Access to the complete issue. This page is intended for printing purposes. Note that the internal links to references will not work correctly.
Welcome to the sixth and penultimate issue of Exploit Interactive Web magazine.
The path of Exploit Interactive remains ever varied and this month I take over the role of lead-editor for the last two issues. We continue to keep you updated on the Telematics for Libraries projects in their final stages featuring articles from the DECOMATE II, EXPLOIT and EBLIDA projects.
Our main feature article is by Eric Lease Morgan on Personalised Libraries. This piece is of particular relevance to those in the libraries and Web sectors given the increase in personalised Web services such as MyNetscape and MyYahoo. We also have a review of the Russian State Library conference on "Managing the Digital Future of Libraries".
The regular columns and Et Cetera sections in this months Exploit Interactive include articles on XHTML, Search Facilities Used By Telematics For Library Projects and a critique of a new 'submitting to search engines' service.
Also in the Et Cetera section the Java Crossword has returned, so you can test your varied knowledge of Telematics for Libraries vocabulary.
As the Telematics for Libraries programme finishes the Exploit Interactive Web magazine will be winding down. The final issue will be published in three months time with further reports on project deliverables. If you are interested in writing for issue 7 please send an email to exploit-editor@ukoln.ac.uk. Contributions should reach us by the first week of September 2000.
Exploit Interactive will be replaced by the new Cultivate Interactive Web magazine which continues the theme of a Pan-European Web magazine promoting awareness, disseminating and exploiting European Commission project applications and results. Cultivate Interactive forms part of the CULTIVATE network activities and is funded under the European Commission's DIGICULT programme.
The first issue of Cultivate Interactive is scheduled for release on July 3rd 2000 [1].
Marieke Napier, Exploit Interactive editor
Christiane Dorff reports on one of the deliverables of EXPLOIT which is to supplement the work of the National Focal Points in EU member states as well as the FEMIRCs in CEE countries by providing readily available access to information on Telematics for Libraries and national LIS research results.
The EXPLOIT Portal is a search engine providing access to vital project information. For more detailed project information it provides links to the Website of the European Commission and individual project homepages.
The results of approximately 100 projects and actions funded under the EU Telematics for Libraries Programme [1] are now ripening. Exploitation and the encouragement of take-up among libraries within the member states is becoming a key issue. The existing and potential users include: libraries, publishers, book trade, industry, research associations and policy makers all over Europe.
A number of challenges are apparent: although projects are responsible for the exploitation of their results, it has proven difficult for many project consortia to take a wider market perspective; awareness of and access to information on project results is not adequate at present; and there is no multi-project forum available to discuss (rather than just present) these results. The projects launched have been of a relatively small scale and the libraries scene in Europe is in general somewhat fragmented. There is a need for additional mechanisms which can increase the impact of the activities under the Telematics for Libraries Programme and the forthcoming IST Programme. The development of effective mechanisms for the exploitation of emerging results from these programmes across the EU has to become a major priority if the programme is to have the envisaged impact. Similarly, the transfer of know-how in this area to those CEE countries which have applied for accession to the EU is important if organisations in this sector are to catch up and apply European standards. The EXPLOIT Accompanying Measure will provide integrated pan-European activities designed to meet this need, building in features which are sustainable after the completion of the measure.
For more information on EXPLOIT see the EXPLOIT website [2].
One of the objectives of EXPLOIT is to supplement the work of the National Focal Points in EU member states as well as the FEMIRCs in CEE countries by providing readily available access to information on Telematics for Libraries and national LIS research results.
An extensive amount of project information is held at the European Commission on the Cordis website [3] and also at individual project homepages. However, these sites are not searchable. EXPLOIT Portal is a search engine providing access to vital project information. For more detailed project information it provides links to the Website of the Commission and individual project homepages.
 Figure 1: EXPLOIT Portal Home Page |
Mini-SQL - a light weight relational database management system - has been used. Its script language "lite" offers the necessary possibilities of programming a self-registration system as well as retrieval and update functions.
A user interface for both a basic search (see Figure 2) and an advanced search option (see Figure 3) has been installed and is accessible using standard Web browsers. The search result is a list of projects which match the search criteria. The result page again leads to more detailed project information kept on the EDBI [4] server as well as to the Cordis homepage [5] and the project homepages.
With the basic search function the user can either view all projects by ticking "show all projects" or use the search box applying the Boolean Operators.
 Figure 2: The Basic Search Site |
For a more sophisticated search the user might want to use the advanced search function. It allows him to narrow the search down by clicking specific search terms from scrolling lists. All search fields are combined with an "and" function, meaning the more search terms are clicked the narrower will be the search result.
 Figure 3: The Advanced Search Site |
Next to the keyword (from the project name) a number of additional data entries are searchable: project acronym, theme area, subject heading, participating institutions, type of institution, involved countries, target group as well as project start and project end.
Standard terminology has been used where possible. The terms under theme area are the result of a clustering process which was also part of the EXPLOIT project. These clusters are well suited to classify projects into homogeneous groups. This classification has also been used for another task of EXPLOIT: the development of presentation toolkits for different fields of research work. The subject heading is a scroll-down list of about 165 terms from the "keyword index" from the European Commission. This index has been used widely in the Telematics for Libraries sector.
Participating institutions is a scroll-down list of all institutions that have participated in Telematics for Libraries projects. Where possible the English version of an institution name has been entered. However, many institutions do not have official English names. In these cases names have been entered in the original language.
The type of institution might be a valuable information for users searching for potential project partners. The scroll-down list consists of 10 terms also including the new sectors of the IST-Programme museums, archives and art galleries.
The target group of projects can help prospective project participants to define a market for their product. It might also be interesting for organisations who are working in a certain field to find out what projects there are providing the product or service they need.
The content comprises all projects under the Telematics for Libraries Programme and shall be extended to "Multimedia Content and Tools" projects of the new IST Programme. National projects of the library and information sector are also welcome.
Original data has been entered by EDBI staff so far. However, in the future projects shall enter their project data themselves. In order to avoid any "trash data" project co-ordinators have to contact EDBI staff to obtain a password and become a registered contributor. With the password the co-ordinator has access to the functions new entry and update or delete project. EDBI staff will perform the maintenance of the gateway in regular intervals.
Of course the EXPLOIT Portal home page contains a couple of other functions such as general information on EXPLOIT, a feed-back function and a help-function. It also offers some additional services such as information on upcoming EXPLOIT workshops and a link to Exploit Interactive.
