I came across a post this morning by Joshua Schachter, “on url shorteners“. He begins:
“URL shortening services have been around for a number of years. Their original purpose was to prevent cumbersome URLs from getting fragmented by broken email clients that felt the need to wrap everything to an 80 column screen. But it’s 2009 now, and this problem no longer exists.”
I find the last sentence to be painfully untrue. E-mail clients (and servers) still regularly cut off long URLs, especially with e-mail discussion list software, and on top of that, many folks on those lists don’t seem to get why it happens or what to do about it. “The link didn’t work!” - yeah, thanks.
It may be that Schachter never meant anyone from outside of his world to read the article, and yet there is nothing mystifying or overly technical about it. I’m now committed to shortening URLs on library sites. Everything he says makes sense, except that the author does not know what I know, or perhaps is not interested in how the other 99+% of people use the internet, or is maybe just using hyperbole. Is there some kind of digital divide going on here?
I’m not really sure why it bothers me that someone heavily involved in internet subculture would be oblivious to the cultural practices of library workers and the technological infrastructures that support public and not-for-profit institutions. But it does.
The problem I have with shorteners is that the original URL isn’t visible until the patron visits the site. So it really could be anything. Will a patron remember the site you referred them to was librariesrocksohard.com, or will they just remember the tinyurl site and get confused when they can’t find it again. Are our patrons trained enough to be wary of links that don’t clearly identify where they lead to? I can’t help but think of my technophobe friend who recently signed up for his first ever email account. Even though he’s avoided email, he has a fear of virus “attachments.” So much so that he refuses to click on links that are sent to him (which makes my job harder when he ask for personalized reference service, complete with links to sources). Is the divide getting wider, or am I alone out here?
Wow, speaking of digital divide, I just noticed that your new (nice looking!) theme uses “web site” instead of “website” in the comment form.
Anyways, I think the divide that you’re highlighting is about skills.
Usually here I’d talk about libraries being great places for “the public” to gain tech skills but Schachter’s post highlights, perhaps, a lack of design thinking skills in this case.
While I think it is still very appropriate for libraries to teach people tech skills (about, say, URL shorteners), I’m increasingly interested in librarians advocating for better, more enabling design. Like this post.