Since I’m beyond ready for it to be the weekend, I thought I would convey some useful information in the form of a fun little quiz.  For each “yes” answer, add one point to your score.

1. _____My email sig has more than four lines.

2. _____My email sig includes IM and/or Skype details.

3. _____My email sig has any kind of quote, even those relating to libraries or reading.

4. _____My email sig includes a graphic that is not the library’s logo.

5. _____If my sig includes the library’s logo, it’s bigger than 50×50 pixels.

6. _____My email sig includes colors (i.e., not black) and/or non-standard fonts

7. _____My email sig does not include my email address

8. _____My email sig includes an unnecessary (i.e., my workplace does not require it) legal disclaimer or environmental warning (e.g.  “Consider the environment and don’t print this email.”)

9. _____My email sig uses HTML formatting

10_____My email sig does not use the accepted delimiter (–)

 Scoring:

1-3:  Not too shabby, but you need to do some tweaking to make your sig socially acceptable.  You might still get invited to parties, but there’s bound to be a couple of people whispering about you near the punchbowl.

4-6:  Time to face reality and realize that your email signature needs some major work.  You are likely annoying a lot of people and your chances of being invited to the Academy Award’s after-party are slim to none.

7-10: Your email signature is the one everyone points to and laughs.  Use the list, above, to fix it now and prevent years of therapy bills.

What does this mean to me, Laura?

1. The acceptable standard for professional email signatures is four lines (or less!).
2. IM and Skype details are just that–details.  You provide them as needed, not generically.
3. No more quotes.  “Random quotes are fun for friends, but you risk offending business associates with whom you don’t have a personal relationship.”  –Kat Neville.  Ok, chances are good that your colleagues are unlikely to be offended by quotes praising the library, but they still don’t convey a professional image.
4. Those new database or service graphics?  Nope.  If you include a graphic, it should be your library’s logo.
5. If you include a logo, it needs to be 50X50 pixels or smaller.  Plus, many email clients block them altogether or only add them as attachments.  So, think hard–is it that important?
6. Additional colors & fonts?  Skip them.  They not only make your sig look less professional (the same is often true for your library’s website, btw), but many clients won’t even render them.
7. Including your email address is a convenience thing for the recipient; not every email client shows full headers and sometimes people have to go through additional steps to find out what your email address is.
8. Unless your library requires them, don’t bother with confidentiality clauses (why are you sending confidential stuff in clear text, anyways?) or warnings to consider the environment.  Be honest–have ever really read these yourself when someone else sent one?
9. Skip the HTML formatting.  This is closely related to #6.  Not only do many email clients not deal with special formatting, some don’t do it well, either.  You never know what it’s really going to look like on the other end.
10. Your email signature needs to be a clearly separated entity.  The accepted standard is two hypens (–) (Wikipedia says there should also then be a space and an end of line  [i.e., “– \n”[) and then the signature.  This visually separates out the signature from the rest of the email, and also lets users’ email clients filter it out entirely if the user has configured that option.

Guess I’m off to do a little revision to my email signature….

Get over yourself.

An effective online presence really comes down to not putting one’s ego first.  That could be the collective ego of the library as an institution,  the ego of the director, the ego of the board of trustees, or the ego of that territorial librarian who controls the library’s online content with an iron fist.  As soon as any person or entity’s ego overrides the need of the online patron, the library, as a whole, loses.

Think about the following scenarios and who they actually aim to please:

• A full list of the board of trustees and/or the mission statement as a permanent fixture on the front page;
• A Facebook and/or Twitter account that only posts program and event announcements;
• A library blog that doesn’t allow comments;
• Social media accounts that only friend/follow other libraries or librarians;
• Links to the staff intranet on the library’s website;
• Online content arranged specifically for the convenience of the library staff.

I’ve seen each of these scenarios multiple times, and the one thing they all have in common is that the library prioritized the needs of itself over those of its users.  Many libraries only do what’s easy or comfortable for them online.  Sometimes there are logistical reasons for this, but oftentimes there aren’t.

I encourage you to take a long, hard look at what your library does online.   Are you really doing it for the online fan or patron, or to please someone/something internally?  A library does good work online when it realizes that the people doing the reading of the content matter more than the people doing the creation of it.

Many professional graphics programs have built-in optimization tools, but for most casual web editing staff, I recommend an online tool called Web Resizer.  It’s free, and you don’t even have to register to use it.  You just upload your image (it can be up to 5 MB), then let it do the work.  It shows you the original and the new, optimized image; most times, you won’t be able to even notice a difference.  You just download the new one and you’re done.

