Posted by michaelpawlus in Uncategorized.
Tags: budget cuts, CIL2010, CMS, Colorado, DreamHost, Drupal, funding, Joomla, Koha, Meredith Farkas, New Jersey, New York Public Library, Ohio, OPAC, SaveLibraries, SOPAC, WordPress
Funding for libraries is increasingly in jeopardy with SaveLibraries reporting that Colorado, Ohio, and New Jersey are especially feeling the pinch at the moment. It is a tragedy that a service as valuable as the public library is facing funding threats that seek to strip away such a core asset from so many communities. I am in no way making the claim that these funding cuts can be completely or even substantially compensated for by following any ideas listed below but I do feel that there are somethings that will save money and provide a better service and I think in times like these maybe every little bit helps…
Meredith Farkas just gave a presentation at CIL2010 where she has rightly stated that all too often when it comes to tech projects, they are given as add-on projects, heaped onto an already overworked member of staff who receives no reward for their extra time and labor. I agree. Libraries ideally should invest in emerging technology librarians or some similar position. However, right now with budget cuts threatening jobs if a move to open source can free up enough for a salary or too it may be worth the thankless hours of extra work.
In a previous blog I mentioned Koha, which I stand by as an open source catalog that rivals or outperforms a number of proprietary systems. A move to Koha could save a library money. However, here I also really want to focus on open source content management systems. In particular, there has been a lot of attention paid to Drupal lately and I think for good reason.
The first bit to note about Drupal is that it is supported by DreamHost which offers free web hosting for non-profits so this could save libraries in two web-related areas. The next bit to note is that the SOPAC project is proving that your CMS can actually replace an OPAC. As a free solution with a large and active developer community and a wide range of modules (including library-specific modules) for customization the question really becomes why aren’t more (or all) libraries moving over to Drupal.
To find an answer one needs to look no further than a lecture that I had to today where a couple of lecturers tried to show five different options for CMS implementation and also tried to examine the disadvantages of the open source option. Now, I don’t think open source is for everyone but I think New York Public Library proved that open source is for every library.
The disadvantages that these lecturers found were:
1. Open source is not as stable as proprietary: When will this myth die. Drupal has been around since 2001, WordPress since 2003, and Joomla since 2005. They are only getting better and more popular. These systems are not going anywhere.
2. Open source does not have as many features as proprietary: Drupal has a sea of modules. As mentioned before, some are specifically for libraries. The lecturers mentioned link management and application integration as two areas were open source doesn’t compete with proprietary but as can be seen in the last link they do on the library page and even more in the list of general modules.
3. They claim that open source solutions are only for small projects that are one server based. First, for most libraries a one server solution is probably adequate but once again I didn’t have to look far to find that Drupal can be installed across multiple servers. In terms of large projects, NYPL has 50,000 nodes. I can’t imagine most libraries needing even a tenth of that many. In sum, open source can handle big projects.
What is the reason? What other reason could there be to not make the move? Sadly, I think it is just librarians unwilling to be innovative and to take on a new skill like PHP. However, without open source projects like Drupal I think libraries will never be able to customize the service that they deliver to users and will never be able to keep up with trends. It has become easier than ever to start and modify a Drupal site and with a little training staff can not only contribute content but can work on code to enhance the system. Any problems that cannot be solved can be outsourced to the Drupal community and I think that one would be hard pressed to spend more on the occasional call to a Drupal developer than even the standard annual fee for customer service on most proprietary systems.
However, this last bit seems to be the other cog in the wheel. Managers seem to want someone they can call who will be accountable. Staff may be unwilling to put their own neck on the line. It can be easier to just know that if anything goes wrong there is somewhere to pass the buck.
It seems somehow equally tragic though that this budget crisis could be mitigated, if even in a small way, and a better service could be offered but the road blocks are old paradigms and an unwillingness to learn a new skill. One of the major calls for libraries is too be places for informal learning opportunities and it seems we are having a hard time using them that way ourselves. The information required to make critical system changes that respond to user needs is all out there; and that’s what we do we find information. In fact, a book on the subject may even be in your local library…. that is if it’s still there.
Posted by michaelpawlus in Uncategorized.
Tags: Amazon, Ann Arbor District Library, browsing, catalogue, Colorado, community, community content, copyright, e-resources, faceted search, Florence, interface, John Blyberg, John C. Fremont Library District, Koha, layout, metadata, Millenium, Mohave Community College, National Library of Australia, OPAC, open-source, searching, Sheffield Public Libraries, SirsiDynix, SOPAC, Talis, TalisPrism, University of Sheffield, user created content, value for money, VuFind
First, I have to apologise for the huge gap between posts. I promised myself when I started this blog that I would commit to at least two posts a week but we have been preparing for dissertation at my university and as a result I have been incurring record stress levels. I learned a great line for situations like this early on and it is: “This is not an excuse but only a reason.” I know I could have squeezed in some time for a post here and there so I am recommitting now to the two posts a week promise.
