Argument: Technology that will allow us to overlay information to the world around us will become widespread for personal use within the next 2 years.
Evidence in Support:
Some personal augmented reality technology is already available: Thanks to the iPhone we already have some augmented reality apps available. The Nintendo 3DS and the Playstation Vita handheld gaming systems also incorporate augmented reality features.
Groundbreaking smart technologies are set to be released soon: Google is set to release heads-up display glasses
this year. From the article: "The glasses will have a built-in camera
that will be able
to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about
locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby." And as mentioned in a previous post SixthSense is doing amazing AR work with major implications, although it's still in the prototype phase.
Upcoming technologies will be relatively affordable: The New York Times reports that, according to Google, their upcoming HUD glasses will cost "around the price of current smartphones". Also, SixthSense says their prototype can be made for approximately $350.
Evidence Against:
New technology might not take off: Google has a long history of innovations that don't take off and certainly don't revolutionize. See: Google Plus, Chromebooks, and the list of Google flops.
Easier said than done: John Parkinson's CIO Insight article "Enterprise Mobility: a Fresh Perspective" offers technical challenges that must be overcome before AR technology to become reliable. Concerns include: coverage, bandwidth, security, synchronization, multi-user viewing, and pricing.
Balanced Discussion:
The argument could be made that augmented reality technology is already widely used and accepted for personal use. However, I think AR applications and use has nowhere near hit its peak and will gain more traction soon due to Google's upcoming release.
The dreamers among us see the possibilities of the technology and may be tempted to think it will be easy to implement, however, the realist see several issues that must be addressed before the technology can be valuable and efficiently implemented. Companies are no doubt working on solving the technical concerns, but we may very well be in the early days, far from having all the kinks worked out.
I have no doubt the kinks will get worked out. Admittedly 2 years is just a wild guess on my part, but at this point in the development of AR technologies the hardest argument to make is that AR technology won't be revolutionary in the future.
What I liked most: It was hard not to like the TED presentation by Pranav Mistry detailing the use of his augmented reality technology. Augmented reality technology is a concept that I have been aware of for a few years, but mostly through science fiction, so to actually see someone physically manipulate digital information projected onto a wall is exciting. The techie in me relishes the idea of these near-magical technological innovations coming to market, but Mistry ends his presentation with a poignant thought: this technology will help us to be more connected with our physical world instead of "machines sitting in front of machines", it will help us to be more human. It's easy to become too physically dedicated to technology and machines so that we are less connected to the world around us (think texting and driving). This technology will help us find a more healthy balance between the digital and physical worlds.
What I agree with: I agree with the statement "smart technology will bring the classroom to the world". It seems that we are experiencing a shift towards informal and non-formal learning. With personal technology becoming more prolific, now people have the potential to learn anywhere at anytime thanks to smart technologies.
However, I don't think that non-formal learning will take the place of formal learning. In fact, the same smart technologies that benefit anywhere, anytime learning also benefit formal learning environments. Interactive whiteboards, SMS surveys, mobile learning, and other smart technologies have been successfully implemented in many schools. I think, in general, the more innovative technology schools adopt, the better.
What I disagree with: It's going to take some more convincing for me to see t-learning (television learning) as an influential learning tool in the future. I easily see the value of e-learning and m-learning (mobile learning) and why learners would be persuaded to use the technology. However, because of the nature and perceptions of television, I don't think it will take off as a learning device. Televisions provide (relatively) non-interactive, entertainment media and I think it will be near impossible to break that tradition. I can see televisions being given the capabilities to provide interactive learning media, but it seems that to achieve that you would have to turn the television into a computer with internet connectivity. In that case would it then just be e-learning? It would a least blur the line. I could be completely wrong. I just need to see it to believe it.
I'm still curious about: I wonder how or if technology will change K-12 education in the United States. I'm under the perception that the education system is stuck using outdated models of learning and that making substantial changes to the system are nearly impossible. Will there be a point in the future where, due to the effects of new technologies, schools will be forced to fundamentally change? Will schools someday only provide distance education? Will new technologies enable schools to provide true one-on-one education? Will schools continue to exist as we've always known them, or will they become some new institution that provides education in a radically new (presumably better) way?
