I went out to dinner with a friend last night who asked what I was currently working on for class.
“Oh, a paper about the modern library and how to improve service.”
“Okay,” he responded. “But what specifically are you saying?”
I realized half-way through my explanation that I’ve become specialized in my field (as any good graduate student should) because as I saw his eyes glaze and I knew that I was speaking some sort of library gibberish.
So who is this Ranganathan fellow, and why do we care about him today?
Long before computers, the Internet boom, digital collections, and self-checkout stations, S.R. Ranganathan composed a simple list of fundamental values for librarianship. Touted the “Five Laws of Library Science” (1931), Ranganathan’s ideals are incredibly progressive, even by today’s standards. When backed by the meme Library 2.0, the Five Laws are increasingly powerful, offering a modern and dynamic way of serving users in an ever-changing environment. This paper attempts to reexamine Ranganathan’s convictions, now nearly 80 years old, under the light of participatory service, adding a contemporary appraisal of his five fundamental principles.
Last week I participated in a marketing research focus group that asked us to discuss our experience with Apple verses Microsoft program suites. Now, being that I have a big mouth and am an avid user of both, I had much to say on the topic. Sitting around the table listening to seven others the frustrations and emotional (dis)attachments to the specific products was fascinating.
Somewhere nearing hour 2 I had a breakthrough. Someone put into words what I’ve been attempting so muster up for years: “With Apple products, it is more like the everyday experiences we have. As if, on my actual desktop I just cut something out using scissors and then physically move it to where I want it to go. In real life I don’t need to explain why I’m moving an object to another area of my desk. No reformatting. No adjustments. Its just done. I feel like computers should function the same way, and with Apple’s ability to move content seamlessly through its multiple programs they’re working to simulate this experience.”
Whoa. So true. There is a reason I prefer EBSCOhost 2.0 to Dialog. Or that Zotero’s ability to be embedded into my browser is much more appealing than the clunckiness of RefWorks. It should just work–much the way I already work. I don’t want 20 steps to get me to my end goal–I don’t even want 5 easy steps–I want one step! I don’t want to have to learn have to navigate something completely new. My computer should work with me, not against me.
This ad is outside my building, which is in the heart of the Chicago Loop. Although its flatness and lack of user interaction scream 1.0 as opposed to 2, I was still intrigued by it. And, of course, incredibly excited to see library advertising of any kind.
The ad is short, eye catching–it is hard NOT to look at a giant red “a”–and humorous. Nice work CPL.
I can’t help but wonder, though, does it attract patrons, and is it financially worth the ad space?
