# data[].attributes.body
Main Problem: The challenge of using various

technologies for patrons in an academic library.

# data[].attributes.body
Problem: I agree with Megan that the challenges of understanding and using technologies is most central challenge we want to address. Should we limit to only academic? Probably for scope of ability with timeframe. However does this also apply to public libraries ?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that this could apply to

all kinds of libraries. I think we should

focus on academic, but address the

relevance to public!

# data[].attributes.body
Confusion using catalogs, databases,

libguides.

# data[].attributes.body
Also how to keep patrons aware of updates to technologies so they can stay connected to library as things change (I.e. Make sure they know about and understand changes as new versions of software or databases are released, how to continue using them when servers are updated).

Making sure patrons' skill level is compatible with all library technology offerings and making sure they can use each technology to its full potential (making sure they know all catalogs/databases can do/how to use parts useful to their goals)

# data[].attributes.body
Compatibility/differences between worker and user catalog and database interferences- how do workers help users when used to different screens or software capabilities and levels of services?

# data[].attributes.body
A librarian I interviewed suggested

lib guides are the answer. However,

how could librarians have the time to

make such focused lib guides for each

course of study?

# data[].attributes.body
Simplifying the experience. This may mean implementing a new system that allows the library to label things in a simplified manner.

# data[].attributes.body
A campaign! Launching a kind of tutorial campaign might be a good strategy for libraries. Including workshops and online tutorials. Conducting surveys with library users to find out specifically what users find confusing about their library's online system.

# data[].attributes.body
Both one of the articles I contributed and the librarian I interviewed emphasized Google! Users turn to Google, or they work well with systems like Google.

# data[].attributes.body
One solution that Jill Palermo, the librarian and director at the Lewiston Public Library who is my old boss, suggested was making sure libraries in the same system/that regularly use ILL with each other use the same computer system for circulating ILL items and creating fines for one another, so members get the same notifications for fines/same ways of paying them so they aren't confused when they place a hold on a book and don't realize that given library has a different fine per day/different borrowing period than their usual library. Both Jill and the librarian I interviewed (Joan Kahnhauser, Emma Clark) also cited the importance of a library using the same circ system.

Additionally, Michelle Kratts, a librarian at the Lewiston Public Library as well, suggested making eBook systems simpler- often the users who make most use of these are older adults or ironically, the users least familiar with technology, but these are the most difficult systems to navigate.

I think both of your pointing out simplifying systems, and perhaps creating more easily navigable tutorial videos or help screens on each system users access in the library, relate to the solutions that Jill and Michelle presented as practicing librarians.

# data[].attributes.body
You guys, I'm here! I was thinking as far as academic libraries go, the sheer number of resources is a problem in itself, not just the variety, since academic libraries are pretty big. Is this something we want to take into account too?

Megan mentioned that a librarian she talked to suggested library guides, but again, that can be a pretty big task for an academic library.

# data[].attributes.body
Re: Megan

"Simplifying". Definitely, if it's in the ability of a library to overhaul their system, syncing their equipment and resources in a simple way works.

Campaigns seem like the most likely help. Lots of universities require short library classes to orient students to research. It would be interesting to see if there were ways to get students involved voluntarily.

Also I am a big Google fan. They've got all kinds of specific apps for what you want to do. So Megan, that seems like a great direction to look.

# data[].attributes.body
Alex, I was thinking about the librarian/patron technology gap. It's something we experience at our library. The staff system is much more capable than the patron one (and patrons may not need a lot of that capability), but it causes disconnect when the staff try to help patrons. The extra ability in the staff system may confuse patrons, but their system is also barely adequate.

Where is the middle ground here? It's like we need sales people running the floor to connect the two.

# data[].attributes.body
I also wondered, have we thought at all about the web 2.0 tool we want to use to actually present our findings yet? I used thinglink for the web 2.0 tool project, and that might give us some interesting options.

Are either of you guys particularly fond of another?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ThingLink: Create unique experiences with interactive images, videos & 360° media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Easily create interactive and immersive visual experiences for online communication and learning. Start a free trial!

# data[].attributes.body
Jill, I mentioned using Prezi, but if you're more familiar with thinglink that might work better because I'm not great with Prezi (I can navigate it but it takes some time, and we have a lot on our plate). Plus Thinglink is unique so maybe it will make us stand out! Prezi is getting to be older news.

