The Cooper Hewitt Design Museum’s Digital Pen

I visited the Cooper-Hewitt Design Museum to observe their “digital pen” project. Like all visitors, I was offered the pen to use for the duration of my visit in the same way many museums offer audio guides. The museum staff explained that touching the pen to a symbol on an object’s wall will save the object to a digital collection I could later retrieve on the museum’s website. The staff then handed me a ticket stub with a printed code. I would need the code to access my collection

Wall text showing symbol of digital pen contact point

For three hours I walked through every gallery of the museum, observing how visitors were making use of their pens. I watched as visitors gathered around dining-room sized tables scattered throughout the galleries. They were using the pens to create designs on the tables’ interactive screens.

Interactive touch screen tables

I noticed a visitor struggling to use her pen on a wall label. A guard attempted to demonstrate its proper use. He struggled with the pen himself a bit and commented “These things can have a mind of their own. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.” With assistance from the guard, the woman was finally able to save her object. The pen gave a satisfying vibration and flashed green lights to indicate successful contact. The woman then raised the pen to her ear. The guard told her “No, it’s in cyberspace. You can share your collection with a friend. Don’t lose your ticket.” I watched the woman wander into another gallery with her pen dangling from the cord on her wrist. She started taking photos with her phone. I asked the guard if people often asked for help with the pens. He replied “One hundred times a day!”

Another visitor tried to save every item along one wall. I watched as one after another, she went to each item’s label and tried out a jab-and-slide technique with a confused expression. I imagined her telling herself “it’s all in the wrist.” It was like watching a tourist re-swiping their subway card. I figured once you get it, it’s in your muscle memory.

Some visitors seemed to have mastered the object-saving usage of the pen. I observed two men saving items with ease. One of them, however, touched his pen on a waist high screen where a video was playing. A guard then intervened, letting him know that that particular screen was just a regular video and was not for meant for the pens. I could see how a visitor would make the mistake with so many interactive digital screens around.

Throughout my visit, I estimate that around half of visitors were at least trying out the pens. The other half of visitors were using their phones to capture objects and wall text. I watched one gallery for fifteen minutes. During that time, many people were twirling their pens by their cord but taking photos with their phones.

I turned my attention to the numerous digital tables throughout the galleries and watched as visitors experimented with the pens. A constant stream of images runs along the length of the rectangular screens. I watched on as a museum staff member giving a tour called the random floating images the “river of objects.” She explained that the museum has 200,000 objects in their collection but they focused on 4,000 for the river. From my estimation, there seemed to be around 100 or so images, based on the rate at which the same objects would loop through in the stream. The staff member demonstrated how you could swipe an object out of the river with a pen or finger and examine it more closely. You could then read interpretive text about the object or use the object as an inspiration for a digital design of your own.

A visitor creating a digital design with a collection object to reference as a source of inspiration

Some visitors were using their pens to make gestural strokes on the screen. Images of objects from the museum’s collection would appear on the screen highlighting how the visitors line is echoed in a an object’s contour or design element. In my observations of the digital tables, I noticed that visitors spent the least amount of time on the gesture line exercise. The novelty of it seemed to dissipate quickly.

Object from museum collection highlighting visitor’s digital gesture drawing

From my observation of visitors at the interactive tables, sessions lasted from a few seconds to about ten minutes. Visitors who created their own designs did not seem to be deliberate in their engagement. It was as if they were idly exploring the tool in free-form experimentation.

I observed several visitors loading their saved collection onto the touch screen and exploring their objects in more detail. There were multiple views, curatorial text and a scrolling bar of similar objects based on categories as varied as color, movement, and subject matter. There was no way to search for typical tombstone data like artist name, movement, object name, etc. From what I could tell, the tables did not include any typing functionality at all. The experience was gesture-oriented.

During my visit, I used the pen to assemble my own collection of objects. The museum website has a link to “retrieve your visit.” I could view most of the images I collected, although some objects that were registered by the pen were missing.

The Cooper Hewitt Design Museum Website’s portal showing objects I saved with the digital pen during my visit and the statistics about my visit.

The website portal also allowed me to view stats on my “collecting habits” during my visit. To me, this information resembled the intrusiveness of big data. I thought of the tracking of my internet habits that are used to sell me products. I could find no particular value in the data they were tracking on me. The stats, if anything, seemed more useful for the museum’s own data on how visitors move through exhibitions.

The digital pen is certainly forward-thinking in the way that it recontextualizes a museum collection and redefines the gallery space as a creative zone for the visitor. In theory, it is in keeping with the predictions of Joe Touch, the director at the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute:

The Internet will shift from the place we find cat videos to a background capability that will be a seamless part of how we live our everyday lives. We won’t think about ‘going online’ or ‘looking on the Internet’ for something — we’ll just be online, and just look. (Digital Life in 2025)

However, the pen is clunky, even when it works properly. The idea seems to be to incorporate the traditional experience of looking at objects in a museum into our current compulsion for information accrual in the digital realm. But the process introduces too many new physical objects that the visitor must learn how to navigate, and in the proper sequence–carry around an additional device besides your phone, walk away from the artwork to interact with numerous touch screens, and don’t lose your ticket code or your visit will seem inconsequential. The process is far from seamless.

