“Beyond HTML: Developing and Re-imagining Web Guides in a Content Management System” is a case study that delineates a university library undergoing the transition from independent web postings to a format streamlined by a CMS. One of the important lessons it demonstrates is that the digital divide doesn’t just affect users. Due to varying levels of expertise, different liaison web interfaces had radically different information and accessibility levels as well as duplicated information.
Ironically, one of the primary functions of libraries is to provide a readily accessible information format but technology and generational divides have created inconsistencies. CMS can alter that. Uniform templates can be created allowing for a modicum of flexibility to accommodate librarians from different disciplines. Most importantly, it creates in a single database with identical vocabulary which not only reduces storage capacity (by eliminating duplicates) but also creates a more familiar interface for users.
One thing that did strike me in the article was the question of using open-source software. GSU didn’t use it because it was deemed incompatible with their Windows systems. I think that it is important for public libraries to consider moving away from commercial products and adopting open-source software. Yes, there are constant upgrades but this is true with any type of software. Open-source reduces budgetary demands and can be specifically modified to adapt to individual libraries’ needs. This is not unfeasible as exemplified by the study. GSU had the money and resources to create an in-house database system. Time and money could have been saved using an open-source software.
Finally, CMS are important because libraries don’t have uniform technical training and, ultimately, interfaces most accommodate the user and provide the most efficient access to information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that CMS represents a strategy to disperse with elements that reinforce the digital divide within the workplace. Nevertheless, the potentials that CMS and Open source software represent need to be adequately communicated to the figures in charge of funding and procuring software.
Your sophisticated analysis could perhaps accomplish this mission, if indeed there was an institution to convince at this stage. Emphasizing that both platforms advance the democratic mission intrinsic to the library is an extremely appropriate place to start.
I was also suprised that Geogia State was using an open-source software; and I think that's great but, looking at the dates in the article I'm assuming it took them over 4 years to complete the research guide; as a user this would be very frustrating.
Post a Comment