24 Feb 2012

What we talk about when we talk about ebooks


Kindle 

Books are easy to describe. They have a familiar structure and physical form, a sequence of pages, a constant order. Once printed, their content is finite and permanent. When someone says they are ‘writing a book’, they usually mean something with a beginning, a middle and an end. Ebooks are not so easy to define however.

Is an ebook simply an electronic version of a printed book? At one time this was probably true. Books were printed first and then made electronic as CD-ROMs or pdfs to offer increased value, particularly in the case of technical books.

However a shift away from this traditional workflow has been gradually occurring, towards a model where content no longer begins as a traditional book, but rather as an epub file marked up in XML. Replacing headings, titles and tables with tags yields a very different looking ‘book’. In truth it is no longer a book as we know it, that is, a defined container.

How do you cite a quote from a book with no page numbers, where instead there is an infinite pane of content? The reality is that fixed structures such as page numbers are no longer necessary, and this creates so many more possibilities. Content can be changed, augmented, annotated, refined, updated – in the same way that thoughts and ideas develop and evolve as a continuous, infinite process. Chapters can be added seamlessly, rather than requiring a new edition. Some people still like the permanence of printed books. They feel solid and reassuring. But such durability is only required in a minority of cases. In many other contexts fluid and dynamic content presents an opportunity rather than a threat: the opportunity for sharing and developing content and ideas, and making information a social experience which continues to change and grow rather than one which ends when the book closes.

There are certainly some forms however, which still lend themselves to print and arguably always will: poetry; visually complex material; books where the physical experience and design is as much a part of the content as the information contained within them. These works will become even more valuable as pieces of art in both form and function, ultimately ensuring that printed books remain an intrinsic part of our cultural future.

21 Feb 2012

2012 Horizon Report

It’s 2012 now and the 2011 Horizon Report is yesterday’s news.

The new 2012 Horizon Report suggests six technologies with considerable potential for our focus areas of education and interpretation.

Time-to-Adoption Horizon: One Year or Less
  • Tablet computing (presents new opportunities to enhance learning experiences, i.e. for one-to-one learning, but also as a feature-rich tool for field and lab work, often times replacing far more expensive and cumbersome devices and equipment. Tablets supplement smartphones and are not considered a replacement. Ronan posted a piece a while back about Information literacy and the iPAD)
  • Mobile apps (the ubiquitous presence of always-connected mobile devices means that higher  education institutions are now designing apps tailored to educational and research needs across the curriculum. Check out Best of Mobile Higher EdWeb)
Time-to-Adoption Horizon: Two to Three Years
  • Game-based learning (research continues to demonstrate its effectiveness for learning, particularly with regard to its ability to foster collaboration and engage students deeply in the process of learning. An example is 3D Game Lab, a personalised learning platform that uses quest-based learning and game mechanics)
  • Learning analytics (is about joining a variety of data gathering tools and analytic techniques to study student engagement, performance, and progress in practice, with the goal of using what is learned to revise curricula, teaching, and assessment in real time. An example is SoLAR's Open Learning Analytics Course, a free online course that provides an introduction to learning analytics)
Time-to-Adoption Horizon: Four to Five Years
  • Gesture-based computing (enables students to learn by doing, i.e. by moving the control of computers from a mouse and keyboard to the motions of the body, facial expressions, and voice recognition via new input devices. An example is Mudpat, which enables localised haptic feedback when interacting with a touchscreen device)
  • The Internet of Things (refers to a category of small devices or methods that enable an object to be assigned a unique identifier via IPv6. Smart objects are interconnected items in which the line between the physical object and digital information about it is blurred. An example is the use of RFID student cards for attendance tracking

20 Feb 2012

Academic Librarians responsible for the probable "wanton destruction of printed books"?

I recently came across an interesting and provocative journal article (Colin Storey, (2011) "Bibliobabble?: The surge towards a print?less e-library recasts academic librarians as “rare book engineers”", Library Management, Vol. 32 Iss: 1/2, pp.73 - 84) that addresses the dangers of academic librarians destroying a huge amount of the printed word in colleges and universities around the world. Historically, the printed word has been repeatedly under attack from natural disasters (the burning of the library at Alexandra), military inasions (the Iraq National Library) in 2003 and totalitarian regimes who organised public burnings of books they disapproved of (the Nazis in the 1930's and 40's). Somewhat provocatively, Storey maintains that it will be the supposed guardians of printed books and serials-academic librarians themselves-who will be responsible for the destruction of countless books as academic libraries move, seemingly inexorably, towards a print-free e-library.

Storey claims that the massive weeding programme currently underway to get rid of less-used volumes is being pushed by university administrators, many of whom have little interest in their libraries. Whole categories of books are being disgarded; multiple editions and reprints of classic fiction may disappear completely. The author acknowledges that weeding has always been part of a librarian's job, and with good reason: editions were out of date and misleading; the subject matter was no longer relevant to teaching strategies; and print editions being worn out. Now, however, librarians are removing books because of the absence of currently perceived cultural importance. Storey believes that the amount of weeding needed to be done means that thorough checking of the worth of individual titles will not take place:

As they have always done, academic librarians may discard such books based upon the absence of currently perceived cultural importance. Yet the sheer volume of material being discarded at this juncture militates against title-by-title, copy-by-copy micro-decisions on future importance and need. There is simply no time and few resources for such finesse.
Storey claims academic libarians may well be repudiating their roles as traditional conservationists as they dismantle collections acquired by their conservation-minded predecessors all for the sake of short-term political and economic considerations within their institutions.

