« July MINITEX Reference Notes | Main | Online video now reaches a mainstream audience »

Collabortive Virtual Reference Symposium : Session VI

What’s Next in the Adventure: The Future of Collaborative Virtual Reference Services

Facilitators: Joe Janes & Susan McGlamery

Joe: one phrase stuck out to me: “next generation user experience” from jeff penka (qp)
We need to think about broadly about what that next generation experience ought to be. – thinking about the user
-divide into working groups and brainstorm/create talk about this

group:
-the thing they’re interacting w as well as the community they’re interacting w – having that relationship
-the concept of how the ref lib. That provides the consultation is compensated – show we’re experts in the field of searching, retrieving the right information
-using my pda, one place to go/click “give me this” and don’t care about who I’m interacting w
-when we have given them the tool/answer – when they have used us it was such a good service it should say for itself – we were the ones that helped them over that wall – we lose that writer’s block
-interface – it’s streamlined, everyone is connected to it, we’re all connected across the planet as librarians
-whatever the patron uses we should be able to connect to them – they have so many choices and we are at all those choices
-the user is choicing to put the personal lib in whatever network they have
--connecting users to knowledge communities – have the library as a hub for that – have community services at the library/lib website
-interface – what to interact w: it should be automatic, our userface should transform to what they’re use to
-users don’t care, they use google because it’s easy – just have something to click to – have a clickable map and be connected to whomever
-none of the libs. Issues impede the users need/experience
-if they have a bad experience they don’t see it as that one lib. It’s the whole thing
-libs. Need to set up a customer service orientation policy/program – not after thoughts
-track customer interactions so we know what they’re interested in/working on – like amazon
-full capacity of a library – shows things up as I’m working through it

participatory, on their terms, full capacity, our problems don’t affect them

back to main group:
what are you struck by?
Technology: no barrier – seemless – doesn’t matter how I connect w the librarian and how I get information – the quest. And answer are what matter not the delivery!!!
-ease of use for user and staff
-no barriers, reducing barriers…
-level of automation/psychic machine – system is smart – automating the users entry into the interface/session – mind meld

half the group had some pop fiction/scifi reference – we’re trying to create the experience from the user point of view – interesting adoption of those medifores that our users will also have in their heads
-but, are these references our gen uses or the next gen’s references
-let’s find out what theirs’ are
-they don’t need pop cult references – im’ing 3 friends at once is just the way they do things

mind meld:
-to some extent this is already happening, amazon

-we’re not seeing much of privacy – users choosing how much they want to give up – we nned to give our patrons the right to say I’m willing to give up this much – let them reveal what they want to reveal

-don’t let the thing you build be the barrier to the user experience

themes so far: seamlessness and transparency

is staff represented here:
-how about community & collaboration – how does community react to a potential user community
-they want someone to help them define what they want, they may not really know
-technology is a way of getting around the relationship to build the query
-it’s not just over that one interaction – it’s treating the library as a customer focused org. –to build a customer relationship w them – if they come in the 2nd time we can say “how did that paper on monkeys go?” – retaining individual info
-when you have that relationship and you know each other the reference interview is cut short because you already know their likes/don’t likes
-the relational aspect of reference – having the best transaction you’ve ever had even if you don’t get the info you need – what the lib values as successful and what the patron values as successful – referencing Marie Radford’s research
-user experience – if/when patron’s ask for a specific lib do we/should we allow that?
-Joe Thompson – from his research showed that their teens in MD not only wanted to build relationships by knowing the names of libs. They work with so they can ask for them/not ask for them again – but also asked if they could rate libs.
-Buff Hirko – libs. Should be willing to be accountable for the service they provide – let the patron know your name
-Joe Janes – from his doctorial student’s research who is now at florida state (forgot her name), best predictor of success was that lib provided name – personal touch
-people providing the service should want to provide the service and are pleased to provide the service

sarah from george wash u – pairing the new (young) libs w the tech skills and the older more experienced libs w the ref skills – finding those with the skills and pairing them up just worked out that way and sharing the info

why would people be reluctant to serve? – tech may play a part of that
-it has to be recognizably reference to them – has this faded? Hopefully

-kids may type stuff in that they’re not going to go to the ref desk and say in person – good or bad stuff – kids are testing – kids may ask the quests. To make sure they’re talking to a real person – they want to know who they’re talking to

-we want people use the tech they are use to/like to ask their quests.

-Buff Hirko – when I was at the state library of Victoria in aus. They asked “how do you handle kids?” – it’s universal – it’s a way to broaden our perspective – we need to learn how to deal with people in other groups

-if you’re still trying to deal w kids in vr there is a great presentation by Joe Thompson from vrd 2005 on webjunction on dealing w teens

-at the same time you have teens that want anonymity and libs. Want anonymity – how do you build a relationship w that?
-every choice brings a downside
-they choose anonymity that’s their choice – we can’t do anything about it
-our choice is to choose personalization

-use “haha f&g, come back when you have a real question” and they do
-privacy is wrapped up with identity and trust – you can still be anonymous – seams give shape and show us where the edges are – that was Caleb’s quote

-the word I (Joe Janes) keep coming back to is “experience” – for us and the user
-the desire to participate, share, build – that’s how this conversation has flowed – building services we would want to use is one thing, as we think about where this wants to go, if you build in interoperability/operability that opens the door to serve anyone

closing: Kris Johnson
-thanks to Joe Janes for keynote and helping w facilitating last session, thanks to panelists and all participants

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)