More gadgetry

My iGoogle page has been changing constantly over the last few weeks, but here's a screen shot of the Delicious bookmark gadget. The green leafery is in honour of Spring, who seems to have deserted us. Even though I've not been that keen on Delicious, the small list is quite appealing, and I may even use it!

I've also added a Twitter gadget (not pictured), but it doesn't look very pretty, and isn't at all customisable. Isn't it odd that even though all these applications do things we'd never have dreamed of 15 year ago, we still expect them to look good and have colours etc that we can choose ourselves? Spoilt, perhaps.

Truth be told, I've not been that keen on iGoogle, and have been leaning more and more towards Google Reader, which seems to do more of what I need everyday.

The Editor's Picks weren't particularly fascinating, and mostly seemed to be the sort of things that people might use on a personal level, rather than for work. The only one that I was tempted by was Remember the milk, a task management application, but I already have a similar function on my phone.

The Librarian's Book Revoogle looks quite interesting, so I've added that. Now my iGoogle page is completely unrecognisable from the beginning of the 23 Things!

Returning to Flickr and Widgets

I had already added my Flickr photostream to my blog, so this Thing proved quicker than most. I did, however, rethink the gadgets on my blog, and rearranged them a little. At the outset of the 23 Things I disabled the followers gadget, as I was convinced that I didn't want to know who was reading my blog. Having become a little green-eyed about followers whilst browsing other Blogs, I've enabled the gadget (queue disappointment at not having any followers).

As for the further Things, I tried to add a Google search gadget, but the layout of the theme I've chosen for my blog meant that the Google box was cropped badly and some of the wording was missing, so I removed it again. Since the blog hasn't been going for long, it shouldn't really be necessary for people to search it using Google.

At this stage of the 23 Things, I'm wondering about the future of my blog. Should I morph it into another blog (possibly about my letterpress enterprise) or erase it from the Blogosphere completely? What does everyone else think about the future of their blogs?

Free thinker

I initially had great trouble opening ThinkFree without crashing the rest of my browsers (very annoying), but eventually changing from SeaMonkey to Internet Explorer allowed me to complete Thing 20, albeit very slowly.

The additional functionalities that ThinkFree offers are obviously a good thing, but since I still can't make it run normally, I'll be sticking with Google Docs. I liked the additional fonts, and the way documents can be tagged.

It's hard to see all the cool features of ThinkFree and other similar applications without using them for a longer period, and without amassing a larger number of documents than I have, but it looks good and would be useful for using documents both at home and at work. I particularly like the function that allows different word-processing software to be read without depending on what is loaded on a particular computer.

Uploading a document from my desktop took longer than I'd expected, but maybe that's because of the browser problem I mentioned earlier. I had a quick look at the extra Things, and attempted to create an HTML note. The limited number of template options available was a bit of a disappointment, in that I couldn't change the style or colours on the template that I chose, and the one on offer was rather twee.

Further to Thing 19, I had another go at trying to see how our students might use Google Docs. I found a random article on Jstor and tried to save it as a Google Doc, bearing in mind the copyright laws, and found that each page of the document could be dragged and dropped into the Google Doc, and saved as usual. It might not be the best way of using Jstor, but in order to solve an essay crisis, it might be just the thing.

Google, Google everywhere

Having used Google Docs in a previous incarnation, and being driven almost wild by its idiosyncracies, I was not best pleased when I first spied the subject of Thing 19. However, now that I'm not having to edit a Google Document at the same time as a colleague, I can see that it's a very useful application.

The word-processing elements are easy to use and look very familiar, whilst the Google Docs main page is easy on the eye and intuitive. I chose a William Morris quote ('If a chap can't compose an epic poem whilst he's weaving tapestry he had better shut up') which I displayed in a number of fonts, colours, and sizes.

In my library, since the computers are on a network, Google Docs is probably slightly redundant, but if I wanted to take my work home with me the application would be useful.

Students, however, could really benefit from Google Docs. We're often presented with a memory stick which a student desperately wants to use to save a document from the internet. For security reasons, we don't allow access to USB ports on our SOLO machines, but anyone using them can also get access to Google, and thus Google Docs.

Confused by the Twitter/Facebook thang

I thought that making different Web 2.0 applications update each other automatically was meant to be easy!

I'm currently trying to make my Facebook updates appear on Twitter and vice versa, but it doesn't seem to be working. Firstly, there seem two be two different applications - one that sends updates from Twitter to Facebook and another that sends updates from Facebook to Twitter. Is it just me, or is that cumbersome and a bit boring?