Christiane Dorff
Ehemaliges Deutsches Bibliotheksinstitut
Kurt-Schumacher-Damm 12 - 16
13405 Berlin
URL <http://dbi-berlin.de>
Email: dorff@dbi-berlin.de
Tel. ++49-30-41034165
Christiane graduated from Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge and Fachhochschule für Wirtschaft Berlin in 1995 with an BA in European Business Administration. Since 1998 she has been working on the EXPLOIT Project.
For citation purposes:
Christiane Dorff, "EXPLOIT Portal - a Gateway to Project Information",
Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue6/exploit/>
Núria Gallart presents the achievements of four academic libraries in the implementation of a distributed digital library working for the service of their users.
Libraries are confronted with the explosion of information in both printed and electronic formats and the complexity of newly arising publishers and aggregators digital services. Libraries are in a position which allows for integration of multiple and heterogeneous resources with the only goal to serve a defined community of users. But models and means for these new services to be offered are slowly developing which could erode the potential for libraries to enter the digital arena and let them depend in the future from external service providers. DECOMATE II project [1] has explored one of these models in its global dimension of users requirements analysis, software development, content seeking and distinct costs identification.
From February 1998 to July 2000, Tilburg University (TU) Library in partnership with The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and the European University Institute (EUI) libraries have been developing the prototype of what has the potential to become the European Digital Library for Economics.
Funding has been provided by the EC Telematics for Libraries programme (Project code LB-5672/B DECOMATE II) and important cooperation has been encountered in providers such as SilverPlatter Information (SP), a partner in the project too. Elsevier Science (ES) and Kluwer Academic Publishers (KAP) have been early sponsors by their willingness to make content available under reasonable conditions to the partners and Swets & Zeitlinger agreed to do contacts in order to engage further publishers. Last but not least, a group of libraries, those of Maastricht University, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Université Libre de Bruxelles, volonteered to act as test sites for the implementation and/or the use of the prototype thus allowing for evaluation of the requirements to be taken into account in the future exploitation plan.
The goal of the Decomate model [2] is to bring together all resources available to a defined community through a uniform interface. By using his/her personal identification, the user at one of the participating libraries should be able to access a number of heterogeneous resources for which his/her institution has obtained access rights as a collectivity. These resources, be full text or only bibliographic, locally held or remotely, should be available for simultaneous searching and downloading as appropriate. Added values as de-duplication, results optimization and a current awareness service are also included.
The provision of a uniform web-based interface to the resources offered by the academic library does match the long tradition of libraries catalogues as the key to locate any item in their collections. It extends the concept to the new digital environment. Whereas the integration of an authentication/authorization facility provides the means to deliver licensed full text content as well as commercial databases for retrieval and use from users desktops.
Relevant content for any knowledge area is becoming more and more spread into a significant number of databases, some of them locally held at the own library, some of them available on databases managed by other libraries or even by publishers or commercial aggregators. The Decomate model provides for simultaneous searching of any integrated database, be it locally held or remotely available, by intensive use of Z39.50 standard. It is the user who decides where to search according to his/her singular and current need, and the query will be performed in a transparent way in any of the desired databases, indifferent which search engine it is built on or at which place it is located.
Achieving a critical mass of information in a given area is the main challenge. The Decomate model allows for integration of a variety of resources, which, by the time of writing, are as many as the following:
Other databases are being implemented as ABI/Inform from ProQuest and JSTOR.
Any partner provides access to the content it has authorization for. All working together have the power to manage many different resources, sharing know-how about bibliographical data loading among other items, thus allowing for a reduction in service implementation costs.
How to keep track of relevant information when such an amount of documents are published every day? Although there are variations among disciplines, it seems that a number between 5-10 journals are regularly "read" by researchers [3], [4]. Citations, subject searches and references picked up from various sources are also means to achieve the needed update. One of the important features of the Decomate model is the addition of a current awareness service, able to regularly perform recorded searches and to deliver the results to the individual e-mail or on the Decomate site.
Two extra modules are optionally available for users to improve the results of their searches [5]:
Results Optimizer: its task is to convert multiple result sets from multiple databases into one large result set, grouping duplicate records together in the process.
Concept Browser: a two-dimensional browsing interface that visualises the existing library thesauri that have been used for (manually) indexing the databases.
There remain some challenges which will be of paramount importance for the future survival and expansion of the Decomate model:
Access complexity: a distributed model encompasses no control over the structure, management and performance of external databases. Therefore the quality of service becomes a shared task with high coordination challenges.
Content availability: the Decomate model asks providers for delivery of bibliographical data in order to have it locally installed or, at least, consortially managed. Currently, there are not many content providers able or willing to deliver these data.
DECOMATE II project has been able to develop and to implement an operative prototype of a European Digital Library for Economics, which can evolve to become an important transnational consortium.
The Decomate model for a digital library, by its use of standards and its modularity, is scalable and flexible enough to cope with new developments in the next future. It allows for the integration of more and more content, distributed and heterogeneous. It adds features for the optimization of results and services for current awareness.
The Decomate model brings to libraries a system for the global management of their digital collections, which is perfectly compatible and comparable to the recent developments of commercial services providers and which has the premium to allow for integration and management at the library level.
Núria Gallart
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Servei de Biblioteques
Edifici A - Rectorat
08193 Bellaterra
Spain
Tel: +34-93-5812746
Email: Nuria.Gallart@uab.es
URL:
http://www.bib.uab.es/
 Núria Gallart is employed as project manager at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Library Service
.
Her responsibilities include the management of innovative projects and the implementation of
new library services. |
For citation purposes:
Núria Gallart,
"DECOMATE II Project", Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issu>
The annual EBLIDA Council meeting took place in Madrid, Spain from 5th to 6th May 2000 and was attended by over 45 full and associate members from 13 European countries. Local organisation was carried out by FESABID [1], "Federación de Sociedades de Archivística, Biblioteconomía y Documentación" in Spain together with the EBLIDA secretariat in The Hague. Teresa Hackett gives further details.
EBLIDA, European Bureau for Library, Information and Documentation Associations, was founded in 1992 as an independent umbrella association of national library and information organisations in Europe, as well as individual institutions. EBLIDA [2] aims to represent, promote and lobby for the interests of the library and information profession at European level, from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to the Council of Europe. Members receive regular information on current developments in the cultural heritage sector within the European Union, including EU programmes and initiatives e.g. eEurope [3], eLearning [4], eContent [5], European Year of Languages 2001; EU directives e.g. copyright [6], e-commerce [7]; research and funding opportunities e.g. Culture 2000 [8] and the Information Society Technologies Programme [9]. EBLIDA also aims to strengthen co-operation between members and actively encourages participation by the ten Central and Eastern European accession countries of the EU.
