OK… so my Library 2.0 Spectrum post has garnered a good number of comments on this blog and in Flickr – some positive, some negative, all useful. And so far, the graphic I created seems to be a useful pursuit, if for no other reason than it gets people thinking about libraries and change, so I think I’ll continue to pursue it for awhile… but only with your help!
Here’s where you can help – I’m seeking input from you, my readers: Listed below are things that need to change on the graphic – please help me figure out how to change it. If this works the way I think it will work, I’ll get some good comments from you, and we’ll be able to create more of a collective “here’s what we think” graphic. And if not… ehhh.
Stuff that Needs to Change:
The name: – spectrum didn’t work for some, did work for others. Continuum and Evolution were both suggested. Originally, I was thinking of Field (as in, where are you standing in the L2 field…), but then decided that would be too goofy, even for me. What do you guys think works best?
My choice of icons: Many strong reactions from these! I chose a yellowed, parchmenty book to represent traditional libraries and (unfortunately) chose an iPhone to represent the “I get it” side. Some of you were a bit miffed by my choices.
So I ask you – what icons would you use to represent:
- traditional libraries
- The complete Library 2.0 library – this should focus on participation, community and conversation and NOT on a specific piece of technology (like, say, the iPhone)
The use of the word Luddite: oops. Sorry. My geek bias was probably showing there. I definitely want to start off with traditional libraries, but I don’t want to associate that positive base with a luddite (someone who “fears or loathes … new forms of technology” – from whatis.com). If I remove “Luddite” and keep in “Traditional Library” – will that make the left side of the spectrum less negative? Remember, I AM attempting to show a someone who really doesn’t get Library 2.0 of this side of the spectrum/graph.
On the other end of that, I think I should remove most of the techie terms (ie., web 2.0). Because being Library 2.0 isn’t about using cool tools, as more than one commenter pointed out (and I agree with). It’s more about a change of focus than about new technology. Thoughts?
That’s all for now – your comments are appreciated!