear rather than courage to face “the most disruptive changes…taking place outside of the arena of traditional information management” (2004 Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers, OCLC Marketing Staff).

When referring to wikis and blogs, the staff’s opinion seems to shift to excitement for the possibilities available to librarians. The authors touch briefly on the social nature of information sharing today. The real-world quotes selected to support this argument were appropriate.

However, the writers then delve deeper into micropublishing and microcontent and away from their main argument of contextual guides. Specifically, the CEO of Blogads is quoted as saying, “…users want granular pieces of information and data, at the moment of need, in the right format…’Everything, everywhere, when I want it, the way I want it.” This does not seem to support the main force of the report, which stated that content consumers were “format agnostic”.

At the end, the staff contradicts itself again by claiming that consumers demand “more personalization and dynamism” from their content. In the next paragraph, it is stated that “content with personalization features” will be attractive to “an ever more demanding, format agnostic information producer and consumer” (2004 Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers, OCLC Marketing Staff). I feel the report was well-researched but ambiguous at times. I would be interested in reading a subsequent follow-up report.