PowerPoint and Prezi

PowerPoint and Prezi are two very useful presentation tools.  It is hard to say one is better than the other.  They are both relatively easy to use, offer attractive graphics for a presentation, and allow you to insert a variety of different media.  That is not to say they are exactly the same by any means.  PowerPoint is the better known of the two, so the presentation style appears more familiar.  This seems like an advantage because the audience viewing the presentation will probably be familiar with how the information will be presented.  With such familiarity comes a certain inflexibility.  While there is a great deal of variety within each slide - images, video, different graphics - the presentation is linear, slide after slide after slide.  Prezi, on the other hand, offers a greater flexibility in presentation style.  The movement from frame to frame is less linear, the frames themselves can be different shapes and sizes, text can be entered in a variety of places and at different angles.  This can make for a more visually interesting presentation.  Also, the aesthetics of Prezi are much more appealing.  On the one hand, because of this flexibility Prezi has a steeper learning curve than PowerPoint.  On the other hand, Prezi's tools make inserting graphics, images and videos much easier.  For example, on Prezi there is a simple YouTube button that allows the user to insert videos from YouTube.  For my PowerPoint presentation, I created a Flip Video, which apparently PowerPoint is not equipped to host.  Therefore, I had to convert the file into another format.  In the end I think Prezi and PowerPoint could appeal to different audiences.  I will definitely use both tools again, and I am very interested in exploring more about Prezi, which I had not heard of before this assignment.

The Library Company of Philadelphia is on Facebook

The Library Company today

The Library Company of Philadelphia, founded by Benjamin Franklin, is the oldest library in the United States.  Even the oldest library now has a Facebook page.  Like many of the Web 2.0 technologies, the Facebook page for the Library Company allows their materials to be able to be seen by a much wider audience.  For instance, since the Library Company now mostly serves the purpose of an archive of Early American documents and images, the Facebook page allows them to post reproductions of some of their archival holdings.  In another instance, a post informed visitors to the page that a National Constitution Center exhibit on "American Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" actually displayed a number of artifacts from the Library Company.  The page also links to online exhibits hosted on the Library Company website, as well as exhibits physically held at the Library Company itself.  While there are a number of fascinating images displayed on the Facebook page, some are simply posted with no identification.  Also, while it provides the possibility of active engagement with the material posted, most people simply "like" the posts, which is a relatively passive act.  Nonetheless, the kinds of images they display and the information they post should encourage any visitor to the Facebook page to find out more about the Library Company.

Uses of Web 2.0 in Libraries

The Internet is pervasive in nearly all facets of society, and this of course has profound affects on libraries.  One of the clear advantages of various Web 2.0 technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs and wikis, is that it allows for the expansion for more active engagement between patrons and librarians.  The transformation of library services as a result of Web 2.0 is not limited to any one kind of library – you can see it is school libraries, public libraries, and university libraries, and large research libraries, like the Library of Congress.

One place the positive effects of 2.0 is apparent is in school libraries.  Here young researchers are able to develop new and better methods of researching and organizing their information.  As Fredrick notes, tools like Diigo, Notestar, Evernote, and Noodletools, “provide students with visual ways to store, access, and manipulate their collected information using notes, highlights, and other features” (Fredrick, 2012).  All of these programs, which allow for more organized researching and note taking also provide a means for more sustained engagement between educators and students.  Of course, like most technological advances, those students who don’t have access to computers outside of school, will be at a disadvantage.  And many of the tools can be prohibitively expensive, and the free ones are loaded with distracting advertisements.

Moving from the relatively small world of school libraries to the largest library in the United States, the Library of Congress has seen real benefits from the use of 2.0 Technology, such as Twitter, YouTube, iTunes U and Facebook.  As Raymond notes, these platforms can “increase awareness of Library collections and interest readers…develop new communication channels and new relationships…[and] reach new audiences” (Raymond, 2009).  The Library of Congress has used these tools to expand their reach to a larger audience.  This was apparent in an instructional video the Library created about Rosie the Riveter.  When it was hosted only on their website (loc.gov), the video received 20,000 views in a period of over 5 years.  However, when the video was posted to YouTube, it received 14,000 views in just 3 months (Raymond, 2009).  While clearly YouTube allows for much broader reach, one has to wonder how much this actually encourages more active engagement with the Library.  While the YouTube video indirectly increases patronage, does this encourage viewers to leave YouTube and good to loc.gov and use the Library itself?  And once there would these one-time YouTube viewers have any idea how to use this complicated library?

While these technologies are certainly spreading through many different types of libraries, there continues to be different rates of adoption, particularly between smaller, rural libraries and larger urban libraries.  As Lietzau notes, almost 60% of public libraries in the United States serve fewer than 10,000 people (Lietzau, 2009).  These libraries, because they have less financial resources than larger public libraries, are less likely to use 2.0 in any manner.  As Lietzau found in his study, only 73% of these libraries even had a website.  As many of these libraries presumably serve relatively isolated populations, they are precisely the libraries that need to adopt these new technologies.  So as more and more American citizens, and the libraries they use, are coming to depend on Web 2.0, these libraries and the populations they serve, run the risk of becoming completely disconnected.

References

Fredrick, K. (2012).  Using Web 2.0 Tools with Young Researchers. School Library Monthly, 28(6), 22-24.

Lietzau, Z. (2009, October).  U.S. Public Libraries and Web 2.0: What’s Really Happening?  Computers in Libraries, 7-10.

Raymond, M. (2009, July/August). Being Sociable: Library Wades Deeper Into Web 2.0 Waters. Library of Congress Information Bulletin, 68(7/8), 138-139.