Yesterday, Alice and I were set free from the SSL in order to attend 'First-Aid for Books' training course. It was nice to *finally* go, as we (through our acquisitions librarian) have been bugging the Bod about this for months (they were withholding supplies until we'd complete the training, before they'd actually arranged to put any on!)
In attendance were representatives from the SSL (us) the RSL, the Sackler and the Oriental Institute (2 from each.) The only other trainee there though was Adrienne from the Union, everyone else was assistants/catalogers etc. All of us were at different levels of experience, from people who only send damaged books for binding to a woman from the RSL who'd actually been to one of the old 'Alternatives to Sellotape' course a few years ago.
In general it was a great course. As well as teaching the techniques of repair, such as guarding, tipping and hinging spines (and the jargon that goes with them ;) they also told us about different types binding, the pros and cons of, and steps we could take to minimise book damage. It was all helpful knowledge, theory as well as practice, and I thought it worked well as a course.
There was one, admittedly huge, sticking point though and that came when we were told (quite early on) that paperbacks are not repairable.
The key to successful book repairs are flexibility. Flexible books are healthy books and the moment you stiffen a book, say by adding hinging tape or a large amount of paste to one page, you compromise the book's flexibility and with it, it's shelf life. This is not a hard concept to grasp, but one that hadn't really occurred to me before.
And that's great for conservators working with special collections, who are thinking long term and whose priority is to preserve the books. But for us, assistants in incredibly busy circulating libraries our priority is availability: getting the books into a usable condition and back out onto the shelves as soon as possible.
And here was where the session broke down a little
(It didn't actually break down - it lead to a very interesting discussion, with the RSL women explaining the issues to the course leader, with Alice backing up the RSL for good measure. I, being a wimp, just sat back and took mental notes, and I think the rest of the group were cowering too!)
C&C's suggestion was that when paperbacks come apart (even when one of two pages come out) they should be replaced and retired. The damage has come about because their binding (the glue holding them together) is too cheap, too old, and thus too stiff - trying to stick them back together will ultimately exasperate this problem.
But of the, say 10, books we have added to the repair pile a week, at least half will be paperbacks, almost all textbooks, ranging in cost between £10-£50 usually. That would eat up most of a yearly acquisitions budget without beginning to factor in actual acquisitions. Replacing that volume of books would be so impractical it would be impossible.
There was also a suggestion that replacement is quicker than repairs - again, this shows the huge gulf between what C&C perceive our libraries to be like, and the realities. Book ordering can take months. If book repairs take longer than a week, then there is something seriously wrong.
The debate ended amicably, with the new head of book and paper conservation concluding that if we're going to repair paperbacks, doing them properly with the right equipment, is a good way to encourage readers to treat damaged books carefully. In the interim, or for books who just can't be repaired, we were advised to tie them with cotton tape and attach notices to ask readers to be careful.
It seems that (as per) I have gone off on a bit of a rant here, but I didn't mean too. Yesterday, as the conversation was taking place, I was frustrated because of the huge discrepancy between what us in-house repairs *should* be doing (in the eyes of C&C) and what we *have* to do, to give our readers the service they require (and that is set out in our good practice standards.) In hindsight, I thought that the eventual agreement was a good one, and both sides ended up understanding each others views.
What was also great, is that we were told Virginia (new head of book + paper conservation) is planning to do alot to raise awareness of book conservation, including meeting with head librarians to discuss what should be expected of in-house repairs, and training on handling books correctly to prolong their life.
The chance to explore these issues was a great aside of this course, which would have been helpful and informative anyway. I found all the theory (binding types etc) fascination, and was pleased to find answers for all the smaller, niggling questions I've had during my time doing repairs. I'm glad the bod have decided to bring back these 'First-aid' courses, and I hope they continue to work at raising awareness with all library staff, and with readers as well, to the ins and outs of conservation.
(Moral of this blogpost - clearly there is a conservationist in me dying to get out, and if I were to stop in the library profession, that would be my area!)
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Thing 23 - Goodbyeeeeee
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)