The first Council meeting of the new millennium was opened by Britt-Marie Häggström, President of EBLIDA, who chaired the morning session dealing with internal affairs. The annual activity report provided an overview of recent EBLIDA activities, including lobbying in relation to the draft EU Copyright Directive, involvement in the successful EU projects, ECUP+ [10], CECUP [11] and TECUP [12] and new policies on books and reading. The financial report and work programme for 2000-2001 were also presented to the Council by the new Director, Teresa Hackett. There was some general discussion on future strategy and projects, funding and library promotion.
The afternoon continued with presentations on topical subjects including the FESABID experience of Co-operation between archives, documentation centres and libraries by Nuria Lloret Romero. Erik Norberg, Director General of the Swedish National Archives [13] provided an insight into challenges and solutions for archives and Ingrid Mauritzen, Legal Adviser to the National Library of Norway [14] and a member of the EBLIDA Copyright Expert Group presented The Council of Europe/EBLIDA guidelines on library legislation and policy in Europe. Rob Davies, Education for Change Ltd. [15] gave a short presentation on an EU project proposal to strengthen the role of public libraries.
More than 50 people attended dinner in the evening in "El Espejo", a restaurant opposite the National Library in Madrid, renowned for its art nouveau decoration commemorating scenes from the beginning of 19th century and a popular meeting place for artists and entrepreneurs. Participants were joined by the EBLIDA Copyright Expert Group, who were meeting the following day. Some delegates embraced Madrid social customs and continued their discussions late into the night!
Things got underway on Saturday morning with a lively presentation by Emanuella Giavarra on legal issues of interest to libraries, including the e-commerce directive and the Green Paper on Public Access Information, followed by John Cox, who gave an interesting presentation on model standard licenses [16]. Alicia Wise from JISC [17] in the UK gave a good overview on "the latest UK digital developments: the Distributed National Electronic Resource". And while about 30 people took a bus tour to the imposing Royal Monastery of El Escorial [18], the Copyright Expert Group got down to discussing the latest situation of the EU draft directive on copyright and related issues of great importance to libraries.
Although the weather was unseasonably cold and wet, this didn’t deter delegates from sampling Madrid nightlife, the many restaurants or the flamenco dancing. The next Council meeting takes place in the Hanseatic City of Bremen [19], Germany on 11th and 12th May 2001. We are looking forward to it already!
Presentations from the EBLIDA Council meeting Madrid
5th-6th May 2000 will be available at :
<http://www.eblida.org/conferences/Council00/>
For more information on EBLIDA, our work or how to
become a member, please see <http://www.eblida.org/>
or
email eblida@nblc.nl
Teresa Hackett
Director
PO Box 43300
NL-2504 AH
The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-70-309 0608
Fax: +31-70-309 0708
Email: eblida@nblc.nl
Teresa Hackett is the Director of EBLIDA, the European Bureau for Library, Information and Documentation Associations, managing the association and secretariat, representing the interests of the information profession at European level and providing current information on a wide range of relevant European programmes and legislation. Previously, Teresa worked on the Libraries Support Team in Luxembourg, providing technical support and services to the Libraries Programme under the Fourth Framework Programme, on contract from the British Council. In addition to experience working in a variety of library services, Teresa has managed Customer Support for a UK library automation company, involving consultancy, project management, Help Desk, technical training and support worldwide. She later worked for the British Standards Institution, responsible for electronic product sales and development before joining the British Council Munich to set up and manage a new electronic Information Centre.
For citation purposes:
Teresa Hackett, "EBLIDA Annual Council Meeting",
Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue6/eblida/>
Eric Lease Morgan advocates the creation and maintenance of personalized, customizable interfaces to sets of library information resources such as the ones being developed over the last eighteen months. To accomplish this goal, this article outlines the goals of such systems, suggests a number of technical infrastructures for support, and describes some of the more important content and staffing issues.
In the Fall of 1997 the NCSU Libraries, in Raleigh, North Carolina, conducted a set of focus group interviews with students and faculty. These interviews were intended to help the Libraries discover how to provide better "digital library" services to its clientele. Three main conclusions were drawn from this study. First, half of our population thought they did not need a librarian because they believed a computer could fulfill such a role. On the other hand, the other half of the population thought they did need a librarian because they required a person to whom to discuss ideas about information. Second, half of our population thought they did not need a physical library, again, because they believed a computer could fulfill this function. And again, the other half thought there was a need for a library, a place, because they required a space to share and discover information and knowledge. Third, everybody stated they needed total access to the total universe of information, but, they emphatically stated, they only want to see one particular part of that universe at any one particular time. In short, our clientele were suffering from information overload. A similar study done at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York had similar findings as alluded to by Angela K. Horne [1]:
Cornell's MyLibrary project began partially in response to a focus group study of Library Gateway use. It became clear that certain patrons were becoming overwhelmed by information excess, an understandable reaction given that we have 19 libraries and thousands of resources. The Executive Summary of the final report noted that users desired "a more personal space-- where they can dictate how important certain resources are based on their own needs." This was a motivational finding for us.
At the same time, services such as My Excite, My Yahoo, My Deja News, and My Netscape were appearing on the scene. These services allowed users to select and deselect content to appear on personal pages. The content usually included wire service news, weather, stocks, horoscopes, and links to Internet resources, along with advertisements. The information was useful, but all in all, rather generic and not necessarily scholarly. We live and work in an environment of increasing expectations, expectations concerning access, availability, and specialization. It is an environment driven by consumerism. When you go to the grocery store how many different types of beer are available? How about potato chips? You've got ruffles and no ruffles. There are sour cream and plain chips. There are sour cream with ruffles and sour cream without ruffles. There are sour cream with ruffles in tube, and sour cream with ruffles in bag. The choices go on and on and on, what's more, we expect these choices. It is in such an environment, an environment where information is so highly valued, plentiful, and expectations about availability are on the rise, where the personalized, customized interfaces to library resources develop. It is an environment of designer information and where information is perceived as a commodity.
