Music vs. Text, mp3s vs. eBooks

In November, I saw probably the best library talk ever by Eli Neuberger of Ann Arbor Library. He covered a lot of ground that I won't touch, but I wanted to think a little deeper about a format comparison that I've heard in several contexts. First, he showed an excellent graph that illuminated the rise and fall of each music format, from vinyl to digital (here's something similar, except animated). Then, the comparison goes eBooks :: books : mp3s :: vinyl. It's not always those specific terms, but the gist is that the lessons we've learned from format migrations in video (film reel > VHS > DVD) & music (vinyl > cassette > CD) apply to books (which, after all, started as cuneiform and have evolved to present day eBooks). While there's a lot to be learned from past format migrations, I don't think this analogy holds when we think about text content.

Active vs. Passive Consumption

Here's why: we consume text in a fundamentally different manner from music & video. When I watch a video, I don't wait until I've absorbed each frame before choosing to push forward to the next. Instead, the media washes over me, defining its own pacing. Books, on the other hand, require engagement. I necessarily dictate the speed of my own consumption; I develop an understanding & perhaps a visualization of the action, then proceed to the subsequent segment. Marshall McLuhan said everything I'm saying here in a more philosophical manner with his spectrum that ranges from "hot" to "cool" media, arguing that movies, for instance, enhance our visual sense so much that the audience need not participate to fill in the details.
But the difference between books & music/video isn't limited solely to consumption. We are proactive with texts in other ways, too. When I read a book, I underline notable passages, jot notes in the margin, skip back & forth to contrast sections with each other. I pause to look up a word in a dictionary, or an event/personage/concept in Wikipedia. A good book is more circular than linear*, it becomes a conversation, it connects with other objects. And I would argue that the biggest failure of eBooks lies precisely here: they don't facilitate easy annotation or nonlinear navigation...yet. They will eventually, though. The "pause to look up a word" action, for instance, is fertile ground for eBooks and there are already browser extensions that provide definitions without interrupting the surfing experience.

I feel pretty qualified to talk about this. Why? Because I'm a librarian who hates paper. I cringe whenever someone hands me a printed email. I've tried to digitize as much of my life as possible. Yet I still read paper books. I'm not nostalgic, I don't love the smell, & it's not because it's a break from the screens that persistently mediate my life. It's because books are the best way to consume text right now, period.


*English major aside: my two favorite books are James Joyce's Ulysses & Deleuze & Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, both of which are explicit about their circular/rhizomatic qualities (as opposed to linear/arboreal). Perhaps I'm wrong, but "plot writing" (as I think of it) is terribly boring. You don't read a book to find out what happens in the end, you read a book to get lost in the middle.

How I use Browser Extensions

Browser extensions are a huge part of how I use the web. I doubt I go a day without them. Here's a rough sketch of my setup on Chrome, but I want to emphasize that Firefox remains the gold standard in terms of extensibility. There's nothing here that can't be done just as well—if not far better—in the ol' iceweasel.

Context

is the start of it all. Basically, Context lets me group my extensions into commonly-used "profiles" of active extensions that I can quickly switch between. As soon as I saw the Lifehacker article on it, I knew I was in love. I have profiles for speed, security, web development, Google Music, & standard browsing.

Here's why Context is so clutch: extensions can be expensive in terms of performance. If you're running Chrome, click on the wrench icon & check out "background pages". How much memory is consumed by extensions? Not a ton, but enough such that you don't want 10 running at once. If I enable all 16 of my extensions, they use up about 465mb of memory. Context lets me run extensions only when they're really needed, e.g. there's no use for AdBlock (which is lovely but does slow down browsing because it adds a massive stylesheet to each page I visit) if I'm on non-commercial sites.

Security

is something I'm very serious about, so serious that I'm going to save it for another post. But suffice to say I use AdBlock to clear up the clutter, KB SSL Enforcer to force the use of HTTPS, & NotScripts to stop the baddies from hijacking my browser. Ghostery is also interesting but I find it more informative than preventative in terms of security.

The Essentials

Diigo is the web bookmarking service I migrated to after The Great Delicious Scare of 2010. I probably find 2-3 interesting sites a day that I might need later so I just drop them into my Diigo account with some tags to aid in retrieval. This extensions actually does a whole lot more, including web highlighting & annotation.

Google Mail Checker lets me know when new email hits my Gmail account. Cuz I'm OCD about my inbox.

1Password makes all my passwords look like "zO5nHdaU%paO[dw2mM}xuI" & then stores all those insane passwords in one convenient place. It's probably the only software I actually spent money on in the past year & I heartily recommend it.

