My first Mashup!

Finally I have created my own first mashup,! It’s such a fun exercise and here is the site:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~nansuwan/s603/mashup.html

Class 5 Mashups and Mapping Software

Today’s topic is the most frustrating part of this course module for me. On the other hand, it seems to be one of the most exciting parts for others. Understanding that it is such a challenging task to integrate many technologies (e.g. Google map, RSS feed, etc.) into one place, how about accessibility issues for this amazing technological mixture?

One of the most interesting features of the web 2.0 is the mix and match with rich multimedia. This type of 3d internet or virtual reality allows users to interact with applications easily and full of fun unlike the former generation of the internet. For users with visual impairment, however, this even creates barrier (to information access) for them. As a result, W3c has developed a suite of documents to ensure that this group of people will not be left out.

Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI- ARIA) syntax for making dynamic Web content and custom UI controls accessible. It is a stopgap and hopefully short-term solution, because accessibility is not an integral part of the widget. Rather, authors have to do quite some additional hacking to ensure that the widget type (checkbox, password field, et cetera) and widget state (checked, open, closed, et cetera) are properly exposed. This W3C’s WAI-ARIA Features Will Enable Accessible Dynamic Web Sites usable to people with disabilities
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2006JulSep/0247.html

For developers or information providers such as Google, although they are aware of these accessibility standards and guidelines
http://labs.google.com/accessible/overview.html
, many applications have not been fully implemented. Nonetheless, there are some groups of web developers are trying to improve features of these applications and share their expertise such as:
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/keyboard-accessible-google-maps/

Hopefully in the future, there would be more accessible web applications for both content providers and regular consumers!

Class 4: Social Bookmarking Exploration

I am one person among other millions people who always work in front of the computer and surfing the internet. When I found an interesting site I would mark on my browser and later on when I want to read that information again, they are there ready for me anytime.

Now the bookmarking technologies have been developed so quickly; there are many features enhancing the use of those bookmarks and encouraging the social interaction. For example, we are not only able to save our favorite websites and share to friends, but we can also look at what other people have found interesting enough to tag. Most social bookmarking sites allow us to browse through the items based on most popular, recently added, or belonging to a certain category, such as shopping, technology, politics, blogging, news, and so on. Even though I have heard about this term “social bookmarking” and its advantages, I never tried to use this tool until this class. Below is my experience of first-time exploring social bookmarking site.

I was assigned to explore the “delicious”, one of the most famous social bookmaking sites.

http://www.delicious.com

I first went for the subscription and signed in to the system. Then I tried bookmarking 5 different websites and tagging those sites with appropriate terms. I was first confused with the tag field, I don’t know what should be put here: “Should it be two-separated word or just one?” I visited the FAQ site for this specific topic and found more explanation. The tagging rules are so different from the tags of the blogs (I tried on WordPress and each time we want each tag to be separated, we just put comma in between). For the social bookmarking sites, however, each time we put a space that means those are completely different tags! I also went to Netvouz, another social bookmarking site,

http://www.netvouz.com

It applies the same tagging rules as in the Delicious. Later I just recognized that it is reasonable having the same rules among each service providers because those tags can be searched across these social bookmarking sites.

Another useful feature of the social bookmarking site that I like and is different from the one of my web browser (IE7) is there is a field called “note” where we can put a brief annotation/description as a reminder.

Next is an interesting feature of the social bookmarking site. After I finished bookmarking and tagging those sites, I tried to find out if others, who use the same bookmarking tool– Delicious, use the same tags. Normally, Delicious will show numbers of people who also bookmark the same website as we do. In this way, we know how popular those websites are. Moreover, when we click on those numbers, the screen will show “Everyone’s bookmarks for this web page.” This is the way how we can find others who share the same interest with us, and we can build the network through this feature.

Then I tried other way to determine who tag the same site as I did. I chose the search functionality. Once I tried three tags in the searchbox (at a time) and hit enter, apart from the websites along with the detail that I have bookmarked earlier, the result also shows all Everybody’s bookmarks or “Search all of Delicious for “longman”. In other words, although those people “the cloud” use the same tag “Longman”, for example, it does not mean that they bookmark the same site as we did. I think this is a really good feature; we can track back and have an idea what are other related sites within our own interest that we might have not known before. Additionally, the result also shows numbers of people who bookmarked those websites as well as tags that they used. Regarding the tag aspect, apart from the profile view, we can see if other uses the same tag for the same website that we bookmarked through the feature called “See all bookmarks tagged”. For example, I used “accessibility” for the w3c validation website, when I search by choosing this feature, I can see other tags, such as “w3c”, “validation”, “standard”, and so on.

