In an earlier blog post, I had admitted that there are some Web 2.0 features that I will most likely not use after this Challenge ends (del.icio.us is one example; I just don't use many websites on a regular basis). I may not use Google Docs or Zoho, either; it's not often that I work on a presentation with other staff members. When I'm not at the Desk, I'm usually working on my own projects.
But there is definite value in the online "office" packages. What a difference they make for people who are working jointly, In fact, they could also provide a great backup tool for documents that are saved to memory sticks (so I may have a use for them, after all!).
When I learned about the availability of these tools, I asked a colleague whether she believes that they will eventually replace the current Office packages. "Yes," she replied. "But not for a long time. The online forms don't contain all of the features that Office has."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Thing #17: "Playing in the Sandbox"
"Playing in the Wiki Sandbox" was an opportunity to have fun! I have to admit that I'm a bit strange; I usually do have fun at work. But this particular task gave me another chance to be creative (through exploring different font styles). At the same time, I was able to practice my image-uploading skills when I added the cover of my favorite book to the "box!"
Pbwikis are wonderful forums for sharing thoughts and ideas with co-workers. Certain wikis need to be restricted to specific groups, such as the employees of one particular company, in order to enable those people to discuss issues that are pertinent to them without worrying about an outsider intruding. Of course, this is not the case for all wikis (Wikipedia is one example of a valuable unrestricted wiki!)!
Pbwikis are wonderful forums for sharing thoughts and ideas with co-workers. Certain wikis need to be restricted to specific groups, such as the employees of one particular company, in order to enable those people to discuss issues that are pertinent to them without worrying about an outsider intruding. Of course, this is not the case for all wikis (Wikipedia is one example of a valuable unrestricted wiki!)!
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Thing #16: Wikis
Wikis are terrific compilations of ideas. What makes Web 2.0 so wonderful is that anyone can contribute to the online publishing world; one doesn't have to be an experienced author, or have a specific educational background, to participate. Wikis epitomize this.
While I've been contributing to a wiki through a professional organization in which I'm involved, I didn't know about the Library Success wiki until I began to work on this "Thing." I think that it's a great idea. I agree with a statement that was made in one of its introductory paragaphs - that while there are many library-related blogs, the wiki is better for searching for specific ideas. The organization of the Library Success wiki into various categories - "Programming," "Services to Specific Groups," etc. - is fantastic; the user can jump directly to the section in which he is interested, rather than having to skim through other material first.
While I've been contributing to a wiki through a professional organization in which I'm involved, I didn't know about the Library Success wiki until I began to work on this "Thing." I think that it's a great idea. I agree with a statement that was made in one of its introductory paragaphs - that while there are many library-related blogs, the wiki is better for searching for specific ideas. The organization of the Library Success wiki into various categories - "Programming," "Services to Specific Groups," etc. - is fantastic; the user can jump directly to the section in which he is interested, rather than having to skim through other material first.
Friday, May 9, 2008
"Patron" vs. "Customer"
A quick thought.....
Referring to library users as "customers" seems to be a growing trend. To me, a "customer" is a person who shops in a retail environment. The term "patron" is not demeaning; on the contrary, it's respectful.
Referring to library users as "customers" seems to be a growing trend. To me, a "customer" is a person who shops in a retail environment. The term "patron" is not demeaning; on the contrary, it's respectful.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Thing #15: Library 2.0
Lately, I've been blogging about everything except our Web 2.0 Challenge! My hope for obtaining the MP3 player has diminished, but my desire to complete the Challenge has not. I'm going to do it on my own schedule, because I'm just not going to finish by May 30 (Oh, well....at least I'll learn!).
Library 2.0.....It's simply the twenty-first century way of expressing our long-standing purpose. Our mission has always been to ensure that our community has access to public library services. These services change, evolve, and expand along with our patrons' lives. Not only do we have to accept and adjust to new technology, Web 2.0 concepts, and the idea of the public library as a community center, we have to embrace them. If we don't, we will be left behind. And then we will certainly experience the demise of our profession.
But learning new skills and creating new services should be exciting, not daunting. As librarians, we encourage lifelong learning in others. We should love to do it ourselves. We need to do it ourselves if we are to continue to assist our patrons. After all, it is through this very process that we derive professional fulfillment.