Personalized library interfaces, "My Library" systems as they are often called, are an attempt to meet the expectations of the current information environment in a library setting. The goals of any My Library are essentially the same goals of traditional library service, to collect, evaluate, organize, and disseminate sets of information for the purposes of satisfying the information needs of library patrons. The essential difference is the medium in which this is done. In the present context, the sets of information are presented through a Web browser. Through a Web-based personalized interface libraries want to present to the user access to the totality of available information, but only relevant sets of that information at any one time. As Mr. R would say, saving the time of the reader.
Reducing information overload is seen as one of the most important goals of providing personalized library interfaces. For example, Norm Medeiros [2] assisted in the development of a MySQL-based program "To help our users circumvent wading through ever-growing lists of electronic resources." Amos Lakos [3] said "a well designed personal interface keeps the main contact local but enables access to the whole - but mainly it helps the student better and more useful use of time." Dan Ream [4] says such a system "allows me to quickly create a class-specific web page that my students can easily login to later when they're trying to remember where those databases were that the librarian showed them before." Again, saving the time of the reader.
Because information only becomes useful within some sort of context, the interface needs to provide that context or there needs to people readily available to help provide the context. In other words, the interface needs to provide access to people as well as information. Context is a necessary ingredient in an information world. It is the catalyst making information useful. The number 1776 has no meaning unless it set in some sort of context. Am I referring to types of numbers (integers, real, positive, even, etc.)? Does the number refer to the quantity of something such as the number of eggs I ate in the ten past years? If the number refers to a date, then suddenly it might take on a whole new meaning. Information must be set in context before it has value. Organizing information creates a context. Organization creates patterns, patterns provide the means for predictability, and predictability leads to the creation of new knowledge. Because librarians specialize in organizing large amounts disparate information into cognitive wholes, librarians can assist in the creation of context by placing similar information together. These cognitive wholes or "information cosmologies" as I like to call them are never perfect, but they serve to stimulate people's thinking about particular pieces of information and allow people to create and refine their own context. Ideally, any My Library system should help to facilitate the creation of this context too [5].
My Library systems must satisfy the needs of different people at different times as well as satisfy the needs of the same people but purposes. For example, one person may not need access to certain types of information such as bibliographic databases or statistical data sets while this sort of information is very important to others. Therefore, the system should accommodate these different people. Similarly, people should be able to rearrange the information on their page to meet their particular needs and computing styles. An instructor might use a My Library interface to regularly locate information on a particular topic, but that same instructor might want to create and "publish" a My Library page for their students to use in various classes.
As described below, every My Library system is essentially a database application with a Web front-end. Used effectively, this means an institution can describe an information resource in one place and have it appear in many places via different reports. Consequently, maintaining many Web pages is reduced to updating single records in databases and running the reports. As Anne Gambles [6] says:
Many academic librarians are currently spending much time maintaining resource information on typically "flat" library web pages. ... The RDM is a relational database which has enough complexity to cope with multiple instances of the same resource (eg in the case of a journal: hard copy, full text via an online database, abstracts via a stand-alone cd-rom) each with different levels of user access.
Norm Medeiros [2] is feeling better because of the database approach:
Prior to creating the database, approximately 2,500 e-resources were maintained manually in title- and subject-specific files. Every time we added, deleted, or updated a link, at least 3 HTML pages were edited. The database lets us make these changes easily and create new pages automatically. My fingers are grateful.
All of this begs the question about our online catalogs. Aren't they databases? Why can't we create My Library systems from that content? Part of the problem may be our catalogs' definition. Are they primarily inventory lists or finding aids? In the words of many a patron, "What is the OPAC?"
My Library systems can create a brand for individual libraries. The idea of a personalized, customized view of information is not unique to libraries. My Yahoo, My Excite, and My Netscape are well known examples. In fact, you can hardly throw a stick on the Internet without hitting yet another "MyThis" or a "MyThat", terms coined by Horne. Thus, there is a lot of competition for attention between customizable portal applications, and while most people think a customized interface to a library's collection of information resources is a good thing, a few people wonder how customized library interfaces stand in relation to other interfaces such as company intranets, university interfaces, and/or "portal-in-a-box" applications sold commercially. Debra Ketchell [7] said, "I like myLibrary and we are considering implementation as I have strong feelings about branding the library, but I am concerned about creating separate islands." Horne replies, "We aren't trying to push daily horoscopes at our students and faculty, rather develop a research webspace that is theirs alone and into which they can choose to add astrological information." Keith Morgan [8] echoes these sentiments, "I too want to brand the library through both a well designed public web site and options like MyLibrary but wonder if we will be overtaken by corporate forces. Or is the library environment so specialized that this would never happen?"
To summarize, the goals of a My Library system is to:
The balance of the article outlines the process of creating and maintaining a My Library system.
There are quite a number of technical infrastructures allowing for the creation of a My Library system, and they all rely on some sort of underlying database application. This is because the system must "remember" the user and for a computer to do this information about the user must be saved for future reference. Put another way, all personalized library interfaces are essentially database applications with Web front-ends. To illustrate this concept, consider the block diagram.
 Figure 1: Conceptual infrastructure of a My Library system |
The technical foundation of any system will be some sort of hardware, the host computer itself. The computer needs to run an operating system, the second level. A database application is installed for the purposes of "remembering" patrons. A programming/scripting language is the next level of the system and it is used to read and write to the database as well as provide some context for the system. The HTTP server, Internet connection, HTTP client trio provide the user interface to the programming/scripting language. Finally, people, either patrons or librarians, interact with the HTTP client to use and manage the entire system, respectively.
If a hypothetical system were built according to open standards, then each of the functional blocks in the system should be interchangeable with new technologies performing the same functionality as they became available. For example, if you were using Apache as your HTTP server, you should be able to substitute Netscape's Enterprise HTTP server if it served your needs better. Similarly, as long as your database supports standard SQL and/or ODBC, then it shouldn't matter whether or not you are using Sybase, Oracle, or MySQL as your database application. The most defining block of the system is the application/scripting language. Since this aspect of the system provides much of the context, the application/scripting language manifests the system's "personality". It is also within this block were you find the most diversity among existing My Library systems.
For example, the production version of MyLibrary@NCState runs on hardware built by Sun Microsystems (SPARC), the Solaris operating system, and Netscape's Enterprise HTTP server. On the other hand, the development version of MyLibrary@NCState runs on an Intel processor, the Linux operating system, and uses Apache as the HTTP server. In both cases, MyLibrary@NCState is implemented with the same set of Perl scripts. It is these scripts that give MyLibrary@NCState is look and feel, as well as it basic functionality.
