Skype and the USO

Here's an article about Skype's partnership with the USO to help military families and their relatives overseas stay in touch. It seemed appropriate for the holidays.

http://www.military.com/news/article/skype-and-uso-connect-military-families-for-holidays.html

It also made me think about a recent Skype call with a friend serving in the Army in Iraq. Randomly one night, he sent me an IM via Skype. I figured he was still in Fort Leavenworth or back home in California, but it turned out he was in Baghdad. We later switched to video chat, and it was really great to catch up with him. Although his computer in the rec room at his US Army base didn't have a working camera, the quality of the audio was perfect. Baghdad is only one hour ahead of France, which I call often, but it was still trippy for me to think that I was talking to somebody starting his day at an Army base in Iraq. I hope that my friend felt the same way. Seeing his Skype login icon every now and then reassures me that he's safe.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Library Anxiety

Annotation #8

Atlas, M.C. (2005). Library anxiety in the electronic era, or why won't anybody talk to me anymore. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(4), 314-319.

This article, subtitled "One Librarian's Rant" ends with the statement "And the bottom line on library anxiety--get over it!" (p. 319) Atlas makes the case for mutual responsibility between patrons and librarians to minimize the perception of librarians as busy, intimidating, and judgmental. Despite Atlas' flippant tone, she presents a concise review of the existing literature on library anxiety, a term coined in 1986 by Mellon referring to "a feeling that one's library skills are inadequate...and that one's inadequacy is revealed by asking questions" (p. 315).

While Atlas' ultimate goal is to bring patrons into the library and up to the reference desk, she mentions how virtual reference services "help patrons avoid the fear factor." Atlas refers to the increase in virtual reference as "librarians themselves are becoming one with the Web" and implies indirectly that this is a good thing (p. 315).

This idea has implications for Skype reference. With services like IM and email now becoming mainstream in many libraries, Skype might be a good next step in combating library anxiety. For example, ESL students are one group in particular who may feel anxious or embarrassed about approach a librarian due to negative self-perception of their language abilities. I know from personal experience at College Library that reference chats are increasing and that a significant portion come from non-native English speakers. Atlas also mentions a study that showed med school students ask for help less frequently than other patrons--despite needing to do lots of complex research-- perhaps because of rampant perfectionism among med school students. Virtual reference lends a layer of anonymity that can lessen library anxiety and the perceived stigma attached to asking for help.

I've theorized in other posts that Skype seems to work best for personal communication or in a language learning setting. As we've seen with the University of Nebraska and University of Ohio libraries, attempts to use Skype for reference have been mixed. What if the "freak factor" Char Booth mentions of students seeing a "librarian in a box" adds to the "fear factor" of approaching a real librarian? Will older or technophobic patrons be alienated by Skype reference?

Answering my own question, I think that as long as regular reference services are maintained, there's no reason for virtual reference to present a barrier for patrons who are less comfortable using technology.

Unlike IM and email, Skype is face-to-face or at least voice-to-voice chat. This might be even more awkward and intimidating for some patrons than approaching a reference librarian in person. In some ways, a Skype call is more intimate than a traditional in-person reference interview...you're watching a person think, surf the web, ignore you, multitask, and most bizarrely, you're watching them watch themselves. The effect of being on camera fundamentally changes how people act. They might become more self-conscious, especially if new to Skype.

On the other hand, Skype offers flexibility. One or both participants can turn off their video but maintain voice communication. Another benefit of Skype is the screen-sharing feature, a clear advantage over traditional instant messaging. In screen-share mode, the video image of the caller doesn't show up, and instead the librarian's mousing can be shown to the patron. This could prevent the caller from getting too distracted/embarrassed by their own video image.

To sum up, it remains to be seen whether Skype will exacerbate or alleviate patrons' library anxiety. More large-scale tests like those at Ohio University and very recently at MATC (Madison Area Technical College) are needed.

Skype and Security

There was much skepticism when Skype was first launched as to how secure the person-to-person calls using the VoIP were. For this post, I read a rather technical article about Skype's security protocols.

Annotation #7

Berson, T. (2005). Skype security evaluation. Anagram Laboratories. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:AU_InIsjOOcJ:scholar.google.com/+skype&hl=en

According to Tom Berson's website http://www.anagram.com/, he's a professional cryptographer who is now working with Skype to test their product, independently, for security flaws.

