Thursday, November 19. 2015
OCLC recently asked EZProxy clients to fill out a survey about their experiences with the product and to get feedback on possible future plans for the product.
About half-way through, I decided it might be a good idea to post my responses. Because hey, if I'm working to help them, I might as well share it with my friends out in the library systems world So here are a few choice quotes from the comments section of the survey...
In response to a question about the "ease of use" of EZProxy
Nothing that requires configuration via a text file can be classed as "easy to use" these days.
When asked why I scored satisfaction lower than the maximum
The sluggishness to adopt current encryption protocols, and the unwillingness to use dynamically linked libraries, is a major black mark against the product.
What one thing would I change about EZProxy
I would change the license to be an open source (GPL v3 or Apache 2.0) licence. OCLC could still derive revenue from providing hosted solutions and as the well-known trusted name being the product, but small segments of the community could vet the code and contribute enhancements that meet their needs (that they have been asking for without success for years now).
After being asked about the importance of five possible enhancements, three of which reflected a tighter integration with WorldShare services
(roughly) This is why I don't like the proprietary revenue model for the 6.x series--you're investing the revenue in shoring up your WorldShare offerings with features that are not useful to the customers that do not use the WorldShare platform.
Thursday, October 29. 2015
I had fun today. A colleague in Computer Science has been giving his C++ students an assignment to track down an article that is only available in print in the library. When we chatted about it earlier this year, I suggested that perhaps he could bring me in as a speaker to introduce the students to their liaison librarian. It was also my chance to get my foot further into the door with the faculty in the program, as well.
But when I started putting together the supporting materials, I realized that the class was more than half way through the year and that a standard instructional session might be a little low-energy for them. I wanted to do something that would be memorable. And I had just read The Martian by Andy Weir over the weekend, and our campus had just had a visit from Chris Hadfield a few weeks ago, so I thought that delivering a narrative in the style of The Martian might work.
Without further ado, I give you:
The Librarian: an intro for COSC 2947 (C++) Open the Speaker Notes to follow the narrative!
The students were chuckling throughout the presentation, so I think I achieved my goals of increasing the energy level, presenting the material as something memorable, and introducing myself as someone approachable. Or at least giving the impression that I try to have a sense of humour.
As an aside, I'm kicking myself for using Google Slides instead of reveal.js. It's so much easier working with HTML + images instead of a browser-driven proprietary Flash-using-when-it-can mess. It is what it is, however.
Sunday, October 4. 2015
A few weeks ago, I came to the startling and depressing realization that we had screwed up. It started when someone I know and greatly respect ran into me in the library and said "We have a problem".
I'm the recently appointed Chair of our library and archives department, so being approached about a problem isn't surprising. However, the severity of the problem was.
Here's what happened: the person in question had asked for a group study key at the circulation desk, and handed over the university photo ID card to check the item out. The library staff person noted that the name on the photo ID card didn't match the name in the library system. Even though the photo was an exact match, the staff person refused to check out the item to the patron.
The next day, after the person who suffered that indignity approached me, I was able to update the name for the account in the library system in about a minute. While apologizing profusely. And I had to explain why our system had failed this person. A few years back we were able to start automatically polling our university's LDAP server for new university accounts and immediately create the corresponding library system account, with a unique barcode, and update the LDAP account with that new barcode. That removed an entire set of (essentially duplicated) paperwork that new students and faculty used to have to fill out to get a university photo ID card, as well as reduced the amount of personally identifiable information held in our library system to the bare minimum of name, email address, and university ID number.
However, we have never been able to poll the university LDAP server for updates. Admittedly, my primary interest in updates was to synchronize accounts when students become alumni, or staff retire, etc., but in retrospect the ability to synchronize name changes (and email addresses, which are often derived from names) is blindingly obvious and absolutely necessary. When a person goes through the effort of changing their name, they are changing their identity in a very meaningful, significant fashion. To have the identity they have consciously abandoned resurface in various systems is (at best) frustrating, but can also be utterly demeaning. This is not the experience we want for our patrons.
In retrospect, at least two problems have surfaced with this incident:
I've held initial conversations with our university IT department to try and figure out strategies for closing that synchronization gap. In the short term, I'm willing to handle identity changes in a purely manual way (having the Registrar notify me when a change needs to be made). We have also reminded staff to defer to people rather than systems, as the people who make and maintain the systems are fallible (mea culpa).
In the slightly longer term, I'm building the synchronization piece so that we can trigger an update for an individual account at any given time. And I'm posting this in the hopes that it might prompt you to consider your various loosely-coupled systems and the identity management for the accounts within, just in case there are some synchronization gaps that you might be able to close. Because our patrons deserve respect, in person, and in the systems we design to serve them.
Wednesday, April 15. 2015
The following post dates back to January 15, 2007, when I had been employed at Laurentian for less than a year and was getting an institutional repository up and running.... I think old me had some interesting thoughts!