Other implementations in development and in production, such as the MyGateway at the University of Washington, use Windows NT, Microsoft SQL Server as the database application, and ASP as the scripting language. Cornell University has implemented much of their application in Java. ColdFusion, a middle-ware application, could easily be used to perform the scripting language functions. PHP, a free middle-ware application much like ColdFusion, has been suggested as a scripting language solution, and it would work just fine. Of course, the ideal solution for a scripting langauge is one that works across operating systems, database applications, and HTTP servers. Perl and Java presently fit these criteria the best. The other building blocks are pretty much interchangeable.
Present and future My Library systems should consider the use of an XML structure called Resource Description Framework (RDF) [9] to deliver content. During a presentation at OCLC, in Dublin, Ohio, Eric Miller [10] saw MyLibrary@NCState as a system creating content and providing an interface to that content. He saw the content as "channels", the sort of content intended to be delivered by RDF. There are a number of advantages to this perspective. First, since the content is described using a DTD, content is not bound to any particular interface. Since the content is not bound to any particular interface, the content can be made a part of other systems where non-library content is available. Consequently, users could create customized systems including content from news wires, weather services, horoscopes, as well as more scholarly content such as the content provided by libraries. My Netscape implements a service similar to this, but it presently uses Rich Site Summary (RSS) [11] instead of RDF, and only a single RSS file can be incorporated into a user's profile.
Content and staffing issues are the most important issues to be addressed when creating and maintaining a personalized, customizable interface to sets of information resources available from libraries. The importance of these issues can not be understated; they are more important thantechnological issues. It sounds oxymoronic, but computer technology changes continually, and in order to provide consistent service and consistent context the system must be driven by a philosophy of service with people manifesting the concepts articulated by the philosophy. A personalized library interface is manifested by people who have ideas about information service, not by computer functionality. You don't implement a My Library type of service just because you can. You implement a My Library type of service because you believe it will satisfy the information needs of your clientele better than if you had no such service.
To this end a collection management policy must be articulated, written down, communicated to content providers, trusted to the professional judgement of content providers, and finally, reviewed on a regular basis. The collection management policy outlines the goals of the service, what content the service will provide, how the content will be organized and disseminated, how it will be maintained, and who will do the work.
The process of creating this collection management policy is much like the old Indian story where four blind men describe an elephant. One man feels the tail and says the elephant is like a rope. Another man feels the legs and says it's like a tree. The third man feel the elephant's side and says the elephant is like a wall. The last man feels the trunk and believes the elephant is like a snake. In the story, each man has a limited perspective, and in this case the elephant represents the policy and the blind men represent various specialties in librarianship. A cataloger addressing the issues of a collection management policy will have a keen interest in the conceptual organization of the materials. A systems librarian will be strong in articulating the necessary access control mechanisms and technical functionality. A reference librarian will be most interested in the user interface and the system's ability to be personalized for each user and create context. The library administrator will have their eye on monetary costs and staffing issues. Ideally, an individual with more than a working knowledge of each branch of librarianship will be able to create a collection management policy, but that person must also be an excellent leader able to create consensus and motivate groups of people. Such individuals are hard, if not impossible, to find, and in reality, the collection management policy will most likely be articulated by a group of individuals with specific skills and authorized by a single policy-making person.
The types of content made available in a My Library system are a subset of the types of content made available in traditional library services. The defining characteristic of this subset is its digital nature. More likely than not, My Library content will include things like bibliographic databases, electronic journals and texts, dictionaries, encyclopedias, manuals, handbooks, atlases, data sets, Internet resources, links to people, Internet search engines, and bibliographies/"webliographies", etc. All of these things provide the raw material for learning. It will be difficult to provide direct access to a printed book in a My Library system. Yes, you can create pointers to the book, but you will not be able to provide the book itself. Providing access to the book itself is a role of the physical library. On the other hand, creating path finders and finding aids through a My Library system facilitates the identification and location of physical items, but these path finders and finding aids will be digital.
Another type of content will be links to services provided by the traditional library. In other words, there will be links about the library: links to the reference department where the reference department is described, links describing how to renew books, links describing how to obtain an interlibrary load, etc. Finally, a third type of resource available in a My Library setting are links about the community where the library resides. "No man is an island", and information about a library's parent organization, whether that be links to the provost's page or the campus home page, are candidates for My Library content.
Organizing the content provides context, deciding on an organizational scheme will be professionally challenging, and like the entire collection management policy itself, the organizational scheme you use or create will have to be regularly re-examined. Given the increasing amount of specialization in today's world, the use of literary warrant may be the preferred method for creating the organizational scheme. Keep the scheme simple and familiar to your clientele. A hierarchial structure facilitates browsability in a small amount of space, but if the there are too many levels, then simplicity is sacrificed. Similarly, a flat scheme is very easy to browse, but if it gets too long then simplicity is defeated. Existing My Library systems use flat schemes with the number of controlled vocabulary terms ranging from five or six to more than sixty. To give your scheme a head start consider basing iton the hierarchy of your parent organization such as colleges, schools, and departments. Often people will want certain types of information in certain formats. Consequently, supplementing the organizational scheme by format will provide to be more useful. For example, people may very well be looking for demographic data sets in the area of urban planning. A scheme supporting only the "aboutness" of information (urban planning) and not its format (data sets) will not satisfy the needs of the patron. Finally, since information is organic and the needs of your patrons will change, the organizational scheme will have to be organic too. It will need constant revision. Plan to update it regularly.
Digital information is more dynamic than traditional print-based information. This is true because the computer technology used to manifest the information is changing. Newer formats are always making themselves available. Older formats become obsolete. New protocols are being developed, and client software implement the protocols to lesser or greater degree. Consequently, the content of a My Library system, dominated by digital information, requires more maintenance than print-based information systems. Since Web browsers access information through URLs and URLs represent the information in the system, a My Library system should include a URL (link) checker used as the first line of defense making sure links work. There is another type of maintenance though, relevance. My Library systems must be weeded, items must be removed as they become less useful and newer items become more useful. My Library systems are intended to reduce information overload and therefore only the best, not necessarily all, information resources should be available in the system. The collection management policy should therefore define how to remove items as well as add them.
Finally, the collection management policy must articulate who will do the work. Even after a policy is created somebody will have to implement the policy. This takes time. It takes time to identify items for inclusion in the system. It takes time to add them to a database and classify them accordingly. No mater how well your system is designed some people will want to use it and need help doing so. This takes time. Meanwhile present staff already have limitations on their time. Therefore the policy should articulate who is going to do the work and insure these people are given enough time and trust to do the job to the best of their professional ability. If you implement a My Library system you might have to eliminate less used services or explore ways to make current services more efficient.