Here are some juicy, less technical tidbits from his lengthy report:

• "I started as a skeptic. I thought the system would be easy to defeat. However, my confidence in Skype grows daily. The more I find out about it, the more I like it." (p. 11)
  

• "The code implementing the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA-1), is beautiful and tight." (p. 7)
  

• "The designers of Skype did not hesitate to employ cryptography widely and well in order to establish a foundation of trust, authenticity, and confidentiality for their peer-to-peer services. The implementers of Skype implemented the cryptographic functions correctly and efficiently." (p. 11)
  

Berson explains in detail several tests he ran on Skype including "password guessing," "replay attack," and "Man in the Middle Attack." A replay attack is when a hacker tries to access Skype information using previously recorded data from an older session/call. A Man in the Middle Attack is when a hacker tries to impersonate the caller or the callee, logging on at the same time as them, to intercept their communication. In most cases, neither Skype user would know that this eavesdropping was occurring.

To me, this eavesdropping attack is the most frightening. When we pick up a phone, we are reasonably sure that there are government protections against eavesdropping, spying, etc. (Although in the Bush administration, domestic spying was found to have occurred frequently, without warrants, against innocent Americans). Following my previous theory that people treat Skype as the "telephone of the future," users expect the same degree of confidentiality and privacy with a VoIP call as with a landline or cellphone call.

After running his tests, Berson found that Skype has good protections in place to prevent common attacks like password guessing and eavesdropping. In Berson's final analysis: "The confidentiality of a Skype session is far greater than that offered by a wired or wireless telephone call or by email and email attachments." (p. 11)

Does this reassure me? Not completely, but it's a good start. If anything, the above sentence makes me reconsider the security of email! I have no reason to believe that Berson is in Skype's pocket; however, I have equally little proof that he is the independent cryptographer he claims to be. Additionally, this security test was conducted in 2005, at the dawn of Skype's popularity, possibly making it out-dated. I was not able to find a more current analysis of this kind.

Skype itself has fairly detailed yet easy-to-read privacy and security policies and FAQs, which can be found at: http://www.skype.com/intl/en/legal/privacy/general/. Berson's 2005 analysis does seem consistent with Skype's current policies. Berson highlights several aspects of Skype's Security Policy which go a little further towards reassuring me that my Skype calls are secure:

1. Skype usernames are unique.
2. Users or applications must present a Skype username and its associated authentication credential (e.g., password) before they exercise that username’s identity or privileges.
3. Each peer correctly provides the other with proof of its username and privileges whenever a Skype session is established. Each verifies the other’s proof before the session is allowed carry messages (e.g., voice, video, files, or text).
4. Messages transmitted through a Skype session are encrypted from Skype-end to Skype-end. No intermediary node, if any exist, has access to the meaning of these messages.

Moving from security and into privacy of personal information, Skype's policy, taken from their website, seems fairly vague:

"Skype may disclose personal information to respond to legal requirements, to protect Skype and eBay Group’s interests, to enforce our policies or to protect anyone's rights, property, or safety.

Skype may share your information with the eBay Group for certain purposes, and in particular insofar as necessary to (1) provide and invoice certain joint services (such as registration, transactions and customer support); (2) organise marketing or promotional operations, contests, games and similar events; and (3) fight against fraud." http://www.skype.com/intl/en/legal/privacy/general/#8v

I am taken aback by the statement that Skype might disclose your personal information to protect their own interests, although I'm not at all surprised that they might use your information to organize marketing events. "To protect Skype and eBay Group's interests" is rather ill-defined. What if it's in their interest to sell your Skypename to video-telemarketers? Or worse, to a government agency that has not yet produced a warrant to eavesdrop on you? This portion of the policy at least (in contrast to a sections on online safety and protecting yourself against fraud) seem designed to protect Skype's reputation rather than customer privacy.

Language Learning in Tandem

Annotation #6

Elia, A. (2006). Language learning in tandem via Skype. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 6(3), 269-280.

Antonella Elia illustrates how audio and networking tools have developed over time to connect language learners of different cultures: from cassettes, CD-Roms, and pen pals, to email, instant messaging, and now Skype.