Argument: In the United States gender disparities in information and communication technologies are not a major issue, and, in general, women enjoy access to the benefits of ICT's as much as men.
Evidence in Support:
More women use social networking than men: according to a 2011 Pew Internet report 69% of women use social networking sites compared to 60% of men.
As early as 2001, women engage in the same variety of online activities as men according to a Pew survey.
It seems that women in America are every bit the users that men are. Women are free to participate fully in the web and all it has to offer. However, despite women's usage of ICT's, women don't pursue technology-focused careers. In a sense, women are technology users, not creators. In the United States we don't have a problem with discouraging women to use technology, but it does seem that women are discouraged (or at least not encouraged from entering STEM careers.
So our problem in this country is not striving to make sure women have access to technology (they already do according to the statistics), but to assure them that they are perfectly capable in technology fields and as technology creators. If we do that, in time, the disparity will disappear. Until then though, we also must recognize the validity of women in whatever field they choose and not see women in non-STEM fields as a failure.
What I liked most: I appreciated having this issue brought to my attention. I've never seriously reflected on how ICT's affect different genders or how gender issues are relevant to the development of new technologies. Although I'm still reflecting on how gender issues should affect ICT's, I feel that it is important to recognize the instances that new ICT's can actually disadvantage women. In general, I think that new technologies (particularly web technologies) are a great equalizer that benefits everyone. However, I now see that when women are discouraged from or denied access, women can become disadvantaged -- to the detriment of society as a whole.
What I agree with: I agree that biases of the old media often translate to new media. If a society or culture doesn't value women as highly as men it is unreasonable to think that new technologies will erase those biases. However, I do think that ICT's play an integral role in the process of eliminating old biases, but this change will happen gradually.
I also agree that gender issues in the information society is a worthwhile issue to address. I don't think there will be a major paradigm shift towards ICT's from a gender perspective, but I do think that it is a topic that should be continuously monitored and addressed so that new technologies benefit all genders.
I agree that women should be encouraged to study STEM subjects. Young women should be know that women are absolutely capable of pursuing any career they wish and that traditional gender roles and views should dictate women's field of study. However, I don't think it should be viewed as a failure when a woman decided to study a non-STEM subject.
What I disagree with: I don't agree with the assumption (in the readings and in class) that all technologies everywhere benefit men and not necessarily women. Although the topic for the week was "gender issues" it was addressed solely as women's issues. I'm not saying women's issues shouldn't be addressed, but I think in a discussion of gender issues it is falsely assumed that men's issues are always perfectly addressed and need not be discussed.
Despite the criticism this "traditional" view received in some of the reading I do think ICT's are (and should be) gender-neutral. When disparities based on gender arise due to ICT's (and I agree that it is almost always women who are disadvantaged), they should certainly be addressed. However, I don't think always developing ICT's from a gender perspective is the best practice. There are many groups and market segments that should be considered when developing new technologies and I think it would be short-sighted to focus on only one.
I'm still curious about: I wonder how gender disparities in ICT's compare among different counties/societies. We didn't get to see any hard data on the subject, but it's my guess that in the United States we have far fewer disparities that other countries with developing women's rights. I don't want to say that the United States doesn't have any gender problems in ICT's, but I feel like whatever issues we have are not widespread nor indicative of our mostly equally empowering technologies. One indicator is the amount of women who use ICT's. In the case of social networks, women high higher rates of usage than men according to a Pew Internet study.
I wanted to share a fascinating design I ran across this week. Vitamin Design has created an interactive starter manual for a Samsung phone. It's not directly related to the topics we've been covering, but it it certainly an innovative take on how to introduce new technologies to users.
I work in a library
so I will often relate what we talk about in class to libraries.
Libraries certainly play a part in the digital divide. They help
provide access to those who do not have access. However, libraries
provide a temporary solution, not a permanent one. The permanent
solution, and usually the goal of those addressing the digital divide,
is that everyone has the technology to access the internet in their own
home. That solution, however, is well outside the bounds of what
libraries do. Libraries can't provide computers and internet to
everyone in their home. So libraries help bridge the digital divide,
but they are not (nor will be) responsible for closing the gap.
