It has been interesting to read and hear various people’s reactions to the Top Tech Trends panel from this year’s ALA. It is sort of weird having been a participant but not being physically there and seeing people’s comments. Many of the things people mentioned in their comments (the audio issues) I noticed while participating some I didn’t (like the lighting on my end), but the thing was, once things kicked off there was really no going back.
Because I feel like it needs to be said, Maurice, Sarah, and I did testing before ALA and again before the program itself. We all were concerned with it working reasonably well. I don’t think Sarah, Maurice or I would have suggested we go forward with it if our tests hadn’t gone relatively well. Some of might ask why not try it on a smaller scale? Why subject conference participants to a “test”? The difficult thing about trying something like this, is that you just don’t know how it is going to work out until you try it for real. At ALA you really don’t know what you are going to walk into in a room for a session. How do I know this? I’ve been a integral part of putting together the Social Software Showcase for the last two years. The fact that one can’t get information about whether or not wireless will be freely available; how the audio system is going to work in the room what the lighting might be, or the shape of the room; is not at all uncommon. Its all a potential surprise until you get to the room itself. To say this is frustrating for session organizers would be putting it mildly.
I’m not telling you this as an excuse but merely a statement of circumstances. The bottom line is you just can’t test sufficiently and there are so many variables out of your control as a session organizer that you either roll with it or have ulcer creating levels of anxiety. I’m sure Maurice was doing his best not to lose it at the actual session. Maybe he should have said, “Karen, Sarah this isn’t working, we gave it our best, we appreciate the time you have take and your willingness to contribute and look forward to seeing your trends on LITABlog”. This way the live panel could have moved on, but I also think he didn’t want to disrespect Sarah and I, after we had gone through the rigemarole to participate. However, on my end, I would have just posted my trends to the blog rather than create chaos on purpose.
In addition to the technical issues with the virtual participants, other folks didn’t like the Meebo chat room, in particular the fact that it was projected. For me though, having there be a Meebo chat room was great. The conversation and banter that people associate with Top Tech Trends and felt were missing, I think took place in chat, rather in person. However, I think Karen Schneider hits the nail on the head when she said in a recent post about TTT, “take the chat off the screens and keep it on the laptops for the people who have seen mirrors and so forth and won’t faint when confronted with More Than One Thing To Do”.
Others commented that the trends were too general or not bleeding edge enough. As a trendster I find it difficult to know that audience level to pitch my trends to. A wide range of people come to Top Tech Trends and I know many non-LITA folks who attend. How does one talk about trends to such a diverse audience? Some people might be familiar with APIs but you’d be surprised to know how many people aren’t. It surprises me the number of questions I’ve gotten about APIs as a result of my Social Software Showcase presentation.
I find it ironic that many folks chose to compare Top Tech Trends and the Social Software Showcase programs. Being involved with both (and in particular the planning of the Showcase) I find this fascinating. The Showcase is an experiment in its second year. Some things we attempted virtually worked well. Others not so much. Yet, the overall reaction to the Showcase was positive. But at the Showcase the virtual didn’t impinge on the in person. They were separate but equal. Additionally, there was both synchronous and asynchronous virtual aspects to the Showcase.
So what are the lessons learned? Virtual participation can work, but maybe not so well when combined with in person participation. Backchannel has value, but people should be given the option of whether or not to participate. It shouldn’t be forced on them. Separate and different virtual and in person may be a better model than the convergence of virtual and in person, at least with a panel this size. The virtual parts of Top Tech Trends that seem to have worked well past and present are the podcast of the program, and trendsters individual asynchronous presentation (Meredith’s from last year in particular) can have lots of value.
What would I do differently if asked to participate virtually again? I’d suggest doing it Showcase style, at least until audio quality could be more of a guarantee. I’d create a screencast that presented my trends and then hold a discussion virtually either in chat or via conference call software. I liked hanging out in chat and adding my own comments and thoughts while the other trendsters talked. I’d happily do this as my virtual participation. I’d also suggest that they stream live video of the program. This way people could see and hear the panel and potentially participate via chat. If seeing the video and chatting real time was all I could do, I think I’d still find it worthwhile. I certainly found this kind of participation worthwhile at the Showcase. Maybe this is a starting point for the Midwinter TTT?
Setting my suggestions for “how we could do it different or better” aside though. For me the level of negative reaction with little comment on constructive ways of moving forward was extremely depressing. It made me think a little bit about Sarah’s TTT comments about our difficulty in innovating in libraries.
A huge barrier is the generations-old librarian “fear of failure” that is so great that no one is allowed to try anything unless is has been planned to death and has already been implemented in 80% or more of other libraries. - Sarah Houghton Jan
So I’ll come right to the point - innovation only happens though failure and f*ck ups. You crash, you burn, you learn. I’ve made bad technology choices and learned from them in my career, multiple times. I’m sure others have done this as well. But you won’t make better choices and make things truly work if you don’t TRY. I’m terrified that the negative reaction will cause LITA to turn away from attempting further combo in-person and virtual participation. To NOT innovate in the area of virtual participation. For that to happen to the Library and Information Technology Association would be IMHO disasterous.
