not sure how many e's there should be to make that a Blackadder reference
So, here we are at the end of our 23 things, how sad.
Back in my first post, I said I hoped 23 Things would give me a kick-up the backside with updating all my current 2.0 things: its worked with Twitter atleast. I'm enjoying using twitter to converse with the other trainees and it is a case of the more I use it, the more I use it, if you catch my drift.
Three months on, I am still using my igoogle page everyday, and expect to keep using it in future - definitely for the rest of my time at the SSL. I've learnt nifty things about things I already used, and will probably return to both flickr and picnik in future.
My favourite thing was definitely the igoogle, my least probably linkedin because I found the site deeply flawed, though the concept behind it interested me. Forcing myself to update a blog was a nice, new, experience, as was getting involved on Twitter again.
All in all, I am glad I took part in 23 Things, and look forward to applying my new found knowledge.
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Things 21 and 22
It seemed slightly odd to me, to end on widgets. I can see the reasoning behind it (as it involved using programmes/apps from throughout 23 things) but also feel it would have fitted eariler on.
I added the flickr photo stream to my blog, though it serves little point as all I have up there at the moment is pictures of super + milkman chick, and a couple of photos of thesis' (I am that cool!).
I am trailing the Delicious widget, but am not sure I will keep it. As I said whilst discussing delicious way back in thing 9, I don't use my delicious bookmarks all that often - they are an extensive library of places I want to check occasionally, and this isn't really served well by a widget.
I added the flickr photo stream to my blog, though it serves little point as all I have up there at the moment is pictures of super + milkman chick, and a couple of photos of thesis' (I am that cool!).
I am trailing the Delicious widget, but am not sure I will keep it. As I said whilst discussing delicious way back in thing 9, I don't use my delicious bookmarks all that often - they are an extensive library of places I want to check occasionally, and this isn't really served well by a widget.
Things 7 &8: Flickr and Picnik
I've been waiting to do these two things because I wanted to put aside some time to fiddle with Picnik.
Flickr is something I am familar with, since many of my unversity friends dabbled in digital photography and uploaded all their photos there. I've always seen it as something akin to photobucket, which I used in the olden days to host my livejournal headers, just more professional looking. Having played around with it, I hold to this opinion.
What I found more interesting was picnik. Back in the aforementioned olden days, I was quite keen on (though never very good at) making graphics (icons and headers mainly, though the odd banner too) for livejournal. As with most people, I started off with basics, just cropping images, and progressed to adding text, changing the colours, hues, saturations etc; I still wasn't very good. My software of choice was paint shop pro - for no reason other than my father bought it for his own use so I could steal it. I still use that software, even though I have 7 and by the looks of things the latest version is 13! I don't mind it being out-of-date because I am familiar with it and not really savvy enough to need the extra features the newer versions offer.
As I expected, picnik is a good, simpler alternative, which would be great for editing say, photos of friends.
The one thing picnik doesn't allow you to play with which I'd use, is layers. I find these are much more satisying for editing more artsy photos, and definitely for making headers/icons and other graphics. They give you much more freedom, allow much subtler and in depth changes to be made. Apparently these are available for premium users, but considering how rarely I make these kind of edits anymore, it seems silly me paying for that.
Flickr is something I am familar with, since many of my unversity friends dabbled in digital photography and uploaded all their photos there. I've always seen it as something akin to photobucket, which I used in the olden days to host my livejournal headers, just more professional looking. Having played around with it, I hold to this opinion.
What I found more interesting was picnik. Back in the aforementioned olden days, I was quite keen on (though never very good at) making graphics (icons and headers mainly, though the odd banner too) for livejournal. As with most people, I started off with basics, just cropping images, and progressed to adding text, changing the colours, hues, saturations etc; I still wasn't very good. My software of choice was paint shop pro - for no reason other than my father bought it for his own use so I could steal it. I still use that software, even though I have 7 and by the looks of things the latest version is 13! I don't mind it being out-of-date because I am familiar with it and not really savvy enough to need the extra features the newer versions offer.