Library 2.0.....It's simply the twenty-first century way of expressing our long-standing purpose. Our mission has always been to ensure that our community has access to public library services. These services change, evolve, and expand along with our patrons' lives. Not only do we have to accept and adjust to new technology, Web 2.0 concepts, and the idea of the public library as a community center, we have to embrace them. If we don't, we will be left behind. And then we will certainly experience the demise of our profession.
But learning new skills and creating new services should be exciting, not daunting. As librarians, we encourage lifelong learning in others. We should love to do it ourselves. We need to do it ourselves if we are to continue to assist our patrons. After all, it is through this very process that we derive professional fulfillment.
Seth
"I DON'T LIKE YOU. I DON'T LIKE YOU AT ALL!"
Seth, a member of our Writers' Circle and a patron I had worked with several times, didn't exactly shout these words at my colleague, but he spoke them so loudly that several patrons in the small building turned and stared. The outburst occurred after Seth stormed up to the desk and demanded to speak to "his leader" (referring to me). At the time I was so deeply involved in researching assisted living facilities with my patron that I simply ignored him. But I cringed when Amy gently reminded him that I was with someone, and Seth emitted a response that more polite people might think but would not say aloud.
Everyone who works with the public grows accustomed to assisting people whose behavior is - different. And Seth clearly has issues, though prior to his outburst at Amy he had never exhibited them to such an extent. Even as I continued to work quietly with my patron, concentrating on finding ratings of local residences for older people, I felt guilty, as if the fact that Seth wanted to talk to me made me responsible for his behavior. And my heart went out to Amy, who managed to recover from her shock quickly in order to assist other people.
When I was free to talk to Seth, I helped him obtain the information that he needed (directions to the county board of social services) - but made it clear that his outburst was unacceptable. "We need to have respect for you," I told him. "But you also need to have respect for us." Unfortunately, he didn't quite understand that it's not always necessary to express thoughts aloud. "I say what I feel," he responded. "There are some staff members that I like, but there are others that I don't."
I told the Head of Reference that we may have to be aware of Seth's actions, but I'm hoping that he'll manage to restrain himself in the future. Even if he manages to do so, however, someone else will surely cause a commotion - perhaps a worse one. Coping with these incidents (and we are thankful that there are few of them) is part of the job.
Seth, a member of our Writers' Circle and a patron I had worked with several times, didn't exactly shout these words at my colleague, but he spoke them so loudly that several patrons in the small building turned and stared. The outburst occurred after Seth stormed up to the desk and demanded to speak to "his leader" (referring to me). At the time I was so deeply involved in researching assisted living facilities with my patron that I simply ignored him. But I cringed when Amy gently reminded him that I was with someone, and Seth emitted a response that more polite people might think but would not say aloud.
Everyone who works with the public grows accustomed to assisting people whose behavior is - different. And Seth clearly has issues, though prior to his outburst at Amy he had never exhibited them to such an extent. Even as I continued to work quietly with my patron, concentrating on finding ratings of local residences for older people, I felt guilty, as if the fact that Seth wanted to talk to me made me responsible for his behavior. And my heart went out to Amy, who managed to recover from her shock quickly in order to assist other people.
When I was free to talk to Seth, I helped him obtain the information that he needed (directions to the county board of social services) - but made it clear that his outburst was unacceptable. "We need to have respect for you," I told him. "But you also need to have respect for us." Unfortunately, he didn't quite understand that it's not always necessary to express thoughts aloud. "I say what I feel," he responded. "There are some staff members that I like, but there are others that I don't."
I told the Head of Reference that we may have to be aware of Seth's actions, but I'm hoping that he'll manage to restrain himself in the future. Even if he manages to do so, however, someone else will surely cause a commotion - perhaps a worse one. Coping with these incidents (and we are thankful that there are few of them) is part of the job.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Mike
It was an unusually quiet Monday afternoon in the library. The beautiful weather - sunny, breezy, an early prelude to summer - was obviously keeping people outdoors (and we staff members wished that we could join them. I keep hoping that our budget will include a line item for a retractable roof, but so far that hasn't happened).