Help!

What's not to like?

I'd almost forgotten that Wikipedia is a Wiki, and have been using it for a couple of years as a 'proper' reference source. I often referenced Wikipedia whilst working on obscure cataloguing projects when all the other information I could find about a particular item was from even more obscure sources! Hopefully the fact that it's a collaborative project will mean that if you are writing an article for Wikipedia, you're an expert or at least a very interested amateur. There's no advertising, no garish colours, and the the interface is so much friendlier than some other, more traditionally print-based reference sources. I'm also fond of the featured and random articles, from which this clown image came.

The 'history' and 'discussion' tabs are easy to miss, but they're interesting and help to point out which areas of a subject are contentious. I must mention that I have seen the occasional vandalised site where a few words have been changed in an article (usually to good comic effect). The changes were blindingly obvious and now that I think of it, I should probably have done my librarian-ish duty and sorted out the truth from the lies.

In my library Wikipedia is usually the first point of call when I'm confronted with a book about Markov chains or heterocyclic compounds, and for this purpose it is perfect. I don't need to become an expert, but a general summary of the subject is useful for cataloguing purposes, and to avoid looking like a complete fool in front of students.

Painting by Herbert Schondelmaier, photo by Erik Christensen.

Wiki-mania

The most intriguing thing I can see about a Wiki, in the words of Ward Cunningham and Bo Leuf, is that it 'seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the web site landscape.'  This, to my mind, is one of the really exciting things about Web 2.0. But, having spent a little time Googling to find some interesting wikis about my personal interests, I came up with a blank. Maybe it's just me.

Wetpaint sounded exciting, but failed to deliver in that most of the pages I could find were about TV programmes that I've never heard of (and admittedly some I had). Why can't I find people creating poetry, or art, or novels, in a collaborative way? The possibilities seem endless, but the most prolific wikis are apparently for soap addicts!

Wikia seemed a little more interesting, but the range of topics was odd, to say the least. See below for a random drop down list entitled 'Lifestyle' containing wikis on Recipes, Genealogy, DIY, and Vintage dress patterns!

Ourproject looked a little less sensationalist, but I couldn't even find an active English language wiki and the website wasn't at all intuitive.

There are an awful lot of different Wikifarms, but the numbers of active Wikis doesn't seem to justify their existence. Maybe, like mini-disks, Wikis are a technology that everyone got a little over-excited about, only to find that they were obsolete before very long.

N.B. Please note that the title of this blog in no way refers to 'Wikimania'.

Oh - the pressure!

 I know that Tweeting is pretty much the same as updating Facebook, but the pressure to be witty and erudite seems so much greater on Twitter.

One thing I wonder is how to make Facebook updates appear on Twitter as well... That would be a useful and time-saving application. Maybe that'll be Thing 17.

Do libraries that use Facebook also have a Twitter account, I wonder? I also wonder if anyone has done a survey about whether Oxford students mostly use Twitter, Facebook, or some other social networking site. I think we'll probably stick with Facebook in my library, unless we can make our Facebook updates appear on Twitter as well.

Un-link me now!

Has anyone ever got a real job through LinkedIn?

There may well be 60 million people with a LinkedIn profile, but I wonder how many of those are active and up-to-date.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced. It's not that the website is difficult to use, or even that it looks unattractive; I'm just not sure that professional networking online is the way forward in the very small world that is Oxford libraries.

Facebook frenzy

The number of times we find our SOLO machines displaying Facebook should be reason enough for our library to create a presence on the ubiquitous social net-working site. We have in fact created a dummy site, but are waiting for the powers that be to give their approval before going live.

When we started thinking about a library Facebook presence we kept stumbling upon questions which were tricky to answer. For example, we didin't know whether we needed to worry about people not related to the college becoming fans of our page for security reasons. When we looked at other college library Facebook pages, there seemed to be large numbers of fans who appeared to have no connection with the college. Does anyone else worry about that?

We decided early on that we wanted to keep our Facebook presence quite focused on library information, not becoming too embroiled in the more social aspects of the site. So, we included our address, a reminder of the opening hours over Easter and when books are due back, some links to other college-related Facebook pages, and a link to SOLO. We'd also like to have links to our own web catalogue, but there are some technical problems with that at the moment.

With more time on our hands, we'd create a number of groups in order to target information to specific subjects about new books and lists of Delicious bookmarks. Does anyone have an idea of how many hours in a week this might take us? Our fellow librarian is wondering if the time needed to keep Facebook up-to-date is going to be equivalent to the increase in student awareness.

Photo by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid.