Saturday, February 28, 2009

The 3D Team is Diminishing the Digital Divide


Digital Divide: The Three Stages
Summary:
The economic divide is a non-issue, but the usability and empowerment divides alienate huge population groups who miss out on the Internet's potential.
The "digital divide" refers to the fact that certain parts of the population have substantially better opportunities to benefit from the new economy than other parts of the population. Most commentators view this in purely economic terms. However, two other types of divide will have much greater impact in the years to come.

Stage 1: Economic Divide
In its simplest form, the digital divide is manifested in the fact that some people can't afford to buy a computer. Although politicians always talk about this point, it's growing more irrelevant with each passing day -- at least in the industrialized world. We should recognize that for truly poor developing countries, computers will remain out of the average citizen's reach for 20 years or more.
In areas like North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia's advanced countries, computer cost is no longer an issue. Dell's cheapest computer costs $379 (with a monitor) and is about 500 times as powerful as the Macintosh Plus I used to write my Ph.D. thesis. While it's true that a few people can't even afford $379, in another five years, computers will be one-fourth their current price. Would that all social problems would go away if we simply waited five years.

Stage 2: Usability Divide
Far worse than the economic divide is the fact that technology remains so complicated that many people couldn't use a computer even if they got one for free. Many others can use computers, but don't achieve the modern world's full benefits because most of the available services are too difficult for them to understand.
Almost 40% of the population has lower literacy skills, and yet few websites follow the guidelines for writing for low-literacy users. Even government sites that target poorer citizens are usually written at a level that requires a university degree to comprehend. The British government has done some good work on simplifying much of its direct.gov.uk site information, but even it requires at least a high school education to easily read.

Lower literacy is the Web's biggest accessibility problem, but nobody cares about this massive user group.

Senior citizens face the second-biggest accessibility problem, but again there is little interest in the guidelines for making websites easier for older users. Companies don't even have the excuse that it doesn't pay to cater to this audience, because retirees are rich these days. Even though seniors are the main remaining source of growth in Internet use, companies are still endlessly fascinated by young users and ignore older, richer users who would be much more loyal customers -- if only someone bothered to sell to them.

Whereas the economic divide is closing rapidly, I see little progress on the usability divide. Usability is improving for higher-end users. For this group, websites get easier every year, generating vast profits for site owners. Because they now follow more e-commerce user experience guidelines, companies that sell online typically have conversion rates of around 2%, which is twice the conversion rate of the bubble years. That's all great news for high-end users, but the less-skilled 40% of users have seen little in the way of usability improvement. We know how to help these users -- we're simply not doing it.

Stage 3: Empowerment Divide
We have the knowledge needed to close the usability divide, and I remain hopeful that we'll get the job done. The empowerment divide, however, is the hard one: even if computers and the Internet were extraordinarily easy to use, not everybody would make full use of the opportunities that such technology affords.
Participation inequality is one exponent of the empowerment divide that has held constant throughout all the years of Internet growth: in social networks and community systems, about 90% of users don't contribute, 9% contribute sporadically, and a tiny minority of 1% accounts for most contributions.

In researching how people use search engines for my seminar on fundamental guidelines for Web usability, we've found that many users don't know how to use search to truly master the Web. People don't understand advanced search features, they rarely employ query reformulation, and many uncritically select the first search results. Also, many users don't understand how search engines prioritize their listings, and some users don't even know that the euphemistic label "sponsored links" refers to paid advertisements. (For more info, see Consumer Reports' study of what users know about search ads.)

Because they lack the initiative and skill to take matters into their own hands, some users remain at the mercy of other people's decisions. For example, people sometimes accept the default home page chosen by their computer vendor or ISP rather than select one that's better suited to their needs. Again, this means that the user's attention can be sold off like a sheep to slaughter, as indicated by deals where search engines pay computer vendors millions of dollars to be the default setting on shipping PCs.

Similarly, some users limit themselves to "free" Web applications that display ads. What such users don't realize is that better applications (more appropriate, powerful, and liberating ones) are available at a cost that's far less than the value of the time they waste trying not to look at the ads.

Prospects for Bridge Building
The Internet can be an empowering tool that lets people find good deals, manage vendors, and control their finances and investments. But it can just as easily be an alienating environment where people are cheated. Members of the Internet elite don't realize the extent to which less-skilled users are left out of many of the advancements they cheer and enjoy.
Ultimately, I'm extremely optimistic about the economic divide, which is vanishing rapidly in industrialized countries. The usability divide will take longer to close, but at least we know how to handle it -- it's simply a matter of deciding to do so. I'm very pessimistic about the empowerment divide, however, which I expect will only grow more severe in the future.