As I expected, picnik is a good, simpler alternative, which would be great for editing say, photos of friends.
The one thing picnik doesn't allow you to play with which I'd use, is layers. I find these are much more satisying for editing more artsy photos, and definitely for making headers/icons and other graphics. They give you much more freedom, allow much subtler and in depth changes to be made. Apparently these are available for premium users, but considering how rarely I make these kind of edits anymore, it seems silly me paying for that.
Friday 26 March 2010
Thing 20: Thinkfree
So, in my last post I described my strong working relationship with googledocs. I wasn't sure that thnkfree would offer me anything further, but in the name of 23Things I gave it a go, and it did have a few nice features: better formatting options, a better dictionary, easier-to-work-with layout view. Basically, every complaint I had for googledocs was dealt with.
There is a big but though, because all these extra features come at a price. And that price is ease-of-use; I found the whole thing incredibly slow and clunky.
Though it's a nice touch to be able to use a pre-exsisting log in (I used my googlemail), the time it takes from the program to load is just too long. A couple of people mentioned it got quicker the more often you used it, but on my fifth use it was still taking a good few minutes to get open, and that's too long for me. When I'm all I'm doing is adding one inspired line before it flitters out of my memory, I need a 3 sec log in, not 3 minutes in which I can forget. I also found it slowed my entire browser down, so wasn't convenient to have open in the background for any great length of time.
For me, and what I'm using it for, googledocs is far superior, as I said previously, it compliments word. Thinkfree would probably be better suited for using *instead*, for doing long indepth work.
I can't comment on the use of these programs for shared work, because I've only ever used them on my own. I am sure there is a lot that can be done with them, and the premise seems strong (I've heard other trainee's mention how they are used in their own libraries, and this sounds great) but I don't have much in the way of glittering insight for them.
There is a big but though, because all these extra features come at a price. And that price is ease-of-use; I found the whole thing incredibly slow and clunky.
Though it's a nice touch to be able to use a pre-exsisting log in (I used my googlemail), the time it takes from the program to load is just too long. A couple of people mentioned it got quicker the more often you used it, but on my fifth use it was still taking a good few minutes to get open, and that's too long for me. When I'm all I'm doing is adding one inspired line before it flitters out of my memory, I need a 3 sec log in, not 3 minutes in which I can forget. I also found it slowed my entire browser down, so wasn't convenient to have open in the background for any great length of time.
For me, and what I'm using it for, googledocs is far superior, as I said previously, it compliments word. Thinkfree would probably be better suited for using *instead*, for doing long indepth work.
I can't comment on the use of these programs for shared work, because I've only ever used them on my own. I am sure there is a lot that can be done with them, and the premise seems strong (I've heard other trainee's mention how they are used in their own libraries, and this sounds great) but I don't have much in the way of glittering insight for them.
Thursday 25 March 2010
Things 19: GoogleDocs
I started using googledocs a few months ago, when I got fed-up of emailing my personal statement to myself, everytime I made a teeny update (I've been working on it during my breaks at work as well as at home). I'd heard of thinkfree, but chose to use googledocs because I already had an account (I didn't know you could use google sign on for thinkfree) and it meant I could wack a 'googledocs' gadget into my igoogle page.
I think being able to remotely store work is a great idea. As I've mentioned above, emailing a document when it's been updated by three words can be something of a pain, especially if you edit it again five minutes later. And when your making edits that small, it can occasionally become difficult to identify which is the most recent/relevant copy.
The other alternative, saving to USB, is great in theory but sticks can be forgotten, lost or corrupted and file types can be incompatible; I use word 07 at home and 03 at work, and if I save to the default file type at home (.docx) then the workPC's can't open them.