Tandem Face-to-Face language learning refers to a pedagogical practice of pairing two students who are learning each other's mother tongue so that they can learn from each other. Elia claims that: "The aim of a digital tandem exchange via Skype is to put into practice a model for learner autonomy such as that advocated by Holec (1981), where the subject to self-develop the capacity for directing personal learning during the language acquisition process is offered."

This use of Skype appears valid to me. Compared to video reference which is still emerging and has yet to take off, language learning and Skype seem like a more natural fit. The concept of pairing language learners is not new. What's more, Elia makes a strong case for Skype's worldwide popularity. She cites some statistics I had not come across before in my research. In 2006, Skype was "twice the size of Yahoo! (26 million registered) and over six times that of AOL. In just two years, it has seen over 150 million downloads in 225 countries and over 51 million people registered to use Skype's free services."

I think Skype's global popularity make it particularly well-positioned to be a cross-cultural learning tool, although MSN Windows Live probably has more universal popularity since it comes with Windows. As Elia rightly points out, Skype's advantage is that it functions on all 3 major operating systems and has a user-friendly interface that does not intimidate less "techy" users.

Elia also touches on peripheral services, not officially sponsored by Skype, that have developed including Mixxer and Skypecasting. Mixxer is a website/database that matches language learners with partners across the world using Skypenames. This service still exists in 2009: http://www.language-exchanges.org/

Skypecasting refers to a growing trend of people recording themselves via Skype and turning their recordings into podcasts that are "broadcast" to other Skype users using Skype's peer-to-peer file sharing features.

While these peripheral uses continue to develop, I'm skeptical about their overall popularity. There does not seem to be a significant "Skype community" in the way of Facebook, Twitter, or Yahoo chatrooms. If anything, Skype is a modification of the telephone, combining texting and calling, rather than a platform for debate or a discussion forum. Most users are not meeting new people on Skype. They're talking to friends, family, or colleagues who are physically distant.

This is why Elia's article on pairing language learners is interesting. It illustrates how Skype can be used to make new social connections that still adhere to traditionally acceptable methods of social interaction. Having a Skype language learning buddy is essentially no different than having a pen pal, and the interaction is legitimized by a classroom setting. "New" acquaintances are pre-screened by either a language teacher or a site like Mixxer, offering a sense of security and comfort.

As with any online matching service or communication software, privacy and safety are concerns. Elia does not discuss whether Mixxer has been (mis)used to make connections of a less educational nature or whether Mixxer has put standards in place to prevent the misuse of its site.

Speaking of security and anonymity, Skype itself offers users the ability to go into "Skype Me" mode which makes you visible to all Skype users (as opposed to the regular "available" status where only your pre-approved contacts can see you're online). I've had friends receive "Skype me" messages, mostly IM rather than voice calls, from strangers in foreign countries who are using Skype as an open chatroom, looking for cybersex. Mixxer seeks to avoid this unsavory aspect, so I can see its appeal to language teachers.

Likewise, I assume most Skype users take for granted that their calls are confidential and are not being recorded. In fact, we don't always know that this is the case. In my next post, I'll discuss Skype's level of security and try to decipher some articles written by professional cryptographers who attempt to hack Skype in order to test its defenses.

Oprah and Skype

Annotation #5

In this post, I'll review the following resources that focus on Oprah's endorsement of Skype. I hope that by bringing these different sources together, I'll get a better look at how much Skype has penetrated the popular culture.

1. Segerstrom, J. (2008). Can u Skype me be 4 noon? Information Searcher, 17(4), 1-3.

2. Pepitone, J. (2009). Oprah's skypefest draws backlash. CNNMoney.com. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/20/technology/oprah_skype/index.htm.

3. Wolff, P. (2009). Why Oprah's Skype day was ineffective: Tone and Skype. Skype Journal. Retrieved from http://www.skypejournal.com/2009/05/why-oprah-skype-day-was-ineffective.html

As Skype's most famous celebrity endorser, Oprah has been using Skype since 2007, when Skype added high quality video conferencing abilities. (Skype added regular video conferencing to its service in 2005).

According to Jan Segerstrom (2008) Skype did not attract much popularity in America despite its introduction of videotelephony in 2005, “[h]owever, the adding of high quality video conferencing capabilities in 2007 coupled with Oprah Winfrey's 'A New Earth: Ready to Be Awakened' webcast on March 3, 2008 certainly has!” In this episode, Oprah gave pre-selected viewers a webcam and dual-processor computer so they could make a video call from their computers to Oprah's webcam.