What had been an uneventful three-hour desk shift ended with a rather unpleasant patron encounter. Admittedly, it was my fault. An older gentleman named Mike asked about our computer classes - a common question that is answered numerous times by numerous staff members during any particular day. But before I could proceed with my explanation of the one-time, one-hour basic classes, he startled me with a further request: he wanted to know whether our computers contained special screens for the visually impaired.
I knew that they didn't. And yet I didn't want to answer Mike with a flat "no." His request was perfectly reasonable, and there had to be something that we could do for him in order to enable him to take classes. I asked Amy, my colleague on the desk, who had been with the library system for much longer than I had, if she knew of any resources. Inwardly, I was embarrassed for not having the information right at my fingertips, for having to think and to ask for assistance in helping someone who had a disability.
While Amy conducted the research for an appropriate device, Mike told me that he wanted to register for a class even if he couldn't obtain a screen to improve his sight. I did this - not thinking - jotting the date and time of the class on a small piece of paper. After I presented it to him, he thanked me, and I resumed the independent work that I do when I'm not busy with a patron.
Then Amy returned. She had found information on where Mike could obtain a personal device that could help him, and I watched from the corner of my eye as she wrote the name and phone number of the company on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper. "Ah, here's a woman who knows how to work with the disabled!" Mike cried. I saw him glance at me through the corner of my eye, but, deeply embarrassed, I couldn't bring myself to raise my eyes from my computer.
I had treated him with courtesy, and had wanted to help him. But, while both are essential components of a reference transaction, they weren't enough to prevent me from handling the interaction badly. Why on Earth hadn't I thought to give Mike a form that he could actually read?! Of what use would a tiny piece of paper be to a man who has vision problems?! I had failed, not because I had to think about where he could obtain the assistance that he needed (although that was embarrassing enough), but because my response to him completely glossed over his disability. And in this case the bulk of the interaction necessitated the acknowledgment of his disability.
I sometimes find myself wondering how I could have improved an interaction with a patron. In this case I know how I could have done better. Will I have the chance to work with Mike again?
What had been an uneventful three-hour desk shift ended with a rather unpleasant patron encounter. Admittedly, it was my fault. An older gentleman named Mike asked about our computer classes - a common question that is answered numerous times by numerous staff members during any particular day. But before I could proceed with my explanation of the one-time, one-hour basic classes, he startled me with a further request: he wanted to know whether our computers contained special screens for the visually impaired.
I knew that they didn't. And yet I didn't want to answer Mike with a flat "no." His request was perfectly reasonable, and there had to be something that we could do for him in order to enable him to take classes. I asked Amy, my colleague on the desk, who had been with the library system for much longer than I had, if she knew of any resources. Inwardly, I was embarrassed for not having the information right at my fingertips, for having to think and to ask for assistance in helping someone who had a disability.
While Amy conducted the research for an appropriate device, Mike told me that he wanted to register for a class even if he couldn't obtain a screen to improve his sight. I did this - not thinking - jotting the date and time of the class on a small piece of paper. After I presented it to him, he thanked me, and I resumed the independent work that I do when I'm not busy with a patron.
Then Amy returned. She had found information on where Mike could obtain a personal device that could help him, and I watched from the corner of my eye as she wrote the name and phone number of the company on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper. "Ah, here's a woman who knows how to work with the disabled!" Mike cried. I saw him glance at me through the corner of my eye, but, deeply embarrassed, I couldn't bring myself to raise my eyes from my computer.
I had treated him with courtesy, and had wanted to help him. But, while both are essential components of a reference transaction, they weren't enough to prevent me from handling the interaction badly. Why on Earth hadn't I thought to give Mike a form that he could actually read?! Of what use would a tiny piece of paper be to a man who has vision problems?! I had failed, not because I had to think about where he could obtain the assistance that he needed (although that was embarrassing enough), but because my response to him completely glossed over his disability. And in this case the bulk of the interaction necessitated the acknowledgment of his disability.
I sometimes find myself wondering how I could have improved an interaction with a patron. In this case I know how I could have done better. Will I have the chance to work with Mike again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)