Week 13: Evaluating technologies
Richard E. Rubin “Information technologies…”
I found it quite interesting to read through the section on the developments and history of microphotography after we just finished reading Baker’s Double Fold. Rubin writes of microfilm that it “proved to be an exceptional medium for the preservation of materials that were likely to deteriorate over time, such as newspapers, magazines, and documents” (81). He then continues by including Rider’s idea that the “actual book be photographed and attached to the back of the catalog card” (81). As I was reading through this section, I couldn’t help but recall all the counterpoints Baker made about the integrity of microfilm as a conservation medium, not to mention how he kept insisting librarians overstated the rate of paper deterioration. And then you have the villainous Freemont Rider and his futuristic dreams about all the applications of microfilm for library materials. It’s really fascinating for me to read diverse perspectives confrontations like this one, between two separate, print-published articles and their authors’ rivaling points of view. Not everyone takes the time to consider opinions that fall outside of the mainstream; what a dull world if we all accepted history as golden and failed to analyze the past for improvements that could be made in the future. I think a good example in the library world is microfilm; many people heralded this new medium as a panacea for library woes, but sadly it didn’t turn out quite so. What about the current support for digitizing library documents? What about documents that only exist in digital formats? Are we once again putting too much faith in an untested medium?
William Y. Arms “Libraries, technology, and people” (Ch. 1 + 4)
Arms clearly supports society’s progression towards digital libraries; however, I feel like he grossly neglects the issue of access equity. At one point he recognizes the need for an Internet connection in order to use a digital library. He asserts that for “$2000 worth of equipment, perhaps $20 per month for a dial-up connection, and a modicum of skill” (12) people could provide their own hook-up and other necessities for home computing and Internet access. That may be a fair estimate on cost—although I don’t know if condemning someone to $20 dial-up is fair—but I couldn’t help from asking myself who does that still exclude? A sizable chunk of society will still be marginalized even if the initial start-up fees could be addressed because of the lack of resources to teach these new users how to efficiently use their new computer equipment. What Arms condescendingly labels a ‘modicum of skill’ is the product of the narrow-sight of a privileged Internet user who fails to realize how difficult it is for a startling number of people to use computers, especially if they have received no formal training or have been rarely exposed to computers in their daily lives. Besides those marginalized because of their socioeconomic status or technological skill inadequacy, converting the world’s library collections into a solely digital resource would also exclude many older citizens who have not taken to the world’s new technology. These are the people who turn out to be staple library patrons in studies—retirees. I agree with Arms when he says traditional and digital can coexist, but he goes on to say, “in the long run, there appear to be no barriers to digital libraries and electronic publishing” (20). At least his argument on the gradual nature of these changes reassures me that we will have time to think about the future consequences of our actions today—and hopefully we will take the time to do that.
I found it quite interesting to read through the section on the developments and history of microphotography after we just finished reading Baker’s Double Fold. Rubin writes of microfilm that it “proved to be an exceptional medium for the preservation of materials that were likely to deteriorate over time, such as newspapers, magazines, and documents” (81). He then continues by including Rider’s idea that the “actual book be photographed and attached to the back of the catalog card” (81). As I was reading through this section, I couldn’t help but recall all the counterpoints Baker made about the integrity of microfilm as a conservation medium, not to mention how he kept insisting librarians overstated the rate of paper deterioration. And then you have the villainous Freemont Rider and his futuristic dreams about all the applications of microfilm for library materials. It’s really fascinating for me to read diverse perspectives confrontations like this one, between two separate, print-published articles and their authors’ rivaling points of view. Not everyone takes the time to consider opinions that fall outside of the mainstream; what a dull world if we all accepted history as golden and failed to analyze the past for improvements that could be made in the future. I think a good example in the library world is microfilm; many people heralded this new medium as a panacea for library woes, but sadly it didn’t turn out quite so. What about the current support for digitizing library documents? What about documents that only exist in digital formats? Are we once again putting too much faith in an untested medium?
William Y. Arms “Libraries, technology, and people” (Ch. 1 + 4)
Arms clearly supports society’s progression towards digital libraries; however, I feel like he grossly neglects the issue of access equity. At one point he recognizes the need for an Internet connection in order to use a digital library. He asserts that for “$2000 worth of equipment, perhaps $20 per month for a dial-up connection, and a modicum of skill” (12) people could provide their own hook-up and other necessities for home computing and Internet access. That may be a fair estimate on cost—although I don’t know if condemning someone to $20 dial-up is fair—but I couldn’t help from asking myself who does that still exclude? A sizable chunk of society will still be marginalized even if the initial start-up fees could be addressed because of the lack of resources to teach these new users how to efficiently use their new computer equipment. What Arms condescendingly labels a ‘modicum of skill’ is the product of the narrow-sight of a privileged Internet user who fails to realize how difficult it is for a startling number of people to use computers, especially if they have received no formal training or have been rarely exposed to computers in their daily lives. Besides those marginalized because of their socioeconomic status or technological skill inadequacy, converting the world’s library collections into a solely digital resource would also exclude many older citizens who have not taken to the world’s new technology. These are the people who turn out to be staple library patrons in studies—retirees. I agree with Arms when he says traditional and digital can coexist, but he goes on to say, “in the long run, there appear to be no barriers to digital libraries and electronic publishing” (20). At least his argument on the gradual nature of these changes reassures me that we will have time to think about the future consequences of our actions today—and hopefully we will take the time to do that.
posted by lwinkle at 9:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home