That in itself is not my argument, but an
assumption of it. I wondered what would happen to libraries as the
digital divide narrows and eventually is gone. My initial thought was
that as more people get computers and internet access in their home the
libraries patronage would drop. That was going to be my argument, but
as I started to think of arguments against this idea, I eventually persuaded myself that libraries won't see a substantial drop in patronage as more users gain internet access in their homes.
I'll start with the why someone would think that libraries will lose patrons as they get their own personal internet access:
Computer and internet usage has become one of the primary services in libraries, particularly to the low-income patrons who do not have personal access. In fact, 45% of all library patrons use the libraries computers to connect to the internet according a 2010 U.S. IMPACT study on the impact of library computer and internet services. If all patrons had internet access in their homes, libraries could stand to lose a substantial portion of their users.
Really, that's about it. It was my initial reaction and so it could be the initial (and perhaps permanent) reaction of others. But as I began to think about how the library is valuable and researched, I came to a different conclusion: even if everyone had their own internet access, the library would still be valuable and would not lose substantial patronage. Here's why:
The same U.S. IMPACT study also found that of the library users that accessed internet (45% of all users), 75% of them had internet access elsewhere. Admittedly, elsewhere could be at work or a friends house, but this still shows that people use the library (and its internet access) despite having home connections. Some of the reasons given for this in the study were the increased speed of
the library's connection, not having to compete for internet time at
home with other, and the library's quiet environment.
Libraries provide value elsewhere. Libraries provide a full range of services aside from computer and internet access. Just because someone doesn't need to use a library computer that doesn't mean they won't use the library at all.
Libraries can still provide technology value. Even though users have home computers and internet access they may not have certain hardware or software that the library can provide. Video editing software, copy machines, and projectors are just a few examples.
Libraries can (and have been) adapting to user needs to provide value. The digital divide won't disappear overnight, it will be gradual. Even if it is foreseeable that users will slowly no longer need computer and internet access, libraries can provide services users do need instead. It wouldn't be the first time libraries have eliminated or severely scaled back services that were no longer in demand (think microfilm, CD-ROM databases)
So I think it's clear that the closing of the digital divide won't spell doom for libraries. They will however need to be vigilant. There will probably be a small segment of users who won't see as much value in the library when they gain personal internet access, but the library can mitigate that through other services and developing new services by being continually attuned to user needs.
Last weeks class was all about the digital divide: what is it, why it happens, who it affects, where it is in effect, and how we can overcome it. The concept of a digital divide is not a new one to me, but I learned much more about it through the lecture.
The most interesting part of the class, to me, was the wealth of statistics that were shared concerning the digital divide. I appreciated seeing up to date data on internet and broadband access, but I wasn't surprised by the information: generally, lower income and rural people have less/slower access than their wealthy/urban counterparts (that's what the digital divide is). There were some statistics, though, that I wouldn't have predicted. First, while households with householders over 65 use the internet significantly less than younger age groups, the householder age ranges of 16-44 and 45-64 have relatively the same access. This shows that perhaps computers & internet have become a necessity for younger and older Americans alike, and that we may see more people having access in the coming years just due to the fact that those who use the internet now are getting older.
One statistic that was particularly interesting concerned the reasons for not having home internet access. It seems that one of the assumptions behind the digital divide discussion is that internet access is a good thing that people should have and that if people don't have internet access it is because of some barrier to access that must be overcome. Most would guess that the primary reason people don't have home internet access is because of the cost (especially given that lower income Americans have a much lower rate of internet access). However, 47% report that the main reason for not having internet access is because they don't want it or don't need it.
What does this do to the basic digital divide discussion? Does this mean that we (as information professionals or at least those who do have internet access) need to change their perceptions? Is that part of the goal? I do believe that everyone can be better of with internet access, but I feel it is presumptuous to try to force technology on people. Or is this not the case? Is the goal then not to achieve 100% internet access for everyone, but to achieve roughly 92% usage and 8% who don't want it? I guess, practically, the goal is for everyone that wants access to have it and eventually those who don't want it will "see the light", eventually leading to 100% access.
Last week’s class focused on the concept of
innovations. The word innovation brings
to mind high-tech inventions like this transparent smart window. However, innovations aren’t restricted to
just high technology; they can be any new creation like Heinz’s new ketchup packet or Groupon's marketing and discount system. I was interested to see the different
types, or "zones", of innovation: product leadership,
customer intimacy, operational excellence, and category renewal. Discussing specific types of innovations
helped me to gain a more focused understanding of innovation instead of the general,
fuzzy idea I started with.
