For the upcoming ALA Annual Conference 2010, Jason Griffey and the LITA Program Planning Committee decided to switch the program proposal process from a paper form and in-person interview to an electronic exchange: a Google Form and email correspondence this year, and hopefully a conference planning system by next year. (The PPC ProgramProcess TaskForce recommends the Open Conference System, an open source application from the Public Knowledge Project.)

With generous help from Ranti Junus, Systems Librarian at Michigan State University Libraries, a senior member of the committee, and Chair of the PPC ProgramProcess TaskForce, I learned that the process used to be very involved:

1. The chair, co-chair, or vice chair of the Interest Group (IG) sponsoring the program would fill out the paper form and make many copies for each PPC member to read. (The information requested on the paper form was exactly the same as that requested on the Google Form this year.)
2. The IG would arrange an appointment and meet with the PPC for 20-30 minutes.
3. Feedback from the PPC was immediate: clarifications, potential audience, etc. PPC sometimes suggested the IG collaborate with other IGs within LITA or with other divisions. Typical collaboration usually entailed asking the other IG/division to co-sponsor to share information about the program with their own members. Time slots were also discussed. (Usually, the PPC chair had the timetable with her so she could check with the conflicts.)
4. The PPC would then come to a consensus.
5. A PPC liaison who was assigned to the IG would take over communication to the IG proposing the program after ALA Annual. The liaison was the go-to person for the IG for all PPC-related communications and was responsible for making sure that the IG would get the information they needed in a timely manner. Liaisons were also responsible for reminding the IGs about turning in other information such as the names of the speakers, communicating PPC discussions related to the respective IGs, and informing PPC about the IG’s progress preparing the program.

This year, with the use of Google Docs, Griffey was able to set up a Google Form for program proposals. The information from the Google Form was funneled into a Google Spreadsheet shared by all the members of the PPC. This was the process so far this year:

1. Griffey put out a call for proposals on the LITA Blog on June 24, 2009. This included a link to the Google Form (now defunct), a link to the form on ALA Connect, and an announcement that program proposals no longer need to be sponsored by an IG.
2. The committee met at ALA Annual 2009 and discussed the new procedure and intentions to change the LITA Manual by ALA MidWinter 2010. The program planning process no longer includes IG liaisons or required meetings with submitters at MidWinter. (View our Meeting Minutes.)
3. After the program proposal deadline on July 31, 2009, the PPC members read all the submissions and rated each on a scale of 1-10. These ratings were based on interest, the reflection of the program on LITA, its likelihood to draw a crowd, its currency, etc. Comments were also made and recorded on the spreadsheet regarding improvements or questions about the program. The ratings were averaged for each program proposal.
4. Every submission that received an average of 7 or above was approved, a 4-6 was marked as “maybe,” and a 1-3 was rejected.
5. Junus then plotted a schedule of LITA programs for Annual 2010 with the requested times of approved and “maybe” programs on a Google Spreadsheet. This was so our committee could better visualize what program belonged when. (We didn’t want programs that would draw a similar audience have to compete with each other.)
6. The PPC met on gTalk to discuss the outliers a few days later. Emails were sent to some submitters for clarification on their program proposals.
7. In mid-September, Griffey met with other Program Planning Committee Chairs at ALA in Chicago to discuss and arrange the preliminary schedule for ALA Annual 2010. (Hear more about the ALA Conference Planning Committee at Griffey’s blog.) Luckily, LITA was able to get through the scheduling without having to change much.
8. Pretty soon we’ll be volunteering to email approved submitters our congratulations and suggestions for improvement.
9. More to come as we get closer to Annual…

It has been an interesting experience so far, helping to shape the ALA Annual Conference 2010 and understanding how conference planning is done from the inside. I’m very excited for many of the programs LITA is sponsoring, but, secretly, I wish every day of Annual could be an unconference.

• presentations by remote speakers to distance learners,
• tech troubleshooting for distance learners,
• student group meetings,
• staff meetings,
• and staff training.

