Library 2.0 for the unwired? Accessibility of the Future?

[Kathleen Houlihan]

I was reading LibraryCrunch's post on the latest PEW internet survey and it got me thinking....

First, here's the numbers:
"- 8% of users are deep users of the participatory web and mobile applications
- 23% are heavy, pragmatic tech adopters - they use gadgets to keep up with social networks or to be productive at work
- 10% rely on mobile devices for voice, texting or entertainment
- 10% use gadgets but find it a hassle
- 49% of Americans only occasionally use modern gadgetry, and many others bristle at electronic connectivity"

What I'm wondering is... what accommodations are we making in our plans for Library 2.0 to include and help these unwired people participate in the, well, participatory nature of Library 2.0? If L2 includes tagging, reviews, "other users checked out similar items," and social networking online, will there be a hard-copy/real-world/paper option to allow this whopping 50% of our potential patrons to contribute?

Perhaps this will be the accessibility concern of the future? We'll have figured out all the gadgets needed to make our materials and services available for the visually impaired, deaf, or other traditionally understood "disabilities", and will instead focus our efforts on making L2 accessible to the luddites amongst us?

[Rebekka Kinimond Carlson]

I think it's important to focus on the nature of the service and not the technology. If we want to make the reviews other users have made accessible, they should be ccessible via all the media that make sense. That might be the OPAC or the homepage, an RSS feed, and a regular bullitin board in the physical library.

That way we're not cutting off those who are tech-skeptic, at least not to the extent we might otherwise do.

It's also really important to bear in mind that the Net is very text-reliant. Even when it gets filled with soft colors and round corners.I think we'll have a future task there, in making the Net accessible for those who would be unable to deal with text on their own.

[Kathleen Houlihan]

Yes, service-focused is the way to go (besides, if it isn't benefiting users, what's the point of having the service in the first place?) ...

Another thing I didn't mention above is making it possible for L1 users to participate in conversations with other patrons and library staff about new programs/developments/changes within the library. I mentioned below how we could use a bulletin board to do this...very 1.0....but it might work (or it might be too labor intensive).

[Aaron Dobbs]

what accommodations are we making in our plans for Library 2.0 to include and help these unwired people participate in the, well, participatory nature of Library 2.0? If L2 includes tagging, reviews, "other users checked out similar items," and social networking online, will there be a hard-copy/real-world/paper option to allow this whopping 50% of our potential patrons to contribute?

An excellent question, this was brought up in a recent OITP Retreat "The Future of Information Technology and Libraries". Specifically, the "Web Applications / Social Networking" section covered the Empowerment Divide, in 4 parts:

1. Participation Inequality: Who’s speaking and who’s not?
2. Attention Inequality: Whose voices are being heard, among those who have spoken?
3. Connections Inequality: Who’s being connected to who, for what purpose?
4. Inequality in Filtering Capacity: Relative abilities to deal with information overload

Bridging to the un-, non-, anti-connected populations (as well as the hyper-, and mostly-connected) is something the L2 "movement" will need to address. And soon.

[Keith McVean]

First, let's be clear about that 49%. Not all of them won't participate because they can't but because they won't. 11% have technology but just don't use it (i.e. indifferents) and 15% have the technology but use it sparingly (i.e. light but satisfied).

In many ways this is as much an accessibility issue as it is the age old problem of how to get people to participate. Even if you provided a paper and pencil way of working with these systems that doesn't mean these people would use it. People with disabilities, people without access, and people without the knowledge are other issues entirely and should be treated as such - each with their own seperate solutions.

[Kathleen Houlihan]

I think that's one of the great things about Web/Library 2.0... the participation. I had really begun to lose faith in my fellow citizens because the apathy was just unbearable. Now there's lots of participation...engaged, thoughtful, passionate, enlightened (and sometimes not)...but there's a feeling of community where before there were just millions of strangers. We're sharing now, and I like that. Even if someone is a "lurker" for example... always reading but never contributing, they still benefit from the sharing that they read.

I just want to be able to include Luddites in that sharing. Their opinions and thoughts are as important and valid as anyone else's, but since they aren't engaged users of the medium, it would be far too easy to exclude them. What I'm saying is that there should be an active effort to make new programs accessible to those who disagree with/don't understand/don't like technology. They're our patrons, too.

[RefLibrarian]

For older adults, there are several issues with technology. First, there is the "technophobia" aspect. In addition, there is the perceived learning curve - the time and effort it would take to learn the new technology. Usually older adults will not choose to learn a new technology unless they are convinced that there is a clear benefit to them. I think if you can encourage at least some older adults to try out some new web 2.0 resources that fit their interests, then they can spread enthusiam for these sites by word of mouth. For example, my 75 year old mother is now addicted to Google aerial maps and is showing her friends this and other websites that she enjoys.

[Kathleen Houlihan]

I was hoping you'd chime in on this! Do you have any suggestions on how we could still provide accessibility and enable the contributions of folks not interested in learning the technology it would take to participate in that Web 2.0 conversation?

I'm not only worried about older adults, though... I know several Neo-Luddite GenXers :)

[RefLibrarian]

It may be difficult to get people to participate in web 2.0 conversation. Perhaps we can convince them to start by being "lurkers". By this I mean set up RSS or email feeds for them - like new feature film DVDs as they are entered in the catalog. A lot of patrons tell me that they don't want to have to look through 500 new videos to find the handful of feature films among the nonfiction and foreign films, so these feeds could save them a lot of time and effort. To encourage online social communities, we could build them as extensions to face-to-face activities, clubs, or programs. For example, have a discussion area for the book discussion group or groups. One could do a demonstration at the end of a book discussion and show people how they can continue the discussion online - so that they have the option to elaborate on the book or talk about other related books or stories. Another idea is to make the new technology seem fun - like making it seem like play or a game. This is the method that Helene Blowers is successfully using for her Learning 2.0 and Leaning 2.1 programs.

[Kathleen Houlihan]

Oh I love this idea! Setting up feeds in places they already frequent (perhaps the library webpage or on a terminal near the videos) so they can see what's new. Excellent idea.

As for having discussion boards as an extension of in-person activities, I like that idea too... I realize there's no way to compel them to get online and start communicating, so I'm a bit worried that any message about "Just sign on-line after this meeting to continue discussing X and Y!" will just go in one ear and out the other and they still won't participate.

Maybe if we had a bulletin board with a list of the conversations people are having online? then we could have slips of paper and pencils and Library 1.0 folks could share their ideas, too and then library volunteers could type them in (posting by proxy?) at the end of the day? That might get a bit too labor intensive, but it's an idea.

[RefLibrarian]

We could hand out printouts of the online discussion at the face to face meetings. Perhaps this could spark some interest in the online forums. I don't think that posting by "proxy" would be a good idea, since we do not have proof of the writer's identity (like we would if they were signed in to an account). One thing that we should be doing is asking our patrons what they want and need and then thinking outside the box to find ways to fill these needs. New online catalog features and RSS feeds may be useful, but we may want to include other features that we haven't thought about yet. How about the library portal as a social network? Perhaps older adult patrons would like to share pictures of their grandchildren or scrapbook online or share genealogy information. The basis of all marketing is to know one's customers well.