# data[].attributes.body
So I'm looking through my articles (I have cited most on the wiki) and trying to determine which best inform the research and policy plans we will be posting on our Wiki tonight and that we worked on Sunday (and will be tonight), so that I can write a brief summary of each. I am finding that a few are more focused in ascertaining that different library systems are inter-compatible, for instance that their metadata and Internet technologies are tied in together and work together  (i.e. the Moulaison and Million 2014 article cited on the wiki from Library & Classification Quarterly), so I do not think those articles are as useful; I will keep the citation there and note it was less useful. On the other hand, two are useful (Chan 2014, McKay et. al. 2003) I will try to find one more research or practice article too.

# data[].attributes.body
I just added in a full draft (just need to check for grammar, clarity and concision at the end of the project, and add in hanging indents) for the McKay et. al. article (which is from 2007- sorry for past errors!) and Chan 2014. The former is peer-reviewed but practice based and the latter peer-reviewed and research based. From the Group Collaboration Session from our class (which I viewed yesterday in full) and the rubric and assignment sheet it appears we need at least two research articles and one practice- does that mean everyone contributes one of each? Or should I contribute one more research piece in the next week or so that aligns with the rest of our presentation/policy suggestions?

I am having some formatting trouble on the research page (I cited it there) with font color and italics. I managed to make everything my text color (green) though some words that shouldn't be in the citations themselves are italicized. I will fix that later this week.

# data[].attributes.body
I posted another article on the research page. It gave me an idea for the infographic which I will post on the according padlet.

# data[].attributes.body
I added the final research article I will include to the research page. I am also currently making additions and edits to the "Policy" page. Please note I italicize questions I have or issues I want us to resolve together, whereas my non italicized text are changes I am pretty sure should be locked in. Most of what I am adding is simply for clarity or to be more specific about the implementation of focus groups, surveys, etc. that I derived from the Oldham (2008) piece on the research page. I also add some details that were missing from our earlier conversation but they do not change the theme or implementation of the policy at all- they just make things more specific too.

I do have a few questions about the technical realities of our policy that we should resolve as a group, however. One: the second step, in month two, regarding brainstorming and making changes. I think we need to allot more time to it (maybe two to three months)- coding data and analyzing it, which will be what is done with any focus group or survey research, takes a long time. That stage will require coding and understanding the main themes identified as problems in the library, developing a way of fixing it, and conducting other methods (like usability tests, which I mention in the comment) to determine the exact way to fix a website's interface and the exact directions people need in tutorials/GIFs/etc. I think usability tests, as mentioned in Oldham (2008), are important- in these tests a researcher tapes or views a user's actual interaction with a library technology/site to determine their exact problem with it and what mistakes they are making. By doing so they can determine the exact point that needs to be resolved on the site or the exact direction that needs to be given. This is important to determine the best tutorial and technical corrections in our library. I think we should include it in the policy, though not the infographic, as that seems focused specifically on tutorials and workshops. Plus it makes more sense in a policy anyway since that's where the hard details of a research plan are usually contained.

Another issue I leave as a question- cost. We do mention the points that will have monetary cost but not an estimate of how much. Obviously we can't give specifics in a theoretical plan but I think we should ballpark (for instance, we will need to hire X staff at an income level commensurate with their experience. Then we can estimate what that might be based on library statistics.)

Finally- I added something at the top about who this policy/idea is focused on- academic librarians/staff. I think this is important- the rubric is clear about being specific about the people we direct the campaign at.

# data[].attributes.body
If you want to calculate cost, that would be great! The only problem is that this campaign can be applied to many different academic libraries. They may have different hiring rates and may decide to implement programs that cost different amounts. That's why I kept it general. However, if you want to try to come up with some specific numbers, that would be great!

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Megan, I looked into it and it seems you're right- there's no real good gage for estimating salaries of new workers when certain programs would require employees with far less seniority (i.e. pages) and others some of the highest ranked positions in a library (like librarians heading entire sections). Further salaries can vary as much as 20,000 in a rural place to almost 70 or 80,000 for a librarian in NYC based on geographic location and cost of living.... what I did is I cited this fact, and noted evidence from one of my articles (which is cited in the project in the research section) that programs requiring new library staff would cost the most and would require costs upwards of 30,000 to show that these costs would be pretty high anywhere, but variable. Let me know if you guys still think this is too vague and I'll try to gage this in the next few days.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alex Muto/Graphic Organizer Core Competencies

# data[].attributes.subject
Alex Muto/Graphic Organizer Core Competencies

# data[].attributes.body
Hi all, I added in the ALA Core Competencies that I think fit our project and what we learned. There are quite a few, and some are particularly important. Do you think I should bold the most central ones  (like, for example, 1I, 2B, 4D and 5C) or leave them as is?