C. N. Mooers (1960). "Mooers' law or why some retrieval systems are used and others are not. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 23:1. 22-23.

Summary

This article explains Mooers's law which states that "An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it." This is an ironic statement explaining why people avoid more efficient information systems: having information is often more difficult than not having it so using less efficient systems provides less information to cause problems.

What I learned

It's interesting reading this article in 2011 when it is more common to find articles about "information overload," "information anxiety," and the "information age." What Mooers was making a joke about has, in some ways, become a common trope of modern life. Nowadays, you can't go 24 hours without stumbling on some article highlighting the problems with having information, namely that the constant onslaught of information is making it more difficult to process, reflect upon, think about, and absorb the information that is actually relevant and necessary.

On the flipside Mooers is also commenting on a common human pitfall: looking for the easiest way out. Often people don't want to be challenged with information that either doesn't jive with their beliefs or that doesn't fit into their well worn path, so users approach information retrieval with the hope of finding information to confirm what they already think to be true. In this way, little has changed since Mooers' original writing 50 years ago. Even if it requires using an inefficient system, if it provides the information or non-information the user needs to maintain the status quo, that user will come back again and again. Perhaps this is part of the reason online catalogs have been so slow to develop (as was pointed out in the previous post) and why legacy systems are so hard to abandon.

What I am taking away

Three things:

It's good to joke.

Some things never change.

Information is hard sometimes.

Discussion question

What do you think Mooers would think of modern information search and retrieval behavior? Would he see similarities with what he was trying to describe in the past?

K. Antelman, E. Lynema, A. K. Pace (2006). "Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog." Information Technology & Libraries, 25:3. 128-139.

Available free online here.

Summary

After providing a brief summary of the history of online catalogs, Antelman et al. go on to present as a case study the system implemented North Carolina State Universities (NCSU) libraries, the Endeca Information Access Platform. The article enumerates several of the unique ways in which this system has moved beyond the catalogs currently used in many libraries. The Endeca system features such capabilities as relevance ranking of search results, browsing the catalog without entering a search term, and using LC classification as a search dimension. It also allows for significant customization of the user interface. The article goes on to briefly describe some decisions made during the implementation of the Endeca system as well as what parameters were used to assess the new catalog and further additions and changes NCSU libraries would like to make.

What I learned

Firstly, I honestly didn't know that much about how search results were displayed and calculated in more traditional catalogs. That relevance ranking of results is a new feature was a surprise to me. As someone who grew up on search engines, I forget that not all information retrieval systems work on Google's algorithm. I think sometimes that librarians forget that people like me exist, that people expect relevance ranked results. Early in the article, Antelman et al. mention that catalogs have become a place users go to find call numbers. When I started thinking about that, I remember as a child using the catalog at the public library as a way of discovering new information; however, for the last decade or so, the catalog has not been where I go to discover resources but rather where I go to discover the physical location of resources that I learned about elsewhere. This article provided an interesting case study of how library catalogs can move beyond what they have been and become the place where users go to discover not just to locate.

What I am taking away from this article

Online catalogs have a long way to go. The Endeca system described in this article has a lot of great capabilities, but this is just one example of a library moving beyond the staid catalogs with which librarians have grown so comfortable.

Discussion question

On page 32, Antelman et al. write, "[T]he implementation team decided that authority searching (author, title, subject, call number) would be preserved in the new catalog interface. This allowed NCSU to retain the value of authority headings, in addition to providing a familiar interface and approach to known-item searching." I think this "familiar interface and approach" bit is problematic because, while these fields are familiar to librarians and users, they are also not what users most often use. As more and more people go to Google to find information, it seems that the search engine paradigm is the most familiar interface and approach. Are the author, title, subject, and call number fields still necessary? Are they comfortable? Is this something users look for? And if so presently, is it something they will continue to look for in the future?

Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Chapter 1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. Library Information Systems, pp. 3-12.

Summary

This article traces the history of library information systems (LIS) beginning all the way back in the 1930s. Kochtanel and Matthews highlight many of the technological developments over the last 70 years and try to distinguish between different periods: the host centric period, the network centric period, and the end user centric period. These defined eras of computing in libraries take us from punch cards and the automation of circulation services to use of the internet for researching and accessing a wide-range of library services and offerings. As a young person who never experienced punchcards and mainframes, it is interesting to see this development traced over much of the 20th century. The authors also include some predictions for the future, which they believe will include a further emphasis on digital resources and greater use of the internet. Almost ten years later, and it seems like they were right.

What I learned

This article provided a lot of historical context for much of the library technology I am familiar with today. It is also nice to see an even-handed approach to the intersection of libraries and technology instead of a focus on the demise of libraries or some justification for the future of libraries. This was just a factual article providing background.

I thought Kochtanel and Matthews did a nice job of speculating on future developments briefly without throwing out outlandish or impossible future possibilities. On page 11, there is a discussion of how users want an integrated single application from which they can access a variety of resources instead of having to navigate any number of separate systems and databases. I think this is something we see more and more of now. Aggregators are very popular and one of the greatest benefits of Google is its single search box that provides results from a vast number of different locations/resources. Page 11 further goes on to mention that users "are more interested in accessing information from distributed locations, any time of the day, any day of the week." I think this statement in particular foresees the development of and reliance on cloud computing. Users do want to be able to access their information from a variety of locations at any time, and storing data in the cloud is one way to make that happen.

What I am taking away from this article

Technology, both generally and in libraries specifically, has come a long way, and I am lucky enough to be living in the current day where so much information is immediately at our fingertips.

Discussion question

On page 7, they authors write, "Today's applications of technology in libraries are more focused on information content and the end user and, as such, support the user directly in his or her quest to identify information resources, some of which are now encoded digitally. Yes, these applications still rely on technology as a tool (but not an end unto itself)." In the years since this article was published, do you think we've moved more toward using technology as an end unto itself? And what does that even mean?

Arnold Hirshon (2008). "Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries."

Summary

This article provided an overview of libraries in 2008 with a focus on their use of technology. It was intended to inform libraries about trends in the use of information. Hirshon broke his article into five main sections: society and economy, technology, education and learning, information content, and library leadership and organization. He is trying for forecast how each of these five areas will be effected in the future and how they will effect libraries and library users. He provides examples from a wide range of sources but notes that this environmental scan is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a sampling.

What I learned

It's interesting reading this report written in August 2008 from a January 2011 perspective. Many of the trends Hirshon identifies and many of the predictions he makes about the future are in fact happening now. For instance, when discussing e-readers, he notes that in many other countries it was common to see e-reader capabilities on mobile phones and he mentions that the iPhone would likely offer that in the future. Almost two and a half years later, there is definitely an expanding number of people who use an e-reader app (Kindle or otherwise) on their iPhone but also on any number of other smart phones in the expanding market.

What I am taking away from this article

As technology becomes more and more intertwined into people's daily lives, it will also need to become more incorporated into libraries in order to keep pace with users' expectations and wants.

Discussion question

Hirshon discusses Chris Anderson's assertion that "anything that touches digital networks quickly feels the effects of falling costs." Do you believe this is true?