"The worldwide webcast solicited questions from an online classroom of 750,000 registrants representing 139 countries. Although the webcast didn't go so well from a technological standpoint, more than 500,000 people simultaneously logged on to watch Oprah Winfrey and Eckhart Tolle discuss his book, A New Earth.” (Segerstrom 2008)

On May 21, 2009, Oprah aired an entire episode devoted to Skype called "Where the Skype Are You?” Doing a quick Google search, I discovered that Skype reviewers and Oprah fans in the blogosphere were quick to call this episode a failure. CNNMoney.com explains that Oprah and Skype have a sponsorship agreement. Since March 2008, many guests and Oprah's Book Club members have appeared on the show “live via Skype.”

Don Albert, the vice president of Skype (then owned by eBay) said: “We are a sponsor of the show, but the partnership started and has evolved out of [Oprah's] interest.” Albert refused to make a statement to CNN about whether Oprah's endorsement directly affected Skype's profits, but he did state “last-quarter results for Skype showed really robust growth.” (Pepitone 2009).

CNNMoney.com also discusses a backlash from Oprah fans against Skype. Message boards on Oprah's website frequently complain about 1) the poor sound and picture quality of Skype segments and 2) her constant promotion of Skype.

Phil Wolff who writes for the independent review blog Skype Journal had this to say about Oprah's “Where the Skype Are You?” program:

“This episode must have looked great on paper. Skype reinforces several Oprah themes: Surviving tough economic times by using free or cheaper tools. The importance of family and communication. That we live in a connected world and affect each other. Sadly, Oprah's regulars already knew the Skype basics, having seen dozens of guest appearances over Skype. Skype day became a "best of" show; not the most exciting format.” (Wolff 2009)

Wolff also feels the tone of the episode resembled an infomercial. He goes on to discuss problems with celebrities/mass marketers using Skype to interact with millions of fans, comparing Skype to Twitter (which Oprah also uses). Wolff's opinion piece concentrates on technical issues-- such as bandwidth shortage and the difficulty of accepting and organizing thousands of contacts en masse-- that prevent Skype from becoming an online community in the style of Twitter and Facebook.

I find Wolff's focus on the technology glosses over a larger issue. Unlike MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook, Skype is currently being used mostly for private conversations or conference calls and business meetings, not for mass fandom or self-promotion. Wolf seems to assume that Skype wants to and should find ways to expand in that direction. His suggestions for enhancing the Skype-user's ability to approve and call large numbers of contacts at once seems to lead us down a path towards video-telemarketing.

This makes me wonder whether one day we will see telemarketing via Skype, provided Skype becomes mainstream. The mixed responses to Oprah's endorsement raise doubts about its mass acceptance. On the other hand, Oprah is on the way to making Skype a household name. Other shows like Ellen, Jimmy Fallon, and even news programs are starting to used Skype to bring in guests as well. For now, Skype is without a doubt a Web 2.0 communication and networking tool, but it is not yet a “Fan 2.0” tool. I think that's probably a good thing. Given the history of telecommunications in the US, however, I would bet that if Skype becomes universally popular, we will start to see more creative telemarketing schemes that exploit it.

Developing Skype-based reference services or Ohio University #2

Annotation #4

Booth, C. (2008). Developing skype-based reference services. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(2), 147-165.

This is a follow up to Char Booth's first article about the use of Skype at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. In this article, Booth discusses changes made to improve the Skype kiosk service at the 'underserved' outpost library. The kiosk was moved near the main entrance of the library in a higher traffic area and "Librarian in a Box" signage was used to differentiate the station from regular public use computer terminals. The kiosk became a feature of campus tours. Booth reports that despite increased use of the service, the kiosk model was still not utilized as frequently as the librarians had hoped and was undergoing a final evaluation.

The appendix includes a list of sample reference statistics and the librarians' impressions of how the reference interview went. Comments ranged from "This is an amazing service!" to "Thanks, computer!" It seems some patrons didn't understand that a real librarian was on the other end. Other patrons adjusted quickly to the format of the interview. Instants of "tampering" and nervousness seemed to decrease over time, even over the course of one interview. Largely, the reference questions asked using Skype were directional in nature.