The author advocates an approach to university curriculum that re-emphasizes the student's role in the search for truth and knowledge by providing essential critical thinking skills and treating undergraduate students as full participants in the academic discussion.
The academy is a place to develop critical thinking skills, and a place to develop those skills by participating in discussions seeking truth and knowledge. These conversations may occur between students in informal spaces; they may be facilitated by a professor and take place during a single class session or over multiple sessions during a course; or they may take place over centuries (most commonly through the medium of the written word).
As a university, we recognize the value of all of these conversations in developing citizens with well-honed critical thinking skills. However, I would argue that our focus (at least at the undergraduate level) has been on the level of single and multiple class discussions. Students are often assigned course work for which the only intended audience is the professor or marking T.A.; the audience for presentations is normally just the rest of the class. A typical unit of work is the “essay” (from the French: essayer, meaning “to try”).
(Rhetorical question alert!) But what are the students trying for? Typically, they are trying for grades; some for an A, some simply to pass. But are they trying to contribute to the greater academic discussions? Where do those essays go in a month, or a year? Do students see their papers as parts of a greater continuum of the academic discussion, or do they see them as a means to an end? Are students exhorted to aspire to publishing their papers on any scale? What effect does the treatment of course work as an ephemeral entity, rather than a permanent contribution to the field of knowledge, have on the motivation of students to excel in the application of their critical thinking skills, to be creative, to write high quality papers? Does the knowledge that their days and nights of hard work going to quickly be consigned to the trash bin cause students to treat the work of the intellectual giants that preceded them with a similar disregard?
I initially started worrying about this because of a third-year assignment that simply cited “Google” as its sole source. The sad confusion of search tool with source immediately raised my concern about the student's ability to evaluate alternative sources of information and opinion for authority. I doubted that this student had completed the Library's introductory tutorial on searching and citing sources, and that reinforced my desire to encourage programs to make this course a mandatory requirement. During a casual conversation with Dr. David Robinson, he disclosed that he assigned basic literature research tasks to every one of his courses because he could not guarantee that his students had learned those skills outside of his courses. I continued to reflect on this problem in the attempt to develop an approach to motivating the student to want to participate in the overarching discussions – and that is where the idea of “research across the curriculum” came to mind.
I will credit Dr. Laurence Steven with the idea of motivating higher quality undergraduate work through the expectation of publication. In his fourth-year Literary Criticism course in 1996, he told students at the outset of the class that he planned to compile and publish the complete set of our final assignments. Even though the press run was undoubtedly under 100, the commitment to taking our work seriously positively influenced our efforts to produce high-quality assignments.
Emphasizing the academic discussion
The overarching message we can send to students is: “We take your effort seriously, and will help you contribute to your chosen discipline.”
Publishing offers the carrot of fame and the stick of exposure. I cannot help but think that the expectation of publishing your work will improve the quality of that work.
We obviously cannot expect a first year student to publish their work in a traditional academic journal. However, the Web has given us an alternative publishing method that can be controlled to meet the student's comfort level: publishing visibility could be limited to the author herself, to the professor, to the class, to the program, to the university, and to the world. If we created a simple Web-based repository, we could allow a student to first work on drafts of their assignment, then open it up to their professor or a TA for initial review, then open it up to the class to exchange their work with their classmates and participate in peer review. Outstanding work could be surfaced at wider levels of availability. Of course, given that the student retains copyright over their work, they would be free to republish their work as they see fit (on a personal Web log, on a discipline-related mailing list, to an academic journal, etc). This opens up an opportunity to discuss intellectual property issues and the characteristics of various publishing mechanisms.
Through the course of a student's career, this Web-based publishing mechanism would serve as an electronic portfolio of their work. If a student chose to make their work visible outside of the class, they would be able to track citations to that work over time - particularly if professors chose to surface the work of previous students in a given class as optional or required references in addition to traditional sources. We know that one of the primary uses of the Laurentian University Archives today is by students seeking the fourth-year papers of previous students in their disciplines so that they can find work to build upon.
At the fourth-year level, we could strongly encourage (to the point of making it an unstated assumption) that fourth-year work should be published in some fashion. The publishing schedule of traditional journals makes it unlikely that a student could achieve publication within the normal class schedule, however we could commit some resources to assisting those alumni who want to polish their fourth-year papers for journal publication (without necessarily requiring a complete graduate program). Assuming that the J.N. Desmarais Library goes forward with the Laurentian University Institutional Repository, we could offer that as a venue for publishing fourth year work (or exceptional work from previous years).
If there are doubts that fourth-year work is of publishable quality, I would like to refer back to an evaluation (???) of the fourth-year papers that are held by the Laurentian University archives. Many of these papers were found to be of a quality comparable to Master's theses (the hypothesis was that that the lack of graduate programs resulted in higher-quality undergraduate work).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.