Up until the recent Google Apps redesign, I was using Minimalist for Gmail, Minimalist for Google Calendar, etc. to modify the layout of those applications. But I actually really like the new designs so I don't feel a need to use those extensions, which have been deprecated in favor of Minimalist for Everything. I do want to check out MinEverything to see if I can find any use cases. Stylish is another one worth mentioning; you can essentially add user-created styles to any of your favorite websites.

Web Development

Awesome Screenshot makes capturing & annotating nice designs quick & easy.

Web Developer puts tons of powerful features a couple clicks away. I can validate CSS & HTML, outline block-level elements, do all sorts of web form management, & perform magic tricks.

WhatFont helps me check out the font on other websites quickly.

And, because it bears mentioning, Chrome's Developer Tools does basically everything I need to develop sites, these extensions just expedite a few operations. I'm not sure Web Developer does anything that the Dev Tools can't, it's just quicker.

KISS Mobile Redirect

OK, here's my super simple mobile redirect. On the main website, we have the following script in the <head>:
if (screen.width <= 699 && !sessionStorage.getItem("redirecting")) { document.location = "./m/index.html";}
In pseudocode this says: "If the visitor's device [not browser window, so if you're using a desktop browser with a freakishly tiny window for some insane reason, you don't get redirected) is less than 700 pixels wide, send them to our mobile site."
But there's another element, the sessionStorage bit. That's because, on the mobile site, every link back to our full website looks something like this:
<a href="http://www.chesapeake.edu/library/" onclick="sessionStorage.setItem('redirecting','1')">Full site</a>
That says: "if a user clicks back to the main site, store a little note for the duration of the browsing session*." Then, on the main website, the redirect script checks for the presence of this note &, if it's present, doesn't redirect. Thus we avoid a redirect loop wherein mobile users can never return to the full site.

What's Good

• Relies on feature detection (e.g. screen width) and not user agent sniffing. Vastly reduces maintenance.
• K.I.S.S.: I honestly didn't think I could find something so simple that worked.
• Support for session storage is widespread. I saw some other scripts that use cookies as a backup, but literally 0% of our mobile site's traffic is coming from browsers without sessionStorage.

Aw, Snap!

• Some browsers/devices might fall through the cracks
• JavaScript redirects have disadvantages. A) JavaScript has to be on (minor concern these days, & someone surfing a jQuery Mobile site without JS won't have a pleasant experience anyways) & B) ideally this would happen on the server side, since I'm asking the user to begin downloading a page only to immediately move them away from it.

Thanks to everyone who chimed in about the mobile site & redirects. I don't have a whole lot of people to geek out about this with & I appreciate the sounding board.


*Not at all clear at what point sessionStorage expires, but it's more temporary than localStorage. If the browser closes, sessionStorage is wiped out, for sure, but who closes mobile browsers? I'm hoping that sS expires every hour or so but haven't tested yet.

Mobile Website Traffic

I recently wrote a mobile website for my library using jQuery Mobile. While building the site was simple thanks to the straightforward framework, I'm taking much more time to contemplate how we will push mobile traffic onto the mobile site. As I see it, there are three options:

A link on the main site, no redirect

Essentially the "do nothing" solution, because obviously I'll put up a link no matter what, but users will have to opt-in to the mobile site. Savvy users might know enough to append "mobile" to their search terms when they're looking for the library site, or to "save to home page" the site for repeated use.

Example: the University of Illinois

Pros

• Doesn't force users onto a particular site
• Takes a second to do, zero maintenance (this is huge!)

Cons

• Least effective in terms of driving traffic to the site
• Users might never notice the mobile site exists
• Slow experience because desktop page still has to load
• Especially hard to see & select single line of text when using a mobile device on our desktop site, frustrating intial experience

Redirect Mobile Devices to Mobile Site

using a script such as Detect Mobile Browsers, push users over to the mobile site without any prompting.

Example: North Caronlina State University

Pros

• Best in terms of increasing traffic on the mobile site
• Most efficient, least resources downloaded to user's device
• Fills in gaps in marketing, users who don't know about the site still end up using it
• Seamless experience; users can search for our regular site & still end up on the optimized verison

Cons

• Maintenance: the user agent list of mobile devices is only growing & would need constant updating
• Relies on user agent sniffing, flawed approach for many reasons
• Mobile site doesn't recreate all functionality of the full site so users lose out
• Need a hard link back to the full site somehow without being redirected back to mobile version. I actually had trouble implementing something like this on my resume website using PHP's $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'] value but it's probably not too hard to figure out.
• Could a user permanently opt out of the redirect if they so desired?