With that out of the way, I wanted to write a quick review of a small sample of OPACs that I have been looking at in preparation for my dissertation which will attempt to argue for further open source OPAC adoption within the library community. What I will present below is a very small sample that shows open source products outperforming proprietary products. I realize that as a small sample, I (or anyone else) could easily find a similar small sample showing proprietary systems with more functionality than their open source counterparts. However, I feel that this would be unsurprising. I think we would traditionally expect a product that comes from a commercial company and receives funding towards its development to be a better product than one that is put together with more or less no revenue stream. I think there is still a clinging to the old adage that ‘you get what you pay for’ and this has caused many libraries to shy away from open source systems. However, I’m hoping to show that these old assumptions no longer carry as much weight as they once did.
I realize that this blog is probably not the most appropriate place for a message like this. I’m sure most people reading this are other bloggers who know the power of community development and are completely on board. However, on the off-chance that this will reach the eyes of someone who is still unconverted I present the following:
First, the problem: This report is a major impetus for my research. It shows that managers and system admins are largely unhappy with a lot of the proprietary options but are still skeptical of trying an open-source service.
Second, the small sample: So, here is a list of a few libraries with proprietary systems that don’t really look great and don’t have very much functionality.
University of Sheffield: University of Sheffield use TalisPrism which offers no real options for browsing, looking for similar records, and no user-created content features. This is a tool that works well if you know what you are looking for and that is about it. It is a real bare-bones interface and program. They are in the middle of upgrading but the problem that I am trying to illustrate is that they are waiting to update to a whole new version when open source would allow for more incremental, modular updates that would allow the system to stay current in a rapidly changing technological environment with users whose needs are changing just as fast.
Sheffield Public Libraries: This is a SirsiDynix system that offers a little more functionality. An especially nice feature is being able to look at items that are nearby on a shelf which allows for some browsing. However, again, there are no community content features and the interface looks very old with the links to additional functionality in small font sizes and inconspicuous locations.
Mohave Community College: This is a Millenium OPAC and definitely the best of the propritary systems with drill-down metadata, the ability to search for similar materials, and to give reviews of the materials which allows for a bit of community content. However, the interface still isn’t great and when the user pulls up a record display it gets even worse with graphic buttons and plain hypertext links intermingled, a photo in the middle of the record and an all-around jumbled and messy design.
By contrast, here are some open source OPACs. Again, I don’t doubt that this comparison could be done differently but the important thing to note is not that a commercial company could build a better product than a community of developers but rather that an open source product can be built better than a company that receives funding for its products.
National Library of Australia: The first example may be a little bit of cheating. I know that this is a national library but I think the point is that they could probably afford a really expensive commercial product and have instead opted for VuFind, an open source alternative. Actually, if you back up from the link provided, NLA offers a fully synced search interface on its home page that allows simultaneous searching of their site, catalogue, and e-resources. The catalogue itself has a nice, clean layout, faceted search, the ability to add reviews, see similar items in a dynamic side window, and even see the copyright status.
Ann Arbor District Library: This is the brainchild of John Blyberg who had an idea for a Social OPAC, or SOPAC. What I love about this interface is the ability to browse from the start as well as search. The SOPAC also has a blog integrated on the page with any current happenings. Then on the sidebars are tags and reviews. This is a great discovery tool that allows ample opportunity for community input wich can help inform decisions and serendipitous discovery through browsing. In addition, the layout just looks really nice which I think is a theme with open source products. Every page has a very readable design with clear structure, plenty of white space, and easily identifiable links.
The John C. Fremont Library District: This last example is my personal favourite. The John C. Fremont Library serves the community of Florence, Colorado, population 3,653 as of the 2000 census. I think this is proof that open source really provides an equalizing factor for small libraries. Here is a small public library with an OPAC that provides a much better layout and a lot more functionality than the library of one of the best library schools in the UK. the system is Koha and the layout is not as well designed as the two previous examples but still pretty nice and there are lots of features to help the user including faceted search, drill-down metadata, an ability to add items to a cart for convenient searching, and a drop-down list of material lists in the catalogue. The best feature I feel for this library is the integrated Amazon reviews seeming accessed through the Amazon API because the community is so small and it may not have been able to create a large amount of review content from its users alone.
I just want to close out this article by saying that I am not criticising the institutions that have bad OPACs or saying that the other libraries with good OPACs are better. If anything, I sympathise with the administrators of proprietary systems. It is really not their fault, the fault lies mostly with the these companies that are just too slow and too risk-averse to be innovative and adaptable in an environment that demands it. The problem remains though that open source projects have yet to prove their value for money. In many ways, this is not a surprise since they are not primarily profit-seeking ventures. The community of developers spend their time creating quality products and services rather than creative, persuasive arguments to build a convincing case for inferior products. So, one of my goals is to try to get the word out about open source for the benefit of all library users and library budgets. I hope that this post can play even an incredible small part in contributing to the proof that open source does, on average, provide better value for money.