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• Getting all of the images on your website optimized might be tedious, but it’s very, very important.  There are still dial-up users, even now.  Additionally, broadband users have limited tolerance for slow sites.
• Web Resizer also offers some additional options for tweaking your image.  It can also crop, sharpen, resize, rotate, add a border, adjust saturation, brightness and contrast.  All free.

Image from http://www.webresizer.com

I’m fond of Web Resizer, but there are other tools that do image optimization.  Any other favorites?  Post them in the comments!

My employer sent a “cease & desist” email, and the library, thankfully, promptly removed the graphic.  Not all such cases end quietly, without issue.  Last year, I became aware of a situation where a library had taken a stock photo from a very large photography distribution site without permission.  That theft cost the library several hundred dollars in fines.

It’s very, very easy to take a graphic from another site.  However, it’s also probably very easy to break the law in other ways (speeding, anyone?); that doesn’t mean that one should do it.

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• In short:  taking anything from ANY site without permission is theft.  Plain and simple.
• There is another kind of image theft that is not often discussed; bandwidth theft.  If you think that if you just link to the image, rather than uploading it to your own server, you’re safe, you’re not.  You’re still stealing the image and, to make matters worse, you’re also stealing the original site’s bandwidth.  That’s because, every time someone opens the page that image appears on, it has to call the original site to actually fetch it.  So, you’re stealing the image AND their resources.  Not nice.  Want to see an example of how a victimized site responded?
• Read this post from an agency that messed up and admitted it:  Legal Lesson Learned:  Copywrighter Pays $4000 for $10 Photo.  The moral? “Consequently, we urge others to recognize and yield to a simple fact: If it’s on the Internet and others wrote or created it, do not use it without their permission.“

Better get cracking if you want to be ready.  The new format has some not-insignificant changes, and you’ll want to be prepared.  In a nutshell, here’s what’s coming:

1. The cover image.  By far, this is the most noticeable piece of the Timeline; after all, it’s really hard to miss an image that is 851 pixels wide and 315 pixels high.  This image is not only large, it’s likely going to make or break your library’s image on Facebook.  It’s the first and biggest thing that first-time visitors are going to see, so it’s critical to get it right.  There are many creative things that can be done with the cover image, so get thinking.  Please, please, don’t stick a giant picture of your library’s building up there.  Raise the bar at least a little?
2. The profile picture.  That’s the little picture with the white frame that is embedded in the lower left of the cover image.  Create a nice version of your library’s logo (this is NOT your building!) that is 180 x 180 pixels.  Facebook won’t accept an image smaller than that; it is going to do the scaling to 32 x 32 itself.  If you don’t have a logo, go the creative route and make the profile picture interact somehow with the cover image.  (See the link in #1.)
3. Apps.  Pages can have up to 21 apps on their Timeline; only 4 of them, however, actually show clearly under the cover image.  Be aware that many older apps may not work properly with recent Facebook changes; test heavily.
4. Pinning of posts.  By pinning a post, you force it to stay at the top of the Timeline for 7 days.  A nice feature for things you don’t want to get pushed down by newer content.
5. Highlighting posts.  This doesn’t change the position of the post on the Timeline; rather, it forces it to stretch across both columns, so that it is more visible.
6. Custom tabs and landing pages are gone.  Totally kaput.  Good riddance, really.  Research has shown that those custom landing pages especially were a waste of time, with virtually no ROI.
7. Direct messages from fans.  People who “like” your Facebook Page can now send direct messages to Page administrators.  So be prepared for possible messages from people you don’t know
8. Addition of milestones.  You can add important dates for your library to the Timeline, such as when your library was constructed, when additions or renovations were made, etc.

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• You’re likely going to need to spend some time on getting your Facebook Page in shape.  Start now.  And then, don’t stop.  The Timeline offers more chances to really curate your content and emphasize those things that are important.
• There is the potential for more direct communication to your personal Facebook account from unknown people, if you are publicly shown as the Page’s administrator.

Has your library already moved to the Timeline? Post the URL in the comments!

Gerry McGovern, who runs a web content management company and is the author of several books on content management, refers to this outdated material as “smelly” content.  He makes the analogy that it’s much like leaving a basket of rotting fruit out for your visitors:

“We would never leave rotting fruit on a reception desk, yet we leaves masses of putrefaction on our websites.  It may not smell but it sure does stink, and it is damaging your reputation and your brand.  The credibility of your content is vital because, if the impatient, skeptical scan-reader gets the slightest sense that the content is not accurate or up to date, they will hit the ‘Back’ button.”  (Killer Web Content, 2006)

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• When’s the last time you really went back through your website content?  Not just dusted, but vacuumed and scrubbed?  Be honest.  It probably wasn’t yesterday, or even last week.
• Old content isn’t just old; as McGovern so aptly points out, it’s literally damaging.  How can your library say that it is a relevant institution when it doesn’t even maintain information on its own website?
• If your library doesn’t have a schedule for reviewing content, it’s time to get one.  Even twice (once?) a year is better than nothing.