Important features include screen sharing, PowerPoint presentations, whiteboard, co-browsing, audio, text chat area, and recording. Examples of web conferencing software are Adobe Connect, Elluminate, Wimba, Dimdim, and WizIQ. Faires explained that by recording and preserving the material, these tools can help extend the life of an event.

The second presentation was “Making the library a partner in research, rather than just a support service, by leveraging the campus strategic plan” by Brian Gray. As the librarian for the Case School of Engineering at Case Western Reserve University, Gray’s job description requires that he spend a good deal of his time in the engineering department. He explained how he was able to set up an office near the dean of the college and provide access to some library materials in the Engineering Reading Room, allowing him to work closely with the students and faculty as the “Librarian in the Laboratory.” I think this is a great idea. Many of my friends who went to college never used the library. In general, they thought they didn’t need help and were not likely to make the extra effort to go even if they thought they might benefit from it. Students won’t seek out inaccessible librarians.

Next was Laura Koltutsky on “Online tutorials in academic libraries: free/low cost options.” She explained that the traditional information literacy tutorial process requires an investment in software and training/IT support and frustrates creators. Koltutsky suggests using Jing to create tutorials in a timely fashion. As a free and easy tool, it seems to be the right fit for online tutorials.

In the last presentation Beth Gallaway presented “Board, tabletop, & video gaming at the library: basics and best practices.” During her presentation, she explored The Librarian’s Guide to Gaming: An Online Toolkit for Building Gaming @ your library. The website has a long list of Tools & Resources to take advantage of when planing a gaming program at the library.

For the second discussion session of the day, I chose to go to Michael Porter‘s “Practical Emerging Technology + 10 Years = What kind of library?” Unfortunately, there was a scheduling conflict for our discussion leader, so our group made an effort to come up with an answer to Porter’s question without him. The discussion was best characterized by Aaron Dobbs‘ tweet:

So, 10 years out Libraries will be “different” “platforms” “services” “user space” “guide” “producers” “user-centered” #unala2009 #ala2009

Still stuck on the future of libraries, I chose to go to Amy Harmon‘s discussion during the last segment of the Unconference, “The purpose of libraries and how we can ensure that others see the value.” This was a little tougher than the previous session, but important to think about. The Darien Statements helped to answer the first part of the question, but the second has been a huge challenge for a long time. More questions than answers, but still something to consider.

My Thoughts

Friday felt very productive. I didn’t waste any time running around Chicago or the convention center. Staying in one room all day listening to and participating in short sessions was ideal. Understandably, it wasn’t entirely what I thought an “unconference” would be. Before I saw the schedule, I was expecting something a little more informal, but given the size of the group (and the conference), it’s no wonder that it was a little more restrained. My only complaint is that this year’s unconference overlapped with the Emerging Leaders program and poster session. It would have been great to have ELs at the unconference and to have more than one opportunity to participate in an unconference during Annual. Meredith Farkas and Michelle Boule did an amazing job setting up the first ever ALA Unconference, and by all accounts I’ve heard (and my own), it was a huge success!

If you’re interested in more of the breakdown of the unconference, here is the schedule.

Jason Griffey‘s presentation, “Ubiquitous Computing,” was first. Griffey explained that mobile phones are the single most popular computing platform in the world. There are more usable mobile phones than people in Korea. There were 2.3 trillion SMS messages sent last year alone. They’re shrinking the digital divide. Computer networks are even changing, with devices exchanging information with each other instead of nativized servers. (Object to object, rather than object to server to object.) [NTS: This reminded me of a particular game architecture Joe used in one of his games to make it work faster.] Digital is, by necessity, going to be free. Information will become easier and easier to get. Compete with piracy by making it easy to obtain (e.g., iTunes — not free, but very easy). Content is easier to obtain outside the library. Services becoming more important within the library.

