Here are some thoughts on the Hyperlinked Libraries course (at SJSU). I was already on board with participatory design when I began; I had previously worked as a web designer for an academic library where I tried to incorporate patron input through exercises like regular web usability testing, which was really eye-opening. Search is hard to design, and it’s made even harder by navigating link resolvers and database access restrictions.
I’m old enough to remember the early web and the utopian visions of hyperlinked communities challenging power structures, so I was already aligned with much of the course content. What proved more difficult for me was internalizing the ideas around technolust and scaling solutions down to available resources. I tend to think a little too big—what if libraries could band together to make universal open access a reality?—but the truth is that reputation in journals is really valuable.
I want to see libraries be open labs for community, but also have unlimited budgets. It can be difficult for me to scale down my visions, and this course was helpful in that respect. Every technology presents new affordances, but they only matter if they make a difference in the lives of patrons. I’m prone to overestimating the positive impact of technology; my feeling is always there’s a magical design out there somewhere which leverages these affordances to generate absurd value nobody envisioned before, and I want to be on that team. But planning is hard, strategy is hard, and I struggled with the assignments pushing us to commit to those things.
My background is in philosophy, and it’s much easier to critique someone else’s theory than come up with your own. Articulating lofty ideals and writing them down suddenly reveals how little we really know. How will users use this? Will it make sense to them? The only way to find out is to involve them in the design process, but letting that first idea go is hard—it’s obviously the best one, right?—but so often it just doesn’t survive contact with real users. There’s sometimes a disconnect between designers and what library users really need; we tend to want to shake things up for its own sake, increasing cognitive load without addressing user needs. Patrons want us to use the channels they already rely on, even if those are hopelessly passé for a designer. Facebook might not be the new hot thing anymore, but if that’s where we can interact with patrons, then that’s where we should be.
Honestly, it’s hard to let go of those preferences. But it goes back to the design adage: we are not our users. Another shift for me was evaluating AI in the present moment. I’ve been stuck between hype and skepticism, seeing both sides. Sitting down with arguments and evidence made me more critical of AI as a technology—there is real value there, but the downsides are numerous and run deep.
For information science, completing the e-portfolio this semester prompted reflection on an assignment where I used ChatGPT to summarize book descriptions. I was embarrassed in retrospect, even though the professor encouraged exploration. For the inspiration report, I attempted generative AI for images, but found them soulless. At this point, I’m not sure that AI has ever saved me time, despite exploring local models. The evidence falls pretty short of promised value, and academic libraries are in a strange place as universities—including San Jose State—have gone all in on AI.
Ultimately, this course may be about reflecting on value. I’m naturally skeptical of the utilitarian market economist view of value—quantified in dollars or library assessment metrics—but despite that skepticism, I’m prone to adopting it because it is so visible and we are steeped in market ideology. We need something to justify our existence. But this course effectively makes the point that some things really are incommensurable: the joy we bring patrons, the information we provide to help them make difficult decisions, or even providing the next season of their favorite show—these things are ultimately so much more than what shows up in usage statistics.
It was enjoyable chatting and commenting with all of you, seeing your work, and I want to thank everyone for reading my contributions and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, folks.