The main advantage of something like g*docs is that it's quick and easy to use. You can pop into your document at any time, make as many of few edits as you wish and move on. Ofcourse the documents still have to be backed up, as something you were using on USB would, but any edits can be added to the back-up as and when.
g*docs itself has a number of features I found helpful, beyond the idea of it as remote storage. For example the 'revision history' tool, which allows you to roll back to previously saved copy, and gives you a large number of points to choose from (it also saves for you automatically, which is good for numpties like me.)
It does have its downsides though. Despite being great for initial drafts of things, detailed proofing can be difficult. Firstly, the layout view is quite blocky, the wideness of the box can look overwhelming and messy. Secondly the formatting options are not as varied as on word, which means you can lose delicately arranged effects if you transfer from one to the other (I did a lot of copying and pasting whilst writing my statement, and everytime I lost the 'tabbed' formatting.)
Thirdly and finally, the dictionary is really basic, you can't add your own entries which can be annoying.
Obviously, all these drawbacks are to be expected: g*docs is a very basic processor. I would suggest it's best used to compliment word, not instead of, and in that way it is a very helpful, easy to use development.
I think being able to remotely store work is a great idea. As I've mentioned above, emailing a document when it's been updated by three words can be something of a pain, especially if you edit it again five minutes later. And when your making edits that small, it can occasionally become difficult to identify which is the most recent/relevant copy.
The other alternative, saving to USB, is great in theory but sticks can be forgotten, lost or corrupted and file types can be incompatible; I use word 07 at home and 03 at work, and if I save to the default file type at home (.docx) then the workPC's can't open them.
The main advantage of something like g*docs is that it's quick and easy to use. You can pop into your document at any time, make as many of few edits as you wish and move on. Ofcourse the documents still have to be backed up, as something you were using on USB would, but any edits can be added to the back-up as and when.
g*docs itself has a number of features I found helpful, beyond the idea of it as remote storage. For example the 'revision history' tool, which allows you to roll back to previously saved copy, and gives you a large number of points to choose from (it also saves for you automatically, which is good for numpties like me.)
It does have its downsides though. Despite being great for initial drafts of things, detailed proofing can be difficult. Firstly, the layout view is quite blocky, the wideness of the box can look overwhelming and messy. Secondly the formatting options are not as varied as on word, which means you can lose delicately arranged effects if you transfer from one to the other (I did a lot of copying and pasting whilst writing my statement, and everytime I lost the 'tabbed' formatting.)
Thirdly and finally, the dictionary is really basic, you can't add your own entries which can be annoying.
Obviously, all these drawbacks are to be expected: g*docs is a very basic processor. I would suggest it's best used to compliment word, not instead of, and in that way it is a very helpful, easy to use development.
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Thing 17&18 - Wikis
My experience with wikis is somewhat limited.
A couple of months ago, I signed up for a PBWorks account, so I could add my name to the 'Library Day in a Life' list, and when I was much younger I had a mini-meltdown at an incorrect hobbit fact on wikipedia which I rectified, but this is as far as its gone. I use wikipedia all the time, it's up there with IMDB in my favourite sites for 'random facts I must check *now*' but as with everything I use online - I am a bystander not a participator.
For Thing 17 I did have a look round the socialouls.wetpaint, though I didn't edit anything because I couldn't find anything that needed it. I looked at the information they had on wikis, librarything and a couple of oxford case studies. All very interesting, all seemed correct.
Though I don't make huge use of wikis, I believe they can be incredibly useful things to have. A couple of weeks ago, Jess, Helen and Laura gave a presentation on them for a trainee session, and they really opened my eyes to how helpful they can be (and are in both the EFL and the Law Library): go here to read Helen's post on how law makes use of them.
A couple of months ago, I signed up for a PBWorks account, so I could add my name to the 'Library Day in a Life' list, and when I was much younger I had a mini-meltdown at an incorrect hobbit fact on wikipedia which I rectified, but this is as far as its gone. I use wikipedia all the time, it's up there with IMDB in my favourite sites for 'random facts I must check *now*' but as with everything I use online - I am a bystander not a participator.