Pop-up Prompt

A compromise between the two above, a script detects a mobile device user agent & then offers a prompt (either a JavaScript dialog or an HTML element placed on top of the regular site) telling users about the mobile site. Ideally, users could close out the dialog such that the script would remember their choice & not repeat the prompt during subsequent visits.

Example: ??? I don't know of any library examples but I'd love to see one, so let me know if you find a site that does the above.

Pros

• Pushes users towards the mobile site without forcing them onto it
• Users who want to access to desktop site on their mobile device wouldn't face any additional hassle
• No need to bookmark the mobile site or search specifically for it

Cons

• Same maintenance & user agent sniffing concerns as a hard redirect
• Some devices might slip through the cracks & users would still be unaware of the mobile site
• While not as obnoxious as a redirect, users seeking the full site would still be annoyed
• Slow experience because desktop page still has to load

What do you prefer on your mobile device? Do you like the convenience of being automatically redirected, or is it more often a nuisance? Another option, of course, would be & see how effective they are. Traffic figures could easily show which methods work the best, while feedback can speak to the UX.

Open Letter re: Library Hiring

tl;dr – applying for library jobs straight out of LIS school is bleak & libraries/librarians could do a better job of supporting applicants as opposed to crushing their spirits.

I'm among the lucky few that landed their dream job straight out of library school. But a number of my peers–every bit as competent as I am–have struggled mightily. This post is for them, because they obviously cannot express these concerns in a public forum.

You're Being Rude

I meticulously tracked my own job applications & while the sample size is small (I was a math major in college...can you tell?) the results are discouraging: precisely half responded in any manner. That percentage is higher than I thought it would be, but there is little reason why it couldn't be 100%. Furthermore, for several applications I am certain I was notified after the position had been filled & not after I was removed from consideration. One friend of mine took a day off work for an hour-long phone interview only to be informed at the end that the library had already filled the position. Here is why that is unacceptable practice: we are human beings. We are about to graduate, we are trying to figure out where in the country we will be moving, we are making plans. It would be immensely useful to know ASAP after we are out of consideration, so we can move on.

Another friend of mine said it best: “Part of the disconnect in job searching is applying and never hearing back, when as a librarian I was taught to not be dismissive to people.”

Your Requirements are Inane

Here's a tip: try filling out your own job application. Does it make sense? Or is it horrendously vague? Does your web form work or does it crash in every browser except Internet Explorer 6? Better yet, does the web form require repeating every single item listed on my resume? Does the position truly require "2-3 years of experience in a [insert your specific type of] library"? That last one is the killer. There are apparently no entry level jobs in librarianship, who would have guessed? As a new librarian, I beg you to consider what is more important to your institution: do you want someone with a nominal amount of experience? Or someone new to the profession, eager to learn, & devoid of assumptions? Many positions demand experience: it is impossible to be prepared for systems librarianship in LIS school, or for major management roles. But the vast majority could use a bright recent graduate as much as a bright greenhorn with two years of experience. Give us a chance to prove that to you.

Your Advice is Condescending

I read a lot of application advice on library blogs when I was a free agent. And the most common tips were always along the lines of: use spellcheck, address the position requirements, read the job ad, don't just cut & paste, make sure you're qualified. This is not advice, it's whining from people who read poorly written applications. I don't doubt that libraries get lots of crummy cover letters; I do doubt that the people who submit these flawed applications are scouring the Internet for advice that they're clearly not following. So my point is: as a competent young job searcher wracked by fear of homelessness, repeatedly seeing appeals to use spellcheck while simultaneously being silently rejected is awful.

Here's the paragraph, over at Attempting Elegance, that inspired me to write this post:
"Fourth, seriously, just stop with the cut-and-paste jobs, already.  We can tell. We’re more experienced at this than you are, we’ve just read 75 cover letters, and you’re not fooling us.  We know that you’re tired of applying for jobs and eating ramen and suffering under your terrible current boss, but the fact that your cover letter is a cut-and-paste job from the fourteen jobs you applied for last month shows. And we hate you. If you can’t be bothered to match your fonts, get the name of our institution right, list our job position title correctly, and write something that indicates you read the ad… Just no. You just wasted our time, and you’re out of the running."

Do you have any idea how insulting & discouraging that is to me as an applicant? I am eating ramen, applying to dozens of jobs, & suffering. It's not some funny, rhetorical flourish, it's my reality. I'm doing the right things & have nothing to show for it.

OK, this may be the first post I regret writing. It's a bitter reaction to bitterness. I'm sure search committees are frustrated with the quality of applications, but I struggle to see how that frustration could even come close to the anxiety of someone job searching. Please think of that while you write your job ad, reply to applicants, & write contemptuous blog posts.