Booth also discusses the implementation of Skype a Librarian, which had not yet begun when the first article was published. This service is advertised on the Ask a Librarian page and seems to be more successful than the Skype kiosk. Patrons can use Skype from their own PCs. Interestingly, librarians at Ohio University found they had to treat Skype video reference interactions more like phone reference than IM or chat reference. This surprised me at first, since we generally think of all Web 2.0 services as being flashy and new-wave, when sometimes they more closely resemble "older" forms of communication. It makes sense, with a second glance, that Skype video/audio chats would more closely mirror phone reference because the librarian feels a more personal connection to the patron and has to treat their question exclusively and in speedier manner. Again, some of the perceived disadvantages of IM might be considered advantages. Patron anonymity and the ability to handle multiple reference questions at once might be advantages of chat over video reference.

The OU librarians also found that most people using Skype a Librarian used the audio-only mode and chose not to show their video to the librarian. The librarian's video was always displayed. I haven't found any literature exploring this issue of privacy in relation to video reference, but I would hazard a guess that patrons are actually uncomfortable using such an "intimate" medium as video chat with a complete stranger, whereas traditional IM, email, or audio-only communication offer a needed barrier and an element of impersonality that can reduce patron embarrassment.

The main take-away point of Booth' article is: "This range of responses indicates that video chat might still be somewhat ahead of the general patron usability curve, and may therefore motivate curiosity-based inquiries from some while deterring the need-based requests of others."

We need to make sure we're on the cutting edge of our patrons' needs...not forcing them to use a new technology before its time has come.

Using Skype

The contact list (buddy list) shows the status of all of your contacts. It allows you to IM, video, or audio chat. The contact list also displays the money left in your Skype Out account.

Here's what a video chat looks like:

Other features:

1. You can share your computer screen with the other person so that they see what you see.
2. You can audio chat with multiple people at once.
3. You can use Skype to make "Skype Out" calls to landlines and cellphones.

Here's a list of prices for making a calls to various countries. The rates fluctuate between 2 cents a minute on 20 cents a minute depending on where you're calling and what type of phone you're calling.

http://www.skype.com/intl/en/prices/callrates/#listing-F

Welcome to Skype

Skype sign-in:


How is Skype used?
With Skype you can make video calls, instant message, and make calls from your PC to telephones around the world.

You can download it from http://skype.com/ for free.

Current versions:
Skype 4.1 for Windows
Skype 2.8 for Mac
Skype 2.1 (Beta) for Linux

Video Chat for Language Learning

Annotation #3

Eröz-Tuğa, B., & Sadler, R. (2009). Comparing six video chat tools: A critical evaluation by language teachers. Computers & Education, 53(3), 787-798.

Two foreign language professors, Eroz-Tuga at Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey and Sadler at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, report the findings of their study comparing six different video chat tools in the context of language learning. All six tools are open access and free to the public, although some offer improved "member" services for a fee. The authors' major finding is that MSN (Windows Live) and Skype were the two best-performing computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools that offer synchronous video and audio communication. MSN was ranked #1 and Skype was ranked #2 with Yahoo a distant third. ICQ, CUWorld, and Paltalk were also evaluated but found wanting both on the fronts of educational use and user-friendliness. The methodology of the study appears sound in general, although the sample size of evaluators is small including eight Turkish grad students and ten US grad students of whom seven were not native English speakers. Nevertheless, it is my understanding from reading usability testing "best practices" that for most websites and applications, about 80-90% of usability problems can be discovered with a sample-size of only five testers.

This article discusses the advantages of using Skype and MSN for language learning. Advantages include the language learner's ability to:

1. use visual cues to practice correct pronunciation
2. interact across distance with native speakers in an authentic learning context
3. exchange cultural information by "showing" their campus/home culture (rather than telling)
   
4. motivate a younger generation of students with the newest computer tool
   

The study evaluates the six CMCs for technical performance, usability, and relevance to language learning. The findings indicate that Skype and MSN are statistically equivalent, although MSN slightly outranked Skype. Skype was ranked #1 in the user-friendliness of its website and in online help/support. MSN was ranked #1 in ease of installation and setup, ease of adding new members, ease of starting a conversation, and whether it was "frustrating" or "confusing" to use. (Skype was a close second). As for quality of audio and video, Skype's video quality was found to be problematic but ranked much better than Yahoo, ICQ and the other CMCs. MSN in contrast was criticized for not offering conference calling with multiple users; only one-to-one conversations are possible. Skype, in contrast offers conference audio calls without video. Both MSN and Skype were recommended by the researchers over Yahoo, ICQ, CUWorld, Paltalk for academic purposes because they were not part of an online community that contained anonymous chatrooms. The students conducting the study discovered that chatrooms quickly became "X-rated" and did not lend themselves to language learning-- at least not in an academic sense.