Pinterest is an interesting tool, for sure.  It allows you to curate (“pin”) pictures from around the web, for from other users, and organize them into themed collections and categories.  While users can comment on their own and others’ pins, the appeal of the site is almost entirely visual.  (I recently described it to someone as “image porn.”)  Seeing the incredibly diverse number of things that people pin is fascinating, and I often find myself repinning (think of it as a form of sharing, much like reposting on Facebook) what others have pinned.

The number of uses and categories is seemingly limited only by your own creativity.  While I often find myself wandering over to Facebook as a small break from regular work, I now have added Pinterest to my rotation of “stuff to look at for fun.”  I anticipate that I will soon fill up my “Cool Ideas” board with stuff I find there.    Organizing ideas, recipes, DIY projects and many, many more.  I have found that I really love Pinterest, when I didn’t think that I would.

The point that keeps running through my mind is, though, “how would a LIBRARY use this?”  To be honest, I don’t have a good answer.  A library could pin book covers, but there’s no function that will allow you to link it back to its catalog.   Local history pics might be kind of interesting but, again, no ability to link back to the library, or to related pictures.  Pictures of programs aren’t really the right kind of content for Pinterest, which is primarily about pure visual appeal.   However, I have seen some individual librarians make very good use of the site; book display ideas, teen program ideas and even a group board for library and information science, featuring cool libraries and library-related pictures.

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• All of your content is public and viewable to anyone.  However, even when Pinterest goes public, the chances of someone seeing something you’ve pinned are fairly low (unless they specifically follow you); only items that get pinned by hundreds of people make the “Popular” board.
• Should your library run out and score a Pinterest invite?  At this point, I’d have to say “no.”  If your library wants to share pictures of things it’s doing, Flickr is a better fit. If you want to try it out though, I’m giving away invites to the first 5 people who comment (appropriately, people) on this post–don’t just holler “First!”  Lameness gets you nada.
• Have ideas about how a library could effectively use Pinterest?  Share!

It’s that time again–time for MeanLaura’s annual roundup of sites you can be wasting your time on, instead of actually working.  After all, the novelty of Angry Birds and Cityville does wear eventually.

DISCLAIMER:  There is probably no educational or CE value in this post anywhere.  Enjoy.

• Incredibox:  By far, the most addictive music-making site I’ve run into in a while.  Create your own, unique choir using beatboxed sounds.  The more you play with it, the more “bonuses” you earn–pre-created animated mixes that are cute and entertaining.
• The Kid Should See This:  I’m almost embarrassed to admit how much time I’ve let my son spend on this site, but it’s truly addicting for both kids and adults.  The site is self described as “Off the grid-for-little-kids videos and other smart stuff collected by Rion Nakaya and her three year old co-curator.”  Carefully-curated YouTube videos of unique visual and/or athletic feats or science experiments, appropriate for kids of all ages.
• Flame Painter:  “Oooh, pretty!” Very cool Javascript painting tool that let s you make nifty psychedelic artwork.  Some of the tools are going to be more complex than little kids can handle, but let’s be honest–you’re going to be the one doing the playing, anyways.
•  This is Why I’m Broke:  Bacon candy canes?  Check.  Google Nike sneakers?  Check.  Netflix for ties?  Yep, that too.  All real products (alas, costing real money).  Even if you’re already broke, you’ll be stunned and bewildered by just what you could buy if you had money.
• God as Computer Programmer:  This one isn’t interactive, but anyone who has done any programming or scripting will get a kick out of this Q&A.  Some important theological questions can be answered, if you think of God in a different light.
• Strange Maps:  Into cartography, but need something different?    Want to know where “pop” reigns in the U.S, versus “soda?”  Middle Earth in Russian?  This site will provide enough interesting maps to help you waste as much time as you need to.
• Portable North Pole:  Make a custom video from Santa, that you can send to anyone, kid or adult.  I used this to send a video to my son (and, you get to choose which list the person is on–naughty or nice–and the video ends differently, depending).  The technology has advanced so far, the integration of your child’s data and even photos is practically seamless.  The production values are very good, and you even have the option to buy a high-quality version for  your own keepsake later.  My seven-year-old son watched this with no disbelief whatsoever and knew, of course, it was the real deal.  After all, Santa had pictures of him and knew all about him.  The only bad moment was when he discovered that Santa had him on the “naughty” list…

What does this mean to me, Laura?