The second presentation was “Audiobooks, E-books, and Online Reading: Implications for Libraries,” by Jessica Moyer. Teens and college-age adults are the fastest growing audiobook listening groups. Over 52% of users get their audiobooks from library, the #1 source for listeners. ”Digital means dealing with DRM and compatibility.” Libraries have to change their collections to offer new technologies. Overdrive not usable on a Mac. Moyer illustrates that other media, such as audiobooks and e-books, are necessary in library collections that aim to serve people living in the 21st century. Those users of “other media” tend to read books, too.

Theresa Liedtka, Dean of Lupton Library at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, presented “Patrons as a Top Priority.” She described how her university library used surveys, online forums, and communication within the entire university to design the future library building as a user-centered space. Collaborating with a diverse group of so many interests, both faculty and students, will allow Lupton Library to be the center of university life. I loved my college library; I can only imagine how amazing Lupton Library will be for UTC’s students.

Rachel Vacek was next with “Librarians Using Mobile Devices.” She and the University of Houston Libraries (her place of work) chose to focus on the mobile device needs of librarians, rather than library users. With a microgrant, they were able to purchase 8 iPod Touches for the university librarians to check out. Using the iPod Touches, librarians were better suited to serve the library users’ needs. This experiment resulted in the library purchasing an iPod Touch and/or a netbook for every librarian. Fantastic! But one great thing I took away from this presentation was the idea of creating a technology “petting zoo” for librarians. Technology becomes a lot less scary when you can hold it in your hand and realize that it isn’t so hard to figure out.

Robin Hastings was the fifth to present, and her topic was “Web 3.0.” During her presentation, she explained that Web 3.0 would be the semantic web, transforming the internet into a database. One way to turn the internet into a database is with microforms. An example of a microform is this hCard:

<div class="vcard">
<div class="fn">Joe Doe</div>
<div class="org">The Example Company</div>
<div class="tel">604-555-1234</div>
<a class="url" href="http://example.com">http://example.com</a>
</div>

Labeling data with microforms makes it easy to collect this kind of information (e.g., through Address Book on a Mac.)

The sixth presentation was “Libraries and Innovation: Creating environments for encouraging and supporting creativity and innovation among staff” by Matt Hamilton. He explained how letting library staff decide on their own projects makes for happier and more efficient staff. Let the workforce decide what gets them excited, and let them work on that. Start projects in “beta” to help get buy-in; “beta” projects seem temporary, but may last. This management approach reminded me of W.L. Gore & Associates (Small Groups, Big Ideas), a company without a hierarchal structure and a focus on communication, freedom, and creativity. Sounds like an awesome place to work, and so does Boulder Public Library (I love their logical URL, too!).

The first discussion group I attended was Rebecca Blakeley‘s “Government Issues for Librarianship.” Rebecca Blakeley is the Government Documents Librarian at McNeese State University (Louisiana). During the discussion, she talked about how Obama’s call for more transparency in government at the start of his term got a lot of people interested in government documents. Now there are a lot more resources for government information than there were before, and librarians need to be aware of them and trained how to use them. Some of the websites she pointed us to were:

• The Center for Disease Control’s Widgets: In the event of a pandemic like Swine Flu, libraries can add these Web 2.0 tools to their websites to provide easy access to information from the CDC.
• Data.gov: Raw government-collected data that can be collected and manipulated
• Sunlight Foundation: a government watchdog site
• MAPLight.org: reveals the connection between money and politics
• OpenCongress: an effort to make congress more transparent with a feed of legislation in a much more accessible way than THOMAS
• FDSYS.gov: provides public access to Government information submitted by Congress and Federal agencies
• Versionista — Versions of WhiteHouse.gov since Obama took office: archives versions of websites as they change

Blakeley stressed that because of these changes in the supply and demand of government documents, there needs to be standards for government document competencies. A couple resources she provided were:

• ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) Wiki
• ALA Washington Office E-Government Services Wiki
• US Public Libraries and E-Government Services White Paper

That’s only a little more than half the unconference! More to come soon…

The conference officially started on Thursday, July 9th, but there wasn’t a lot going on. After seeing my fiancé off in the morning, I got settled into my new hotel room, met up with a couple fellow librarians, and had a great meal.