In general, I found this study very useful. It's one of the few to evaluate video chat tools quantitatively. I take issue with a few aspects of the study. First, as the authors admit, their student testers were already familiar users of MSN, Skype, and Yahoo which may have biased their perception of and increased their frustration with the other three CMCs. Second, a few technical criticisms of Skype clash with my personal experience and research. Students using Skype complained that their contacts would disappear when they switched computers. I have used Skype on several computers and the contacts always "follow" me; all I have to do is log in. Finally, there is little talk of interoperability in the article. The students were all using PCs running Windows. One major concern with MSN Windows Live is that the video chat feature is not available to Mac OS users, or at least, not available without a corporate account and a fee. Skype does offer Mac and Linux compatibility. http://www.microsoft.com/Mac/products/messenger/default.mspx

Last but not least, I was surprised that the authors did not mention the advantages of synchronous instant messaging along side video chat for language learning. Not only can students benefit from hearing native speakers and copying their pronunciation, but if a word is mispronounced, students can always IM each other, clarifying in a few seconds what might take several minutes to explain in a voice-only call. They can also share links to online dictionaries, articles, etc. that might facilitate the language-learning process. Overall, this article is very cutting edge as it is one of the few to effectively use data to show both the efficacy of language-learning via video chat and the usability of Skype compared to other CMCs.

Video Reference at University of Nebraska at Omaha

Annotation #2

Hillyer, N., & Parker, L. L. (2006). Video reference--it's not your typical virtual reference: Video reference services for South Campus at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 41-54.

This article describes a failed attempt to install a video reference kiosk on the University of Nebraska at Omaha's South Campus, an area of campus under-served by libraries. The article provides a quick literature review of some of the first research into video reference, revealing that ALA developed formal guidelines for virtual reference service in the late nineties. As the hardware and software improved, video virtual reference became possible. Hillyer lists potential advantages of video reference including "point of need" service, visual and verbal cues, and "co-browsing." UHO purchased Polycom, a video conferencing software, webcams, and microphones. The software was installed on a computer in the main library reference desk and at a computer station in the South Campus outpost. Advantages of Polycom were the whiteboarding and screen-sharing features that enabled librarians to control the browser and applications on the patron's screen. Despite initial enthusiasm, marketing, and librarian training, the video reference service was not popular with patrons. Hillyer argues that a lack of user-needs testing, limited hours, and an inconvenient location of the video reference terminal contributed to the project's failure. Hillyer remained optimistic about the potential of video reference if re-focused to fit the users' needs.

Perhaps Skype might solve some of UNO's problems with Polycom. Skype, unlike Polycom, is free. Skype also offers screen-sharing and synchronous IM. The UNO librarians seemed overly concerned with students tampering with the material and reluctant to let students "drive" which is unfortunate. Reference literature suggests that, especially in an academic library setting, students learn information literacy skills by clicking the mouse themselves, rather than passively waiting for a librarian to retrieve a pdf of an article. Booth's article also mentioned the limitations of video kiosks: they can be located in hidden corners of the library, confuse patrons, and don't get much traffic. Instead of having a stable video reference kiosk that only one patron at a time can use, Skype would allow students to video chat with librarians from anywhere, and they wouldn't have to use unfamiliar computer stations or software. I would like to read about a successful video reference kiosk station-- it seems to me that such a kiosk doesn't exist! The UNO librarians were supposedly inspired by an audio kiosk seen at a museum, but I think there is a big difference between a casual museum-goer interacting with an exhibit and a reference interview conducted via library kiosk.

Video Reference and the Library Kiosk

Annotation #1

Booth, C. (2007). Video reference and the library kiosk: Experimentation and evaluation. Journal of Access Services, 5(1), 47-53.