Probably not much, unless I’ve left your favorite out.  Let us know what fun and cool sites you found this year in the comments!

Want to see the 2010 List?

• There is no way to add more than one administrator to the page.  For example, I currently administer OPLIN’s Google+ page; if I’d like to share the responsibility, too bad.  If I get run over by a bus, OPLIN’s in trouble–there’s no one else who will have access to the page.
• It’s incredibly easy to post to the wrong account.  If you’re the administrator, you have to login to Google+ as yourself in order to post to your library’s account.  Google+ makes it way too easy to post something to the wrong account.  You may, inadvertently, end up posting something to your library’s account that was meant for your personal one, and vice-versa.  The user interface for switching is hard to find and gives few or no clues about which account is currently active.
• If you share a personal account, in order to have more than one admin, you can’t tell who posted what.  Personal accountability, when you’re working with an organization’s public voice, is critical.  If someone posts something they shouldn’t have, how will the library know who it was?

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• Go ahead and get that Google+ page for your library.  There’s no reason to put off claiming a presence there.
• However, go forth with eyes wide open.  Make sure you’re very clear on who the administrator will be, BEFORE creating the page, and know plainly who will be making updates making that account.
• Realize that Google+ pages is in a very primitive stage right now.  Undoubtedly, most or all of these issues will eventually get resolved; there’s too much pressure in the social media sphere right now for Google to ignore them forever.  Keep your ear to the ground, especially for announcements about the ability to add more than one administrator.

All too often, when I look at a library’s website, what I see resembles the following:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent nisl odio, suscipit quis imperdiet et, dignissim ut augue. Sed adipiscing rutrum porta. Ut a erat sit amet nisl posuere tincidunt. Nam eu nulla arcu, vitae congue enim. In lacinia mollis hendrerit. Nullam urna turpis, iaculis ut iaculis aliquam, congue in lacus. Etiam varius facilisis erat sit amet euismod. Morbi id gravida ipsum. Integer posuere felis sit amet lorem bibendum nec ornare ipsum tempor. Aliquam lorem augue, ullamcorper sit amet pellentesque et, viverra a sapien. Cras vitae urna nec urna accumsan consequat ut ornare massa. Pellentesque vehicula lacinia massa, sit amet dapibus leo accumsan quis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. 

Got that?  Me neither.  And, it wasn’t because it was written in fake “Lorem Ipsum” Latin.

If you’re like the typical online visitor, your eyes simply glazed over because you were presented with a huge chunk of text.  Jakob Nielsen, long considered the godfather of web usability, found that people read, at most, 28% of a webpage.  Now, that says “webpage,” not “web item.”  So, if your library’s homepage has other stuff on it besides that hunk of indigestible text, you’re in big, big trouble.  Nobody is reading your verbiage, and now they’re not looking at most of the other content there, either.

Nielsen also found, in that same study, that people only read the entire page if it is 25 words or less.  Knowing that, you might simply throw up your hands and say “We’re screwed.  We can’t possibly narrow our entire front page down to 25 words!”  Well, yes, you’re right.  You probably can’t.

Think about the last time you read an entire webpage, from top to bottom.  What’s that?  You can’t remember?  Chances are, you may never have read an entire page on the Web.  Nielsen found, as far back as 1997, that people scan the Web, they don’t actually read.  What are we scanning for?  That’s easy–we’re looking for things that stand out and/or are relevant to us, individually.  As libraries writing for the public, we can’t always predict what keywords will attract an individual–but we sure can make what we post online easier to digest.  Here’s some help:

• Think of writing for the Web like serving a pizza.  You probably wouldn’t serve someone an entire pizza, unsliced.  It’s too much to manage at one time.  Nobody (Cookie Monster doesn’t count), generally speaking, shoves an entire, uncut pizza pie into his mouth.  Usually, we slice up a pizza.  Even then, slices are too big for our mouths to handle; we are forced to take small bites before we can chew and swallow.  Your writing needs to be like that:  small, digestible bits.
• Bullet points and headers are your friends.  Break that text up into just the highlights and assign each highlight  a bullet point or a header.  People are inherently attracted to bullet points–they’re like flashing Christmas lights.  People also are more likely to read a small bit of text that is just a (very) short summary.
• Live by Krug’s Third Law of Usability.  “Get rid of half the words on each page, then get rid of half of what’s left.”  Yes, you read that correctly.  If you are editing properly, you should be left with only 25% of your original content.

What does this mean to me, Laura?

• Writing well for the Web usually means putting your ego in a drawer.  No matter what you do, people aren’t going to read most of what you write.  Write anyway.
• Narrow down what you write to the absolute essentials.
• Bet you read the bullet points, above, and not a whole lot of the text above them.