General notes and thoughts about Online Northwest 2007 (Feb 16, 2007).
Elizabeth Nielsen
OSU Libraries were well represented on both sides of the podium. I attended the keynote and 3 sessions A full program summary is available here:
http://www.ous.edu/onlinenw/2007/2007OnlineNorthwestProgramSummaries.pdf

Highlights (take-aways) of the sessions I attended:

Keynote by Stephen Abram
** added values of libraries (and librarians) is to improve the “quality of the question” and the user experience
** Google (commercial search engines) can answer “who, what, when, where” questions; libraries do best at answering “how” and “why” questions
** in academic setting, library “instruction” needs to be linked at the “lesson” level (assignment, project, or task)

Session One: Creating Online Library Tutorials with Macromedia Captivate: Process and Product (Karen Munro, UC Berkeley)
** strongly recommends flash files (*.swf) for delivery of tutorials — are seamless for user
** keep tutorials short (3 minutes max; 1 minute may be better)
** Captivate now an Adobe product
** develop tutorials that can be used for a variety of purposes (across classes, courses, or disciplines)
** adding audio doubles the development time
** storyboard each action and write script
** importance of tying tutorial to an assignment
** put tutorial at the point of need

** link to her powerpoint: http://lib.berkeley.edu/~kmunro/ONW/prez.ppt
** sample tutorial (in beta testing): http://lib.berkeley.edu/~kmunro/captivate/LCSH.swf
** link to her own “post mortem” of the session: http://karenlibrarian.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/online-northwest-post-mortem/

Session Two: Observing Student Researchers in their Native Habitat (John Law, Proquest)
nothing astounding here
** qualitative research (observing students doing research for class research project) and quantitative (survey)
** used FaceBook to place ad to solicit research participants (didn’t mention library or Proquest in ad)
** many students started their research at course website
** little evaluation of whether resource was appropriate for the specific task (used what they were familiar/comfortable with)
** strong brand recognition
** student researchers chose library resources because librarian visited class; professor required or suggested it; or brand awareness
** students use google for primary research; to supplement research (make sure they didn’t miss anything); quick reference to get background information; or to locate known resources (known websites; major newspapers; library resources)
** why students chose google for primary research: unfamiliar with library e-resources; bad experience with library (trying to search catalog for article; authentication issues; e-resources web page unclear)
** students indicated do NOT use myspace or facebook for coursework or research — might use for group projects
** once in library databases, users don’t have difficulty conducting research
** full text is prerequiste; abstracts are essential

Session Three: Digital Archiving on a Shoestring: Development of the Oregon Documents Repository (Kyle Banerjee and Arlene Weible, Oregon State Library)
presentation outline: http://library.state.or.us/onlinenw/
document repository: http://www.oregon.gov/OSL/GRES/REPOS/
** difficulty of distinguishing between publications and public records (perhaps a reason to use same repository for both)
** use MARC records for description/metadata — allow integration of description of paper/electronic document
** returning native file format not essential; most important to retain content
** not trying to preserve the experience of using the original format
** design determined by workflow