After exploring the Delicious site, I tried to search for the tags I used on Netvouz. Again, I first tried on “longman”. The first retrieved item listed is the same website that I bookmarked.

http://www.ldoceonline.com/

The following retrieved items are other Longman-related website arranged by number of users who bookmarked those sites. It is notable that the fifth item is the same site as the first one (that I bookmarked). However, these are the bookmarks from all private users.

Comparing between Delicious and Netvouz, Delicious has more members/users observing from the numbers of people listed on the result page. It means that there is more possibility to find interesting sites as well as building network in the Delicious. Considering the tags used for the same website, there is not much difference between these two tools. However, the result page and the detail displayed of Delicious and Netvouz are rather different (by the default view). Personally, I like the result page of Netvouz more than the other one. First, there is a link for opening websites in the separate window. Additionally, URLs are also shown explicitly. This is convenient for users to navigate back and forth. Furthermore, folders that contain each retrieved website are reported. In this way, users can have more idea about categories of the sites. Nonetheless, report of the first saved user is also helpful. We can trace back the profile of that person, i.e. the save date that may indicate the creation of the site. In addition, the direct link to save of Delicious is convenient for users who want to add related websites.

In conclusion, Delicious and Netvouz have similar and difference features/functions, it depends on users and their preferences. I think the most important thing of the social bookmarking site is the retrieval capability and added feature to enhance interaction among users in this bookmarking community.

Class 3: electronic Virtual reference desk

Due to technological advancement, remote or virtual works have become popular in many fields, such as in education, business, and so on. In the area of library, virtual reference (VR) services are also being practised in many institutions. It is obvious that virtual services provide a lot of advantages (E.G. equitable access, quality information at no charge, ETC.), STILL, THERE ARE MANY ISSUES TO CONSIDER UPON.

First, since the remote or virtual services require the moderate to high technological skills, libraries should prepare their staff to deal with this change. Also, infrastructure and technological equipment are essential; there should be enough budgets ready to support this part.

Confidentiality of patrons is another issue that librarians should consider. It is true that because of anonymity nature of online services, identity of patrons is protected. However, there is a concern about the security and authentication problems in Off-the-Record Messaging inherent in IM.

http://www.xelerance.com/mirror/otr/

Eventually, library should find ways to guarantee and ensure that confidentiality of patrons is treated as the same level as the traditional services.

Apart from the provider–the library site, Administrators should also consider the readiness of patrons as well, such as their digital literacy, supported tools/access point, and so forth. These are factors that influence the use of services, and hence, affect the cost- effective as the whole operation.

One of the interesting solutions offered by Lipow (1997) is to provide virtual reference services as part of a consortium or some kind of collaboration, but that will probably change as virtual reference becomes as common a service as renewing books online. Let’s see what the future of this VR services is!

Reference:

Lipow, A. G. (1997). Thinking Out Loud: Who Will Give Reference Service in the Digital Environment? Reference and User Services Quarterly 37(2), 125-129. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from Wilson Web.

Class 2: Topic: Blogging and RSS Feeds

Today we studied about the blog and associated features like RSS feed. In the class, we tried to create the feed on our own by using Atom and posted to our site. Below is my feed:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~nansuwan/s603/apple.xml

Then we were assigned to work on the subscription feed. It is the first time I’ve tried the feed subscription. I chose Google Reader:

http://www.google.com/reader

And Bloglines:

http://www.bloglines.com

First I chose Google Reader because I already have a Google account and Google’s applications are always accessible. Then Google does not make me feel disappointed. After logging into the main page, hitting Add Subscription in the left column opens a layer right there that lets users submit a feed URL. Once the feed is added, users can move it into the desired folder. For Bloglines, first users had to subscribe for the new username and password, and got to verify through Email just like Google account. To get started on some feeds, Bloglines tells users to choose favorite topic(s), such as music, fashion or books. As scrolling over each topic, users will see the pre-bundled feeds for selection (there are more options here than the Google Reader). However, this step is optional. This is very good feature, especially the ones who just start to surf the net or have no idea what to choose. For me, the accessibility features on the Bloglines are very poor. I hardly access the site on my own. Therefore, the browsing option is the least preferable.
Moreover, there is also “Add link” where users can do the self-added site the same as the “add a subscription” of the Google Reader. Considering this feed subscription feature, it is obvious that Bloglines has more functionalities. After clicking on the subscription, users can modify display preferences in feed through various options, such as location for opening new links, sort order, and feed folders, posting length, and so on. In contrast, even though Google Reader does not provide many options like Bloglines, its search feature is powerful. The result page does not show only the retrieved data, but that information would be rank according to the accuracy and statistic of subscribers or “trends of preference” are also displayed.