For Thing 17 I did have a look round the socialouls.wetpaint, though I didn't edit anything because I couldn't find anything that needed it. I looked at the information they had on wikis, librarything and a couple of oxford case studies. All very interesting, all seemed correct.
Though I don't make huge use of wikis, I believe they can be incredibly useful things to have. A couple of weeks ago, Jess, Helen and Laura gave a presentation on them for a trainee session, and they really opened my eyes to how helpful they can be (and are in both the EFL and the Law Library): go here to read Helen's post on how law makes use of them.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
Thing 15+16 Twitter
I am a strange internet person. Its not that I'm antisocial, because I read other peoples output, I just don't often give back. I have my ancient old livejournal, which I haven't updated in about a year but I still check my flist every day. I check facebook equally often, but barely speak to anyone, and I am forever appearing offline on msn (though I frequently strike up conversations with other people anyway).
Having read my blog you can probably guess why - I am the most long-winded and stupid 'post-er' ever. I take hours to compose as much as a facebook status, and then have to think it over 15 times before posting. It makes these things tedious and irritating and so I happily nosey about other peoples lives without sharing much of my own (so - less anti-social and more sociopathic?)
I am the same with Twitter. I've had my account for a year, I've got tweetdeck at home and a twitter gadget on my igoogle page, and yet I have only ever made 120 tweets, most of which were @people, arranging things, and atleast a quarter were in the last fortnight since, thanks to 23things, the trainee twitterverse somewhat exploded!
But I do like twitter. My favourite part of facebook is status updates, so Twitter works for me on a theoretical level. That I am fussy and useless with my own updating doesn't mean that I don't read other peoples, and enjoy it as a lazy way to keep up with people. It's also great, and incredibly weird, for the whole 'looking into celeb lives'. In particular, I have recently been stalking various skins cast members to try and find out if they were brainwashed into acting the last series, or genuinely thought it was a good idea. The addictive nature of twitter has caught a lot of *figures in the public eye's* attention, and somehow it seems less weird than going through someone's facebook (where there's pictures, a lot more detail on their lives etc)
I don't follow a huge amount of celebrities though, because I genuinely don't care what Stephen Fry or Mr Pickle are eating (As a listener of Jonathon Ross' radio show, I do know who Mr Pickle is, but I always listen again or podcast, and that way - if he gets too detailed about his dogs toilet habits and every other tiny fact he reports, I can just skip ahead.) My one main requisite to follow someone is that however frequently (or infrequently) they tweet, at least 75% of it is interesting or funny (and this goes for friends aswell!)
So, as a social networking tool, twitter gets my vote; in a library situation I am not so sure. It can be used for the same effect as a facebook page, but the 140 character limit is somewhat....well limiting...because its hard to convey any *real* information in that space. You have to link to somewhere else to give the full information, and that kind of renders the idea pointless for me. I would much rather have all the information in one place, as can be done through facebook.
Having read my blog you can probably guess why - I am the most long-winded and stupid 'post-er' ever. I take hours to compose as much as a facebook status, and then have to think it over 15 times before posting. It makes these things tedious and irritating and so I happily nosey about other peoples lives without sharing much of my own (so - less anti-social and more sociopathic?)
I am the same with Twitter. I've had my account for a year, I've got tweetdeck at home and a twitter gadget on my igoogle page, and yet I have only ever made 120 tweets, most of which were @people, arranging things, and atleast a quarter were in the last fortnight since, thanks to 23things, the trainee twitterverse somewhat exploded!
But I do like twitter. My favourite part of facebook is status updates, so Twitter works for me on a theoretical level. That I am fussy and useless with my own updating doesn't mean that I don't read other peoples, and enjoy it as a lazy way to keep up with people. It's also great, and incredibly weird, for the whole 'looking into celeb lives'. In particular, I have recently been stalking various skins cast members to try and find out if they were brainwashed into acting the last series, or genuinely thought it was a good idea. The addictive nature of twitter has caught a lot of *figures in the public eye's* attention, and somehow it seems less weird than going through someone's facebook (where there's pictures, a lot more detail on their lives etc)
I don't follow a huge amount of celebrities though, because I genuinely don't care what Stephen Fry or Mr Pickle are eating (As a listener of Jonathon Ross' radio show, I do know who Mr Pickle is, but I always listen again or podcast, and that way - if he gets too detailed about his dogs toilet habits and every other tiny fact he reports, I can just skip ahead.) My one main requisite to follow someone is that however frequently (or infrequently) they tweet, at least 75% of it is interesting or funny (and this goes for friends aswell!)