In summary, a written collection management policy will define how the My Library service will be implemented and provides the framework for its evolution.
My Library systems are nice, but not necessarily enough; they must be truly personalized, and more information needs to be gathered. For example, a number of people like Ian Whyte [12] expressed the need for usage statistics supporting the need of My Library systems. Others such as Art Rhyno [13] believe My Library systems could be used for purposes other than libraries; they could be used for things like My Association, My Lab, or My Community.
This raises the issue of whether or not things like My Library should be subsumed into portal applications of parent organizations. The things such portals might include student grades, tuition payments, and schedules. Undoubtably there would be local news and information about athletic events. Certainly services provided by the campus community would also be available. The difference between these types of information and the types of information provided by libraries is the amount of interpretation necessary to use the information effectively. Grades and tuition payments need little interpretation to understand. The situation is similar with schedules and news. On the other hand, the selection of bibliographic databases or the acquisition of data sets for analysis require more thought by the patron. Put another way, these types of information require a greater amount of context before understanding can be reached. If the information of libraries were relegated to a few lines on portal pages of parent institutions, then the information of libraries would not be as useful as it could be. Using a library and its resources is not like going to a McDonald's fast food restaurant.
A couple of people suggested My Library systems are customizable interfaces and not personalized interfaces. Keith Morgan alluded to Jakob Neilsen and says that My Libraries might benefit from a bit more computer control. Steve Cavrak [14] expressed the desire to have My Library systems turn more into "digital companions." He describes many such features, and some of the more interesting include:
There seems to be a definite interest in services like My Library. With the advent of globally networked computers and a growing service industry, information is seen as an item of increasing value. While people seem to desire to visit libraries less and less, people do seem to desire information more and more. Services like My Library demonstrate one way to satisfy these desires for a larger and larger population. The key to successfully creating a My Library service relies on the abilities of libraries combine their tradition of service with the functions of database technology. Are we up to the challenge?
Eric Lease Morgan
NCSU Libraries
Box 7111
Room 2110
Raleigh, NC
England
27695-7111
Voice: 919/515-4221
Fax: 919/515-3031
Email: eric_morgan@ncsu.edu
URL: <http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/staff/morgan/>
Eric has been a librarian at the NCSU Libraries since the summer of 1991. Previously, he was a medical librarian at the Catawba-Wateree AHEC Library in Lancaster, SC for 3 years. He has a BA in Philosophy from Bethany College, Bethany, WV (1982), and an MIS from Drexel University, Philadelpha, PA (1987)
For citation purposes:
Eric Lease Morgan, "Personalized Library Interfaces",
Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue6/libraries/>
In April 2000 the Russian State Library organised a major international conference on its own premises attended by 250 people [others had to be turned away] from 20 countries and major international organisations. It was entitled "Managing the Digital Future of Libraries". David Fuegi and Monika Segbert report.
In exceptionally warm and balmy weather without a snowflake in sight, the conference “Managing the Digital Future of Libraries”, took place in the magnificent conference hall of the Russian State Library in Moscow on 17-19 April 2000. It was jointly organised by the Russian State Library and the TACIS Project [1] “Creation of an Information System for the Russian State Library”. The conference papers [2] will be of wide interest, not least to those who want up to date knowledge of current Russian developments in this field. The papers in both English and Russian versions will shortly be available in full on the library's website [3] and on the 2nd edition of the conference CD-ROM [with the same title as the conference itself]. This CD-ROM will be distributed at the international conferences Crimea and IFLA, and will be obtainable from the Tacis Project Office. The aims of the conference were to present results from the Tacis/RSL project, to discuss main issues and future activities of digital library development in Russia and to stimulate Russian-international dialogue and co-operation in digital library development. Thus this conference had a wider significance than the diffusion of professional knowledge. It broke with the recent past and reached forward into the future.
In the recent past, many people will recall that the Russian State Library [formerly known as the Lenin Library, the national library of the Soviet Union] was struggling to find a role in a post-Soviet Russian Federation. It had difficulties to mobilise the necessary resources to conserve the best of the old and to modernise itself and adapt to new circumstances. The more than 300 delegates from all parts of Russia, representing all major elements of the profession, and from 20 foreign countries, were able to see and hear for themselves that the years of struggle are beginning to pay off. Not only did the Library devote its own resources to this event, but it also attracted the inputs of an impressive list of sponsors including the European Commission [TACIS Moscow Office], UNESCO, the Ministry of Culture, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Goethe Institute, the British Council, the Xerox Company, MCB and the Open Society Institute. Evidence of a resurgence was also demonstrated by recent refurbishments and service improvements in the library such as the new Internet Reading Room with 40 PCs, the Center for Legal Information and Official Publications, the new OPAC room and the extension in opening hours.
In his opening remarks, Victor Montviloff of UNESCO said:
"We hope that these first results will encourage both national and foreign private and governmental authorities to invest even more in the digitization of Russian libraries" and went on to advise the conference to "make strong recommendations in this direction."
Delegates were responsive to this advice and the following actions are in hand:
The Moscow Manifesto was produced.
The Moscow Manifesto is available in full on the RSL/TACIS website [1]. Some of its major recommendations are summarised here.
The major recommendation to the Russian government, foreign governments, multinational agencies and private sector partners in Russia and abroad is that substantial resources should be identified to allow joint digital library /museum /archive research programmes with Russia, the EU and other countries, in particular the US, on issues of mutual concern. The Manifesto goes on to specify the essential elements of such a programme.
Other recommendations to the Russian Government suggest that it seek to:
Amongst the recommendations to Russian libraries and other memory institutions are that they should:
Non-Russian speakers keen to keep in touch with the Russian State Library will find it easier to do so from September, when it plans to launch a new English language website, currently under development with financial support from the TACIS Bistro programme.
and on the CDRom of the conference papers:
Monika Segbert
Team Leader
EU TACIS Project Office
Russian State Library
3/5 Vozdvizhenka
101000 Moscow
Russian Federation
Email: monika@rsl.ru
Tel: +7 095 202 2570
Fax: +7 095 200 2255
Monika Segbert MBE FLA (hon) is team leader of the EU-Tacis project
Creation of an Information System for the Russian State Library,
running from 10.12.1998 - 9.6.2000.
