LiveContent 2 0
Contents
LiveContent v2.0 - Libraries
Rationale
Technical Considerations
Additions/Revisions
library specific concerns
- public libraries vs academic libraries - public libraries have less resources, less staff time to examine new products and test out - at the same time FOSS might most benefit small public libraries, especially rural
- academic libraries are often equipped for more research, and might be better geared towards having the resources for testing and future development
- what kinds of agreements do libraries have with software providers now, if any?
- make the cds very intuitive, well-labeled, good supporting documentation - fedora has a lot of good documentation, +/- of liveCD
- will we only make spins for i386? - probably the architecture of most library terminal machines, unless some use older macs - ppc
- how do we distribute without spamming?
- will libraries trust what we send to them?
- will libraries notice it or have time to look at it?
- less to do with the software and more to do with presentation and documentation
- focus on low income areas, rural?
- will CC put on material that covers all the different licenses? or least restrictive? - attribution only
- different libraries have different budgets which allow for a vast range in hardware and training
- The mailing will have a mail back questionaire asking did they install software and other general questions. - rethink this idea due to spamming/response issues? - think about other ways to gather feedback
- what about adding the CDs to library collections? - might be a good way for people to install or use at home, but doesn't align too well with the applications and content becoming obsolete
- accessibility
What is the current landscape for library computing?
- at San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) main branch, there are two types of computer terminals:
- those that are used solely for card catalog lookup - no other features provided
- those where patrons can access the internet (via internet explorer) and use the Microsoft Office 2003 suite (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) - there are no other applications that are accessible through the tailored, limited-view interface
Distribution Options
We will investigate options for getting the CDs into the hands of the libraries we wish to target. While we wish to provide a quality LiveContent CD to the most libraries we can, we realize that mass mailing may not be the best way to accomplish this distribution goal, especially since this may be considered a type of spamming. Ideas other than mailing include hosting the contents online and doing outreach to libraries and other interested parties through a widespread press release, listservs, hand out at events, or get an in through professional organizations like the American Library Association.
While we are working towards a deliverable LiveContent CD by August 8, further exploration of a dynamic, automated system should be examined. This type of system could be automated to pull updated content from various sources , current application versions and OS patches and build a CD extremely easily. In this way, users could download the most current build at any time.
During development, we hope to provide preliminary builds and demos that we can send to various organization and libraries so that they can review the LiveContent CD and provide input for further development. Later reviews hopefully will be published in numerous ALA publications. Reviews could be sent with the CD in the mailing so that there is neutral positive influence behind the CD.