In addition, both tools have many similar features (e.g. importing subscription, reading post, sharing post, managing subscription, shared feeds, etc.), however, usability of each tool differs. Sometimes Bloglines is easier to use whereas many features of Google Reader are more convenient. For example, when importing the new subscription, Feeds are automatically imported, while duplicate feeds are ignored in the Bloglines. The successful imports are placed in the appropriate folder if it was defined in the file, and duplicate feeds are listed. On the contrary, to import feeds into Google Reader, users have to first go to the Settings link in the top-right navigation, and then click on the Import/Export tab. Once the file is uploaded, users are brought to the Subscriptions tab with all of the feeds listed. There’s no differentiation between the existing feeds and the newly imported ones. While duplicates are ignored, they are not listed out. Imported feeds are not assigned to the pre- defined folders either.

All in all, to compare between these two providers, Bloglines looks more professional in terms of blogging tool. Nevertheless, each has own strengths and weaknesses that make one tool is more popular than the other. Accessibility issue is another concern that Bloglines has to improve. I believe that these blogging tools have continuously developed and more features are available since nowadays information is dispersed anywhere and RSS feed is one technology that can help us arrange and handle this amount of information.

Class 1: Introduction, How to Define Web 2.0

I’m always confused between “web 2.0″ and “library 2.0″ and admitted that sometimes use these terms interchangeably. I had a better understanding from the class discussion today that web 2.0 is actually a broad term covering technologies that provide greater interaction and access. It depends on how to use this term in which area, such as E-learning 2.0 or even the library 2.0. For the library 2.0, that means this type of technology has been brought to help with the library services.

The highlight of the library 2.0 seems to be the user-centered approach and the increase of interaction between librarians and patrons, or among patrons themselves. LibraryThing is one of the good and successful examples of the Library 2.0. With 39,201,093 books (LibraryThing), it is obvious that LibraryThing gains popularity among readers and its members keeps on growing year by year.

Even though many amazing features and high functionalities of the library 2.0 attract more people to use library, an ultimate goal of the library is still the same. As Cambell states, “Yet their fundamental purpose has remained the same: to provide access to trustworthy, authoritative knowledge” (Cambell, 2006: p. 1). Both traditional library and the virtual one are all dealing with a high volume of books and media, and try to provide access to those information sources. Definitely, they still have to work with metadata and cataloging although types of media have changed.

There are many people claimed that after the advent of library 2.0, the face-to-face communication is no longer necessary. Personally, I do not quite agree. The library 2.0 is rather a supplemental option of the traditional library. I used to compare library services between the time I got when I was back home during the break and when I am here on campus. It is such a different feeling. It is true that the virtual library can provide services without the time and geographical constraints; I prefer to come to talk with librarians face-to-face (especially when I want their advice) and walk around in the big building!

References:

LibraryThing. (no date). Homepage. Retrieved 13 May, 2009, from http://www.librarything.com/

Cambell, J. (2006). Changing a Cultural Icon: The Academic Library as a Virtual Destination. Educause Review, 41(1), 16-31. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from

http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/ChangingaCulturalIconTheA/40602

Class 1: Introduction, How to Define Web 2.0

I’m always confused between “web 2.0″ and “library 2.0″ and admitted that sometimes use these terms interchangeably. I had a better understanding from the class discussion today that web 2.0 is actually a broad term covering technologies that provide greater interaction and access. It depends on how to use this term in which area, such as E-learning 2.0 or even the library 2.0. For the library 2.0, that means this type of technology has been brought to help with the library services.

The highlight of the library 2.0 seems to be the user-centered approach and the increase of interaction between librarians and patrons, or among patrons themselves. LibraryThing is one of the good and successful examples of the Library 2.0. With 39,201,093 books (LibraryThing), it is obvious that LibraryThing gains popularity among readers and its members keeps on growing year by year.

Even though many amazing features and high functionalities of the library 2.0 attract more people to use library, an ultimate goal of the library is still the same. As Cambell states, “Yet their fundamental purpose has remained the same: to provide access to trustworthy, authoritative knowledge” (Cambell, 2006: p. 1). Both traditional library and the virtual one are all dealing with a high volume of books and media, and try to provide access to those information sources. Definitely, they still have to work with metadata and cataloging although types of media have changed.

There are many people claimed that after the advent of library 2.0, the face-to-face communication is no longer necessary. Personally, I do not quite agree. The library 2.0 is rather a supplemental option of the traditional library. I used to compare library services between the time I got when I was back home during the break and when I am here on campus. It is such a different feeling. It is true that the virtual library can provide services without the time and geographical constraints; I prefer to come to talk with librarians face-to-face (especially when I want their advice) and walk around in the big building!

References:

LibraryThing. (no date). Homepage. Retrieved 13 May, 2009, from http://www.librarything.com/

Cambell, J. (2006). Changing a Cultural Icon: The Academic Library as a Virtual Destination. Educause Review, 41(1), 16-31. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from

http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/ChangingaCulturalIconTheA/40602