Inroads



Monitoring the Mail

Friday, February 27, 2009

Rocky Mountain News is today's headline

It came into being on a dark night two years before the Civil War's first gunshots, survived a flood that washed away its press and countless threats to its very existence, then enjoyed, in the twilight of its life, recognition as one of the best newspapers in the country.

But today marks the final milestone in the storied history of the Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's first newspaper and oldest continually operated business.

This is the last edition of the paper of Damon Runyon and Harry Rhoads, of Mrs. Molly Mayfield and Al Nakkula, of Gene Amole and Dusty Saunders and scores of other characters. The paper whose reporters fancied themselves the "Wildcats of Welton Street" in an earlier era. The paper that shed the bawdy image of the tabloid to win four Pulitzer Prizes since 2000.

In the end, it was the economics - not the history nor the people nor the Pulitzers - that mattered.

The Denver metro area simply could not support two major newspapers in the midst of the current economic recession. That came on top of tectonic shifts sweeping the news business, including, most recently, the phenomenon that has seen the Internet siphon off once-lucrative pieces of the business, such as classified advertising.

The end - anticipated since the E.W. Scripps Co. put the paper up for sale on Dec. 4 - officially came a few minutes after noon Thursday when the Rocky's staff was summoned to the news desk.

Rich Boehne, the president and CEO of Scripps, stepped into the newsroom, and everyone knew.

"Tomorrow will be the final edition of the Rocky Mountain News," Boehne began simply. "It's certainly not good news for any of you, and it's certainly not good news for Denver."

King Cake and second line


Delta Driving and Riveting Discussion

While I was driving in the Delta listening to NPR, this item was aired and I tossed it out for the opening 'Bagels with Barbara Spring Series.' It proved to be the most riveting discussion to date.



The timeliness was underscored by the release of LJ's amicus brief.


Then, of course, there was this morning's New York Times news item all about the 'Card Catalog of the Internet'.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Defining Reference work

Reference and User Services Association (RUSA)

Reference Transactions are information consultations in which library staff recommend, interpret, evaluate, and/or use information resources to help others to meet particular information needs. Reference transactions do not include formal instruction or exchanges that provide assistance with locations, schedules, equipment, supplies, or policy statements.

Reference Work includes reference transactions and other activities that involve the creation, management, and assessment of information or research resources, tools, and services.
(The following bullets clarify what is meant by terms within the Reference Work definition.)
• Creation and management of information resources includes the development and maintenance of research collections, research guides, catalogs, databases, web sites, search engines, etc., that patrons can use independently, in-house or remotely, to satisfy their information needs.
• Assessment activities include the measurement and evaluation of reference work, resources, and services.

The CREW

The CREW Method: CREW is an acronym for Continuous Review, Evaluation, and Weeding.

The CREW Method considers weeding to be a necessary part in the flow of the collection building process. This process is described as a continuous one going from selection and acquisition, to cataloging and processing, to circulation and reference, to CREW and back to selection in a never ending circle with each stage smoothly succeeding into the next. All stages, including weeding, are "a vital part of good library service" (Segal 1980:3).

CREW identifies six benefits of weeding - save space, save time, make the library more appealing, enhance the reputation of the collection, provide a continuous check, and provide continuous feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the collection. The CREW Method emphasizes that weeding needs to be included in the regular yearly work schedule.

The CREW FormulaThe CREW Method has a weeding formula consisting of three parts: 1) The first figure refers to the years since the book's latest copyright date (age of material in the book); 2) the second figure refers to the maximum permissible time without usage (in terms of years since since its last recorded circulation); 3) the third refers to the presence of various negative factors, called MUSTIE factors (Boon, 1995:31).

MUSTIE is an acronym for the negative factors which help identify materials to be weeded.
M = Misleading (and/or factually inaccurate) U = Ugly (worn and beyond mending or binding) S = Superseded (by a new edition or a better source on the subject) T = Trivial (of no literary or scientific merit) I = Irrelevant (to the needs of the community) E = Elsewhere (found elsewhere in the library or available through interlibrary loan)

Monday, February 16, 2009

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Newsroom of the Digital Planet Team




LOVE'S FRANGRANCE
Love is like a fragrant Rose
Whatever shape or form
As solid as the first new bud
In the light of perfect dawn
And when the morning takes its flight
As noontime sets the stage
This Rose unfolds its petals
On Nature's scenic page
Then as the twilight lengthens
And darkness settles in
Its fragrance lingers in the air
To cheer our heart again.
... Jackie Hand

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.
...Emily Dickinson

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Monday, February 2, 2009

Groundhog Day


It's not about the shadow--it's all about the "Phil".