So, as a social networking tool, twitter gets my vote; in a library situation I am not so sure. It can be used for the same effect as a facebook page, but the 140 character limit is somewhat....well limiting...because its hard to convey any *real* information in that space. You have to link to somewhere else to give the full information, and that kind of renders the idea pointless for me. I would much rather have all the information in one place, as can be done through facebook.
Thing 14 Linked In
Linked in was the only thing on 23 things that, not only was I not already a part of, but hadn't even come across and, after my time playing around with it, I can see why.
I can see the point of it, just like I see the point of uploading a CV to somewhere like monster - if you've got a big impressive work history, your job is reliant on who you know (which lets face it, most are) and your are on the hunt for something particular. But I'm not. I know what I want to do, know how to get there, and know that using a site like linked in is going to be very little help.
A couple of fellow trainees have offered opinions about it being hard to navigate because, as with all these things, the users define the company names and not everyone agrees. I've only just realised that the reason I coudn't find anyone who shared my workplace is because everyone else was putting the Uni and I put the library service.
I imagine for the 'creating a network' idea to work, I'd need to put a lot of work in, going out to find people because I don't know that many would come find me. It's popular, but it's not that huge (afterall I hadn't heard of it and I spend far too much time on the internet).
Overall I was completely underwhelmed by Linkedin. At first I thought it was just me, but I've seen other people now who feel the same, which has cemented my opinion that - for me atleast - it would be a waste of time completing my profile.
I can see the point of it, just like I see the point of uploading a CV to somewhere like monster - if you've got a big impressive work history, your job is reliant on who you know (which lets face it, most are) and your are on the hunt for something particular. But I'm not. I know what I want to do, know how to get there, and know that using a site like linked in is going to be very little help.
A couple of fellow trainees have offered opinions about it being hard to navigate because, as with all these things, the users define the company names and not everyone agrees. I've only just realised that the reason I coudn't find anyone who shared my workplace is because everyone else was putting the Uni and I put the library service.
I imagine for the 'creating a network' idea to work, I'd need to put a lot of work in, going out to find people because I don't know that many would come find me. It's popular, but it's not that huge (afterall I hadn't heard of it and I spend far too much time on the internet).
Overall I was completely underwhelmed by Linkedin. At first I thought it was just me, but I've seen other people now who feel the same, which has cemented my opinion that - for me atleast - it would be a waste of time completing my profile.
Monday 8 March 2010
Thing 13: Facebook
Ah facebook, the procastinators heaven. There is no important deadline that cannot be ignored for an hour whilst you look through the photos of someone you haven't spoken to in nine years or send messages to someone in the next room, who you saw five minutes ago and will see again in another ten (you're all doing it, I'm just saying it!)
Of course it serves a further purpose beyond being a helpful tool for the seasoned stalker. 'Fan pages' and communities are a great way for places to advertise services or events. In the past I've been a 'fan' of a number of bars/societies and used facebook to keep upto date with their goings on.
The main problem people seem to have with libraries using facebook is the intrusion of 'work' into 'social'. Whilst I can understand this theory, and why people would thus chose not to follow a library facebook, I don't think that is a reason for not having one.
I am a forgetful, and frankly slightly dumb, person and I never think to check websites regularly for updates. Take for instance, the Sunday Times festival - the dates are marked in my diary, when I realised in December that I would want to go, but I'd completely forgotten that it was this month until a brochure turned up on my doorstep. At which point it all came flooding back and much excitement ensued. Same goes for Hay - I get very excited when I think of it occasionally, but if I wasn't on the mailing list I would never remember at the right time, and would miss the tickets for all the fun things.