From 1995 - 1998 she worked with the European Commission DGXIII
Telematics for Libraries Department, with the primary responsibility to develop research co-operation for the sector with the accession countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Previously she held the post of Head, Libraries, Information and Books, with the British Council Germany, while being engaged in numerous professional assignments around the world.
For citation purposes:
David Fuegi & Monica Segbert, "Moscow Manifesto",
Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue6/moscow/>
Landmarks has launched the third edition of The Directory of Online European Information [1]. Completely revised, this publication should come as a relief to those frustrated by the slowness and inaccuracy of search engines when looking for EU-related information. All the relevant electronic sources of Europe-related information have been carefully selected and described in a systematic, summarised and easy-to-use format aimed at saving the user valuable time and energy.
The Directory of Online European Information includes extensive and invaluable information on online databases, CD-ROMs and diskettes as well as a comprehensive guide to European information on the Internet. It covers both free and charged for information produced by the European Union Institutions and private companies. This revised and improved edition has been meticulously updated, bringing the overall number to over 900. Each entry has been classified using symbols: access, description, language, price, related products and complete contact details.
The new edition has 272 pages and is available from Landmarks or in bookshops (ISSN 1373-685X).
Landmarks also publishes The European Public Affairs Directory [2], now in its 10th edition. This essential reference tool covers over 9,000 decision-makers and organisations specialised in European affairs.
Mafalda dos Santos
Managing Editor
The Directory of Online European Information
Landmarks SA
Avenue de Tervuren 402
B-1150 Brussels
Tel.: 32 2/779 95 49
Fax: 32 2/779 95 63
E-mail: online@landmarks.be
For citation purposes:
Mafalda dos Santos , "Enhanced Edition of the Directory of Online European Information 2000",
Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue6/directory/>
In this issue's Web Technologies column we ask Brian Kelly to tell us more about XHTML.
| Markup | Comments |
| <part-number>273</part-number> wheel |
Invalid XML |
| <part-number>273</part-number> <part-type>wheel</part-type> |
Well-formed XML |
| <h1>Introduction</h1> Welcome to this document on XHTML. |
Valid HTML but invalid XHTML |
| <h1>Introduction</h1> <p>Welcome to this document on XHTML.</p> |
Valid HTML and well-formed XHTML |
 Figure 1: HTML-Kit |
XHTML books are being written. One of the first to be published is
"Beginning XHTML" [12].
The book is available from Amazon for £21-74 [13].
Note that one of the authors is Dave Raggett, a W3C employee who has been
involved in HTML developments since the early days. Figure 2: eGroups XHTML Web Site |
Brian Kelly
UK Web Focus
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath
England
BA2 7AY
URL: <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk>
Email: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk
For citation purposes:
Brian Kelly, "The XHTML Interview",
Exploit Interactive, issue 6, 26th June 2000
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue6/xhtml/>
On 4th May Marieke Napier attended the one-day Professional Web Management conference held at Guy’s Campus, Kings College, London. The event was organised as a joint venture by Gamut, the London Universities Web editors group and the Institute of Information Scientists [1]. It was aimed at experienced Web professionals from the higher education and government related sectors with the aim that people would work together to establish “a path for professional development”. A summary of the event follows.
The day got off to a usual London start with a number of underground lines closed and a fire in an underpass at Black Friars causing traffic delays. This combined effort resulted in us crawling our way to Guy’s campus in a taxi shared with four other late commuters. The taxi officials at Paddington were using the standstill to promote a new ‘Taxi Share’ scheme where people travelling to a similar part of London squeeze into a cab together. This seemed like a great idea, unfortunately it meant that we had to visit everyone else’s venue before arriving at our own. On our arrival Timothy O’Shea of Birbeck College was just finishing his welcome address.
The auditorium was reasonably full with just over a hundred delegates from Universities and government institutions all over the UK.
The key issue of the conference was that of the Web manager’s role in resolving conflicts. This in itself demonstrated the need for a professional body and point of reference. If there were one it would be easier for the community of Web professionals to share best practice, and to refer to a 'higher authority' when dealing with difficult, uncooperative or simply uncomprehending colleagues or senior academics. It would also be easier for Web mangers to support their case with reference to the best practice endorsed and published by their professional body.
Brian Kelly of UKOLN presented the first set of conflicting factors by considering standards for building Web sites.
The first part of Brian’s talk detailed the current standards models available today such as those offered by WC3 (World Wide Web Consortium) and the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). These standards, which follow through from HTML 1.0 to HTML 4.0 and CSS 2, have a number of limitations and WC3 is now pushing for the use of XML, a light weight version of SGML that throws away esoteric features and allows richer links and further usability. There are also important metadata standards which should be considered such as RDF (Resource Description Framework) and Dublin Core.
Brian then proceeded onto the more objective matter of the choice between standards and market place applications. It seems that Professional managers may well see the benefits of standards but often tend to go with what they see as the ‘easiest’ option. Brian outlined the pros and cons of using standards. Standards allow more freedom, interoperability and accessibility for your users. They avoid reliance on a software vendor. However there are difficulties in implementing standards such as the need for them to be resolved in a timely fashion and the problems in employing good PERL/C programmers on Academic salaries.
Brian suggested that the Professional Web manager should move away from authoring tools and form a strategy that allows them to be lead by standards not applications. Comments and questions from the audience concentrated on both the government and JISC’s position. It was pointed out that an e-government document has been published detailing standards and JISC have begun work on the DNER (Distributed National Electronic Resource) and RDN (Resource Discovery Network) which both cover standards.
The second round of conflicting factors raised their ugly heads before we had even had coffee.
Josh Rubin, the strategist for mobility for Web design consultancy Razorfish, gave a presentation entitled ‘Vision. Tenacity. An intense desire to learn’. The talk covered how to get the most from teamwork and emphasised the need to be able to talk to your employees on both a technical and non-technical level. Josh concluded that good teamwork needs communication, consensus in the processes used for decision-making, collaboration, and understanding. He reminded us that we each needed to “eat our own dog food”. American speak for practice what you preach. Josh’s suggestions were intuitive and useful. However it was by what he failed to say that Josh raised a number of important issues.
The question and answer session lead to a very interesting discussion on ownership. A delegate noted that Josh had failed to cover the matter of where ownership lies. Josh suggested that within most companies the ownership of a Web site resulted in tug-of-war between marketing and IT. In his company a collaborative group with members from each discipline drove the site.