This article is an excellent case study of the implementation of a Video Reference Kiosk in Alden Library at Ohio University. Although only in phase two of user-testing, the reference department at Alden Library has already identified several pros and cons of video reference and the kiosk model. Advantages, according to Booth, include the ability to simultaneously IM and video conference, resulting in a "best of both worlds" scenario where no visual cues are lost (a chief complaint of email reference and instant messaging) and where hyperlinks and navigation instructions can be provided in real time to the patron via IM. The Alden librarians experienced some hiccups: they tested Windows Live Messenger and Trillian Pro but found various features of these clients made them less desirable than Skype. Skype was preferred because it was open-access, allowed calls to be answered automatically, allowed one-way screening, and did not conflict with the IM client already being used for reference chats. Problems that arose included patrons tampering with the webcam, patrons being self-conscious and confused for the first few minutes of being on camera, and the "freak factor" of seeing a live librarian on screen while students roamed the stacks. Significantly, the Alden librarians' approach to installing "Skype a Librarian" services was the same as their approach to adopting reference IM services: they did usability testing to determine the needs of their patrons and possible advantages of the new technology, approaching Skype with both excitement and skepticism.

The article was written in 2007 and it looks like their "Skype a Librarian" page has gone live. One goal in the article was to expand Skype services from just the video kiosks to a general service that students could access from their personal computers. The methodology of going from a small, experimental kiosk before expanding to an Ask a Librarian is a good best practice for libraries. A danger of any new service is investing time, training, and money into something that never gets used. It was hard for me to gauge, however, whether there was a large patron interest in a Skype kiosk. Booth seems very excited about the project, despite her candidness about it's pitfalls. It remains to be seen whether new the Skype a Librarian service will have more use, but it is logical to assume so, since patrons who already use Skype at home might be more comfortable Skyping a Librarian from home than patrons who happen to pass by the "freakish" librarian inside the computer while they roam the stacks.

Ohio University Skype a Librarian Page

Skype for Surveillance

My initial research has turned up a wealth of articles about Skype in Library Lit. and LISTA databases. These articles mostly try to tell librarians how to bring skype to their library. It's a hot buzzword right now, but fewer long-term studies have been done on how it's actually being used. So far it seems like libraries and universities are using Skype in the following ways:

1. As a service for patrons to use to call others, cybercafe style
2. For distance learning, especially language tutoring
3. To provide video reference services

It's unclear how widespread these uses are.

I also did a Google Search for Skype and found a surprising amount of articles about surveillance and Skype's role in China. It seems Skype can be easily tapped and used for surveillance. In China, Skype handed over records of text messages to the Chinese government who looked for keywords related to political opposition.

"The Chinese government is not alone in its Internet surveillance efforts. In 2005, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency was monitoring large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program, intended to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11 attacks." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/technology/internet/02skype.html?_r=1

As someone who uses Skype a lot, I find it very disturbing that governments are using Skype for surveillance and eavesdropping on their citizens. The fact that China used it this way might not be surprising, given their history of cracking down on free speech and the opposition, but the fact that any other government could use Skype for spying is troubling. How much do I trust my own government? Will American libraries that offer Skype have to come up with "Skype spying" policies protecting their patrons and employees like they did with borrowing policies after September 11th?

Individual Project

So I'm a little confused about the nature of this blog. Why am I writing it? Who is my intended audience? You're supposed to figure this stuff out before you make a blog, or so I tell my own students. I find myself now, as a student, unsure how this blog--aside from making me automatically hip and cool-- is supposed to help me learn. Perhaps I can use it to log my mental state and the state of my ideas throughout the research process.

All I know is, I'd like to research Skype for my individual term project. I certainly use it enough and know little enough about its invention, history, economic model. I heard recently that Oprah has been plugging it. I've been seeing more and more shows like CNN or Jimmy Fallon (don't ask why I was watching!) making a point of mentioning that their guests are live via Skype. Is Skype being used as a tool for social change? Are people Skyping to relatives in other countries about the Iranian elections? Or is it just a tool for socialization, the telephone of the future, that sci-fi movies have been telling us for years will be ubiquitous? Early Star Trek, early French silent films have had versions of the "video phone" but it hasn't really taken off on the grassroots level until now...

Welcome to my blog for LIS 644: Digital Tools, Trends & Debates!

(above is a delicious piece of quiche)