Brian - Tools like RSS, IM and the like DO have a place in the library, but their use must be reevaluated regularly and their continuing relevance constantly examined by the web staff. I mean that we can’t invest in the web site’s tools, this would risk quick obsolescence - and a continuing silo structure. I think this follows your idea about approaching new online tools from a collection development standpoint.

I agree with you… I would summarize simply that every new service must be related to the organization’s misson and plans. If it doesn’t, it’s inappropriate.

But foregoing quality, I have long liked the idea that a library’s website should essentially be a branch library - meaning that it can serve patrons independently of the main building. By extension, then, it is absolutely necessary to staff this branch appropriately. In many cases, it seems library websites are an afterthought, or are dumped on whoever happens to have the time, the inclination, or the skills (but not necessarily all three), or are contracted out to a third-party developer who creates the website but does not maintain it. It seems that before a library website could ever hope to be and remain useful to patrons, it must be staffed like any other branch.

Also, in regards to tools like RSS, IM, etc.: jumping on the bandwagon and saying a library offers these doesn’t seem inherently useful to me - these technologies are just tools, after all, like “print” or “fax.” A library can say “we’ve got books,” but if all those books are outdated or duplicate copies, they are not a useful tool for patrons. So, rather than libraries just offering more technology tools out of peer pressure, I’d like something along the lines of Tom Boone’s goals, but that would serve as an actual collection development plan that includes not only these tools, but information sources as well.

Because, does just offering IM reference and RSS updates of events make a library website a branch library? These certainly provide for interactivity, but do they provide access to information? Someone could IM the reference desk and ask a question, which the reference librarian could then look up in a book - but that’s not a branch library, that’s a reference service. A “branch library” shouldn’t strive for patron interactivity, but patron independence (libraries should provide access to information, not access to librarians). Which would require all library tools, including the book collection and databases with At-Home access, to be available remotely (and I mean the actual full text, not just our catalog citations). Google Books is going that way, but even that still doesn’t sit well with me (pesky copyright laws).

So before we create a MySpace profile for the library (or Facebook for the academics) because it’s the hip thing to do, we need to figure out what happens next. Would kids actually contact the library through MySpace? And if they did, will we have anything to offer, or will all of our answers be “well, if you come into the library, we have a book

I certainly hope your optimism about the tech plan I’m drafting is contagious, because my library director still has to approve it. If and when she does, I’ll then have to convince the rest of our library staff to buy into the plan — without them staging a mutiny first.

But I’m in full agreement with you that a library is only as good as its online services, particularly in an academic environment where the majority of students are members of a generation that expects access to everything from anywhere at anytime. If we don’t give them that access, someone else will. Which will make us obsolete.