The discussion moved into consideration of who owns content and how can managers diplomatically deal with ownership? Members from the audience asked whether it was preferable to have an editor through whom all content passed or allow individual Web authors to log in and put content on the Web. The debate was intercepted by Timothy O’Shea who pointed out that academic pages should be controlled from the bottom up while prospectuses and corporate material should have a top down approach. It was pointed out by a member of the audience that such action could result in universities having three Websites: academic, personal and corporate.
Another audience member suggested that any higher education or government Web site is like a business in that it builds and promotes a brand. The use of students in publishing could result in a lack of control and deterioration in marketing of the brand. Someone else was quick to ask if a university Web site was created only as a marketing ploy or if learning ever played a part.
After coffee Ian Barnes, Web master at the British Council gave a very honest presentation on ‘Harnessing diversity to achieve consistency: the British Council experience’. His talk continued to consider the conflicts within a Website.
Ian introduced the British Council as an eclectic collection of businesses who each want to have their own identity. In this sense the British Council follows a similar format to a University. Ian joined the British Council three years ago and was given the task of designing a new brand-orientated Website. He felt that it was imperative for the initial designs to be given backing from the top. Especially when its layout was so dependant on a multitude of influences such as market profile, trends, culture and fashion as well as function.
The Web operation involved a complex hierarchy leading up from the content providers and 200 plus Web authors to the Web board. The pages were designed using a lowest common denominator approach to easily allow the Web authors to follow standards; they are very simple in terms of design. It was also felt to be important that the people within the organisation fully understood the Web site’s aim. The Web board used a carrot and stick approach, the carrot being the easy authoring system of templates and the stick being a punishment scheme for non-compliance. Senior management were assessed and scored on their areas of the Web site. The scores along with comments were published on the British Council Intranet allowing best practice to be shared.
Ian explained that initially the site was very popular but recently there has been competition from ‘virtual brands’. Deviations have begun to spring up and the people creating these Web sites argue that their group is a distinct business model and that the British Council corporate style is of no use to them. A rogue Web site that has been very successful is the Football Nation site. Recently there has been an acceptance that the corporate brand does not work for some of the smaller groups and the British Council has been forced to adopt a new strategy. Efforts are now being made to make the corporate brand subversive.
Allowing variance after the creation of well-standardised Website could be seen as the professional Web manager’s nightmare. The Question and Answer session discussed the inaugural need for managing with an iron fist. Ian pointed out that a lot of rubbish went under the name of design and being stricter initially had meant that they could remove the shackles later on.
Peter Griffith of the Home Office gave the next presentation on ‘Staffing the service: the Web team’. The talk turned out to be a brief history of Web Management with a view to looking forward. Peter discussed the survey carried out on delegates prior to the conference, which provided a statistic of an average of 2.2 people per Web team. He pointed out that with so few people in a Web team it was necessary to find employees who have a little bit of technical, managerial and editorial blood in them. Later a member of the audience noted that job adverts are possibly so vague because we need people with so many skills; maybe we are just being optimistic. However Peter saw the days of the generalist Web master as coming to an end with a need for greater specialism around the corner. His reasons for this are the growing technical complexity of sites, the increasing number of contributors and a growth in outsourcing.
Peter’s advice on management was that bureaucracy and hierarchy are stifling. Team style management works; team skills may vary and so a Web manager should let people complement each other. People are a valuable asset. With the Web industry growing at an near exponential rate Peter felt that it was necessary to talk about how you get your staff to stay put. The answer is a positive environment and exciting projects. There was a lot of nudging and throat clearing in the audience from Web professionals sat next to their bosses. However Peter pointed out that people will continue to move no matter how great their place of work is so it is always important to attempt to capture knowledge.
After lunch David Smith from the department of Health continued the best practice theme and spoke about the ‘Role of a successful Web manager.’ He began by amusing us with his 10 Web management commandments. His unwritten rule being “what you need to be a good Web manager is a briefcase full of money and a baseball bat”.
David’s key points were about dealing with the content held on the site. Suggestions were given such as avoiding make your site an organisational chart. He also spoke about the key Web publishing policies such as maintaining style guides, registering with search engines, considering disabled access and publicity.
One area that David clearly feels very strongly about is Web enforcement. He discussed methods for cracking down on people who create renegade Web sites or pages that do not fit on in your organisation. These included making sure that you had access to the organ grinders i.e. get the directors on your side. He also suggested that Web managers arm themselves with knowledge of legal impediments such as the government guidelines.
Melanie Goody of KPMG unfortunately had to drop out of the conference and was replaced at less than 24 hours' notice by Una Byrne of Diageo plc. Una, who did very well given her lack of preparation time, discussed the merger of several Intranet and Web sites for Diageo. She talked about drawing standards together. Melanie also mentioned online teaching and brought the area of e-commerce up for the first time. These new areas are currently very embryonic but Melanie suggested looking at the work of the ALT (Association for Learning Technology) for best practice.
Geoff Ryman from the Cabinet Office was the final speaker of the day; his presentation was on ‘Benchmarking excellence’. Geoff talked about the recent reform of government Websites. In the past there had been a lack of clear goals with many government Websites not even sure why they were there. The Web revolution had caused a rush to get online and initially there had been a lack of resources for government Websites. Web managers had reprinted old information leaving the sites stale and with a lack of bespoke content.
Geoff mentioned how between the years 1994 and 1996 people had realised that Web sites reached the citizens directly bypassing the media. This has made a big difference when new policy is released. For example during implementation of the revised national curriculum a reporter had misquoted the government with ‘new curriculum drops Shakespeare’. The Web site allowed the government to crush this rumour early on.
The government needs to reach as many people as possible with its Web site, not just press and politicians. Apparently 50% (CCTA) of people who visit government Web sites have their graphics turned off. Current government Web site users don’t want pretty pictures; they are concerned with content.
Recently the government has begun the move towards a federal model. The new goal is a ‘joined up’ government. Audits have been done on 30 key sites and new guidelines released. A new media team has been set up along with a performance and innovation unit. The aim is to improve on use of XML, summaries, examples, use of frames, DTV, and metadata (Dublin core). There is also going to be an attempt to create a central pool of user statistics and a UK gateway is being built to that uses the governmental databases.
Timothy O’Shea summed up the conference by saying that he felt several interesting points had been brought up during the day. Many of the debates had shown there to be to be a great deal of consensus in the industry and all Professional Web managers should now work together to face the conflicting factors in Web site design today.
From an outsider's perspective the day seemed to have been very successful. It appears the true Professional Web managers role is to arbitrate the Ying and the Yang resulting in a balanced and w