Facebook is just another form of outreach, and one we *know* most students use. Whilst few libraries have enough news constantly occuring that something like a mailing list would be called for, I think alot - both academic and public - would have enough to make a facebook page worthwhile.
The EFL (of whom I am a fan) use facebook for advertising and I think that's great. Things like the Tolkien exhibition, which Jess will have mentioned and I will have promptly forgotten, are there on my facebook feed, waving at me, inviting me across and that sticks in my mind (not that I could go as they close before I finish work but the point stands.)
I, personally, would 'fan' any venue which regularly put events on that interested me, be it a club with theme nights or a society with events - even a public library which put on readings or something. And, to me, this suggests that facebook is a valuable library tool.
(okay, that was a bit ranty wasn't it?)
Of course it serves a further purpose beyond being a helpful tool for the seasoned stalker. 'Fan pages' and communities are a great way for places to advertise services or events. In the past I've been a 'fan' of a number of bars/societies and used facebook to keep upto date with their goings on.
The main problem people seem to have with libraries using facebook is the intrusion of 'work' into 'social'. Whilst I can understand this theory, and why people would thus chose not to follow a library facebook, I don't think that is a reason for not having one.
I am a forgetful, and frankly slightly dumb, person and I never think to check websites regularly for updates. Take for instance, the Sunday Times festival - the dates are marked in my diary, when I realised in December that I would want to go, but I'd completely forgotten that it was this month until a brochure turned up on my doorstep. At which point it all came flooding back and much excitement ensued. Same goes for Hay - I get very excited when I think of it occasionally, but if I wasn't on the mailing list I would never remember at the right time, and would miss the tickets for all the fun things.
Facebook is just another form of outreach, and one we *know* most students use. Whilst few libraries have enough news constantly occuring that something like a mailing list would be called for, I think alot - both academic and public - would have enough to make a facebook page worthwhile.
The EFL (of whom I am a fan) use facebook for advertising and I think that's great. Things like the Tolkien exhibition, which Jess will have mentioned and I will have promptly forgotten, are there on my facebook feed, waving at me, inviting me across and that sticks in my mind (not that I could go as they close before I finish work but the point stands.)
I, personally, would 'fan' any venue which regularly put events on that interested me, be it a club with theme nights or a society with events - even a public library which put on readings or something. And, to me, this suggests that facebook is a valuable library tool.
(okay, that was a bit ranty wasn't it?)
Thursday 4 March 2010
Thing 12: Youtube
Youtube is definitely one of the best things about the internet, without question. I could live without the lazy social interaction, the easy to come-by reading material, even the publishing space, but if I couldn't spend a random day watching the entire series of a dodgy kids television show I haven't thought about in ten years, I don't know how I would could cope (or chase down every weird and wonderful music video from my teenage years, or old spice girl interviews, or cats falling off things....) To this end, I have a youtube account, complete with playlists, favourites and subscriptions.
I had seen educational youtube channels before (I somehow stumbled across the Nottingham one and then started searching) but I had never really thought to explore them. I think the idea of them is great, though I didn't actually find any I found that interesting personally. I don't know that it is as well publicised as it should be, seeing as I stumbled across it accidently and i've noticed a couple of people on 23 Things hadn't heard of it at all.
And now I will leave you with one of my all-time favourite music videos, starring the wonderful Christopher Eccleston and...well....nothing else.
I had seen educational youtube channels before (I somehow stumbled across the Nottingham one and then started searching) but I had never really thought to explore them. I think the idea of them is great, though I didn't actually find any I found that interesting personally. I don't know that it is as well publicised as it should be, seeing as I stumbled across it accidently and i've noticed a couple of people on 23 Things hadn't heard of it at all.
And now I will leave you with one of my all-time favourite music videos, starring the wonderful Christopher Eccleston and...well....nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)