One particular idea that stuck with me from the class was
that in order for innovations to succeed there must be a system in place to
allow ideas to fully develop into innovations.
This idea hit close to home because on several occasions I’ve had
workplace ideas that fell flat because of no system for development or
implementation in place. After the weeks lecture
I understand how important nurturing ideas can be for innovation and companies
in general. I'll talk more on this in part II of this post.
During the class some examples of innovations were shared and one example I made sure to bookmark for later: the ESP game. As I mentioned in an earlier post I'm a gaming enthusiast so I was excited to see this innovation in gaming. The ESP game like all of the seven games from the developer Gwap serve a purpose beyond entertainment. Each game creates a contest around generating metadata about images, video, and sounds then that metadata is used to improve search engine results. For example, the ESP game pairs two people together who try to guess tags for a specific image until the two people guess the same tag and the more matches the players can get within the time period the higher the score. I was aware of the concept of making work into games (and vice versa) and have even had a few ideas on the subject myself, but it's nice to see successful working example.
II. Argument: It is vital for libraries to have an innovation system
Again, one relevant idea from the class that stuck with me was that there has to be a system to develop ideas into innovations. This concept was brought to light in two videos. The first video titled "Why 88% of ideas fail to make it to market" highlights the need for a system and discusses why innovations are important to companies:
The second video that was shared details the innovation cycle that helps bring innovation to fruition:
As these videos suggest, innovation and its
accompanying system are important to companies. I feel this is
especially so for libraries. There is a growing sentiment among some that
libraries are becoming irrelevant in the face of a growing internet.
One of the key ways to combat this sentiment is to offer new services
and products to library patrons -- in other words: innovate.
The way people find and use information is changing. The OCLC's most recent library perceptions report looks as some of these trends in information consumer technologies.
No surprise: major growth in social networking, mobile phone usage, web
searches, e-books. Libraries should be compelled to help user meet
their information needs regardless of the technology used, which means
libraries have to adopt new technologies. It is vital.
As shown in the second video, for innovations to
happen there must be a system in place to allow four steps: thinking,
sharing, developing, and implementation. It has been my personal
experience that ideas nearly always fail without a similar system. I
work in an academic library and I have ideas from time to time about a
new service or new way of doing things that I think is worth sharing.
There are no restrictions on either thinking or sharing where I work,
however where the system fails is at development and implementation. I
share ideas that are well received, but often because of lack of
funding, time, and in some cases motivation, the idea doesn't go much
further. Ideas do get developed from time to time through meetings or
trials, but nearly always fall short of implementation. There is just
no system in place to make all the changes.
For instance, I had an idea for a new way to do
inventory that would more reliably update bibliographic information
and be faster to do. I shared this idea, it was approved, then I went
on to test out how the new system work on a small section of
books. I worked out the details along with concerns and requirements
then reported what I found. Then the idea died because the necessary
steps of acquiring the appropriate hardware, communicating with the IT
department, and informing/training the staff just didn't happen for
whatever reason. Unfortunately, this scenario gets repeated more often
than I would like and sometimes I feel like my institution is falling
behind the times.
Libraries that do have a system in place for all
four steps of the innovation cycle can generate new innovations that
meets users needs and helps the library stay relevant. Not all
innovations will "stick", but many will, and trying new things is the
only way to find out what works.
Some may content that it isn't necessary for libraries to innovate, but to adopt the innovations of others. This may be true for hardware or devices such as iPads or Kindles,
but libraries should innovate in service areas. Some examples may be
e-book lending, bike lending, bake pan lending, virtual reference (via
Second Life), information commons, and more.
Some may also say that libraries don't need to innovate because libraries are (and should be) about books. It's true that books are still the libraries primary brand according to the OCLC library perceptions report.
However the report also show a greater reliance on web sources and
search engines coupled with high self efficacy concerning finding
information. Unless libraries tap into how people are finding and using
information (meaning innovate) they will have to resign themselves to
being a leisure reading space, still in danger of becoming irrelevant
due to e-books.