As we all know, weeding is a vital part of managing and maintaining a collection. There are few people who mind having their library's collection updated from vinyl to cd or VHS to DVD. However, the drive to a digital library will mean difficult decisions will have to be made with regard to keeping certain editions of books. As a lover of the printed book, part of me agrees with the author's fear of the academic library going more and more digital and the weeding out of large parts of the printed collection. However, there are a couple of items to take issue with. I believe few will mourn the loss of the printed serial. It is so much easier that all of these be maintained on databases for easy retrieval for students rather than gathering dust and taking up space in a library. Also, the author gives very little practical examples of what librarians can actually do to successfully counteract (assuming they want to) university administrators' wishes that print collections be dramatically reduced. In an era of austerity and cutbacks for academics worldwide, it would take quite a brave librarian to launch a campaign that goes directly against their employer's wishes. Storey simply says what they are doing runs against the ethos of their profession without outlining a strategy to successfully counter the perceived threat. Storey also does not talk about the benefits of e-books to academic libraries. Space is at a premium in most libraries and the introduction of material available online may free up space for newer, more relevant printed material to be purchased. Also, needless to say, if a book is available electronically, many students can access it at the same time instead of just a handful.

Overall, Storey makes an fine case for the preservation of existing print collections at academic libraries but one wonders as digital technology increasingly encroaches on reading patterns whether he is fighting a losing battle.

17 Feb 2012

The value of metadata

In recent days I have come across two different examples illustrating the importance of getting metadata 'right' in order to make digital content easy to find and discover.

More and more authors are now archiving their research in institutional repositories. In theory this 'green route' to open access makes research considerably more visible, but in practice this depends largely upon how Google indexes the content from a given IR. The authors of a paper recently published in Library Hi-Tech (1) suggest that IRs typically have lower indexing ratios because they use the Dublin Core element set rather than the metadata schemas recommended by Google Scholar. Artlisch & O'Brien argue that Dublin Core can not adequately express bibliographic citation information, and found that after transforming the metadata of a subset of papers from the University of Utah's IR in line with GS recommendations, the indexing ratio increased to over 90%. 

The value of metadata can be seen in a different context in a recent white paper from Nielsen (2). Nielsen is a commercial company selling a product - enhanced bookdata - so it obviously has vested interests, but the paper does offer some interesting data on the links between metadata and sales nonetheless. Making sure content is easy to find is not just about research impact and citations; in the book industry it is also about sales.The evidence presented by Nielsen indicates that more is definitely more when it comes to the link between metadata and book sales. Books in the top 100,000 in 2011 which has complete BIC basic elements including a cover image (one of the most crucial elements), typically experienced higher average sales than those without. Furthermore, adding enhanced descriptive elements such as long and short descriptions, author biographies and reviews (available via Nielsen's Bookdata Enhanced service) also resulted in increased sales: Publishers who subscribed to the company's enhanced metadata services experienced 11% growth in volume sales year on year, with 44 out of the 65 publishers in this category seeing positive growth in volume sales. This compares with an overall market decline of 2.7% (obviously correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation!).

So it is not just librarians who are interested in metadata, but ultimately publishing CEOs and their accountants as well.


(1) Kenning Arlitsch, Patrick Shawn OBrien, (2012) "Invisible Institutional Repositories: Addressing the Low Indexing Ratios of IRs in Google
Scholar", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 30 Iss: 1


(2) White Paper: The Link Between Metadata and Sales by Andre Breedt, Head of Publisher Account Management & David Walter, Research and Development Analyst, Nielsen. 25th Jan 2012.


Posted on Friday, February 17, 2012 | Categories:

14 Feb 2012

Google 'improves' searching for health information

And I say 'improve' for obvious reasons....

Usually when you enter a list of symptoms into a Google search box you end up with a hundred different diagnoses before you even get to the second page of results. However people still seem to love doing exactly that, so much so in fact, that Google has introduced a new algorithm to make it even easier to 'self-diagnose'. Now when you enter a typical symptom as your search keyword(s), a list of 'possibly' related health conditions will appear at the top of the page. You can read more about it on their official search blog, where they claim they are "improving health searches because your health matters."

What is Google doing? Giving users what they want? Or doing more harm than good by 'helping' people put a label on their symptoms before they have even got as far as a Wikipedia entry (let alone a PubMed Health plain language consumer summary)?

It is exactly this kind of thing that gives the idea of using Google to look up health information a bad name. There is no mention anywhere of the need to critically appraise the information you find, no caveats about checking if the information comes from a reputable source or a commercial pharma company pushing a product. Google can be a great tool for finding health information, but consumers often put so much trust in the search engine that it is likely they will instantly attach their symptoms to one or more of the 'possibly' related conditions suggested by Google. Maybe Google should be taking a step back on this one instead of adding fuel to the cyberchondria fire.