I spent Friday at the Unconference. It was an amazing and intimidating experience to be immersed in a group of so many librarians I had been following on Twitter and the blogosphere. It took a feat of microbravery to participate. But I did it! The presenters were inspiring, and the discussion leaders and other participants were thought-provoking. (A more in depth blog post on my experience at the Unconference to come!)

Saturday, I attended OCLC’s To Be or Not To Be… DRM Free. I arrived a little late, so I missed the speakers names, and I was unsuccessful in locating further information about them online. This discussion had a lot of potential to be a lively debate. However, since it was at 8 o’clock in the morning, it was sparsely attended and everyone who was there seemed bleary-eyed, including me. The basic gist of the program was that “[high] quality content needs DRM” so that publishers can invest in authors. “We need publishers to help filter creators to have high quality content.” “Amateur journalism cannot replace quality content.” My personal thinking is that sometimes publishers publish low quality information, and the reality of content is that there is a spectrum of content. Not all published content is created equal.

Targeted Marketing: Hitting the Bull’s Eye woke me up. Los Angeles Public Library’s Director of Public Relations, Peter Persic, and San Francisco Public Library’s Chief of Communications and Adult Services, Marcia Schneider, spoke about their ad campaigns to change their communities’ perception of the library. It was really exciting to see images of their ads and to hear about their strategies. (A blog post is forthcoming on this program, too!)

Life After 2.0 with Meredith Farkas, Lori Bell, Michelle Springer, and Helene Blowers was really interesting, if a little disjointed. Meredith Farkas’ presentation about why 2.0 services fail in libraries really hit the nail on the head. Instead of just using “Web 2.0″ technology for their own sake, find a problem that needs solving, then find a tool that will help. And, if you’re going to use the tools, make the commitment to continually use them. Don’t abandon them! They’re embarrassing to the organization. She explained:

• Get to know your population’s needs
• Build things to meet a need
• Give staff time
• Plan to market 2.0 projects like any other service
• Make sure it’s in line with the library’s mission/goals
• Continually assess

In the evening, I stopped by the ALA/ProQuest Scholarship Bash. It was my first time attending the event, and I found it a little stiff. Maybe it was the time I arrived (around 8/8:30), but the crowd seemed to be closed off from new people joining conversation. I don’t think I would attend that again in the near future.

I sat in on the LITA Program Planning Committee meeting for the first time on Sunday, in preparation for my 2009-2011 appointment. Jason Griffey, the committee Chair, was awesome, and it was a whole lot less intimidating than I expected. The rest of the committee seems like a promising bunch of librarians, too.

LITA Top Tech Trends was also on Sunday. That was a very cool panel of people: Eric Lease Morgan, Joan Frye Williams, Clifford Lynch, John Blyberg, Geert van den Boogaard, Roy Tennant. Each of these speakers had a lot to say on the current top technology trends. Cloud computing came up, as did the ubiquitousness of mobile devices (mobile devices good for consuming, aren’t good for synthesizing, creating), libraries need to build apps. This was a group of very knowledgeable and engaging speakers. However, it made me wonder what LITA Top Tech Trends program would be like if we had developers of spatial operating environments, active commercial PC and Mac programmers, game developers, and others outside of libraries talk about what’s going on in their industries. Maybe it would have to be called Extreme Tech Trends, but it seems like it would benefit us all to hear about what’s going on outside the library world.

That evening, I dropped by the OCLC Blog Salon. Microbravery, what will you get me into next? It was so surreal to see even more “library celebrities” in such a small space. Unfortunately, timidity won out and I didn’t last for long. Baby steps.

Lastly, on Monday I attended the Content Management Systems in Libraries program. I blogged about it on the LITA Blog.

The programs at the conference got a lot of ideas spinning around in my head, and I’m still trying to sort through them.