The digital pen is more in line with the predictions made by technologists who foresee the increased role of big data. As Judith Donath, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, puts it, “We’ll have a picture of how someone has spent their time, the depth of their commitment to their hobbies, causes, friends, and family. This will change how we think about people, how we establish trust, how we negotiate change, failure, and success.” (Digital Life in 2025)

There is something futuristic about the digital pen/touch screen experiment. It is the most technologically sophisticated tool for museum visitor experience I have seen. However, its effect is less in line with technologists’ predictions of digital life seamlessly integrated with our physical experience and more in line with technologists’ predictions of big data dictating our actions and behaviors.

Designing the Pen. Retrieved from https://www.cooperhewitt.org/new-experience/designing-pen/

“Digital Life in 2025.” (2014). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/ wpcontent/uploads/sites/14/2014/03/PIP_Report_Future_of_the_Internet_Predictions_031114.pdf

Queer Zine Fair Observation For Dr. Rabina’s Class

Queer Zine Fair Observation 

By Taylor Norton

For my 3-hour observation, I decided to go to the NYC LGBT Center for its New York Queer Zine Fair. While this easily could have been applied to my event attendance, I decided to take this a bit further and not only attend the fair, but observe and assess the information and information users that were being shared in this temporal setting.

Upon entering the fair, I could see that the way the 50+ artists were set up allowed for a very specific traffic pattern for attendees.  With booths lining the outer four walls and two rows of booths in the middle, people could walk in a circle in one direction while looking at the outside booths and then in another direction for the booths set up in the middle. While there was one large room with all the booths set up, there was also another room for programs and shows. The event happening while I was there was a queer collage party that allowed attendees to make their own collage that would later be scanned and made in to a zine with others’ work.

With each new booth visited, I could see a variety of identities, sexualities, and genders represented and the ways that each person decided to present themselves and their zines were distinctly different. There were tables that shared information on that person’s experience, such as a queer femme who made zines based off of the poet, Sappho, or a gay man’s zine informing people about the different meanings of colored bandanas in the pants pocket of one’s jeans. Besides zines, I also saw t-shirts, buttons, pins, and patches that were obvious to some and not so obvious to others of the wearer’s identity. Semiology, rhetoric, and double meanings could be inferred everywhere, from cat pins to patches of fingers touching flowers to crowns and collars. There were hand-drawn zines, screen-printed t-shirts, and photography zines, among other forms of ephemera. It was fascinating for me to see all of the different expressions and to learn more about a community that I am actively involved in. Two of our class readings stuck out greatly in my mind while going through this fair.

Emily Drabinksi’s 2013 article, “Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction,” was strong in my mind as I watched people walk by booths and engage with others because not only was this an information setting that allowed people to learn more about the community that they identified with, but they were also able to buy (or sometimes trade) items that expressed their identity; an opportunity that is not always presented to them in mainstream information settings. I saw this an opportunity for people to not only queer the hypothetical catalog by learning more vocabulary and ways of expression, but also by engaging with items and eventual artifacts that have the potential to go beyond this fair and make their way in to more mainstream cultural institutions. The more people create and share, the further their messages can go beyond such information settings.

One of Drabinksi’s quotes stuck out in my mind, “The materials themselves are linguistically controlled, corralled in classification structures that fix items in place, and they are described using controlled vocabularies that reduce and universalize language, remarkably resistant to change” (Drabinksi 2013). It was obvious at this fair that there was a vast array of different identities represented here and that both written and visual linguistics were in heavy use. However, opposed to the static ways of traditional cataloging, this fair allowed information users to go from one category to the next with each new booth visited. There was absolutely controlled language in this setting; however, the feeling of learning and being open to others’ experiences allowed users to engage with others more freely in order to further their knowledge.

Another quote by Drabinksi, “Where lesbian and gay studies takes gender and sexual identities as its object of study, queer theory is interested in how those identities come discursively and socially into being and the kind of work they do in the world” (Drabinksi 2013), resonated with me during this observation. Everywhere I looked, I could see people engaging within their own identity circles while taking the time to look at information that taught them about other identity circles. It was both a social and information setting in which discourse through artifacts was encouraged to transcend the settings of the fair.

Not only was I reminded of Drabinksi’s article, but also of Marcia J. Bates’ “Fundamental Forms of Information” article written in 2006. In this article, Bates defines the general idea of what is information and the different types of information. After seeing how intentional people were with the zines they made and the booths they set up to display them, I thought of how Bates writes that, “Other than in a few cases, such as a spontaneous cry of pain or fear, all expressed information is intentionally communicative to others in the environment” (Bates 2006).

While observing how people learned about different identities through the zines and other artifacts, I recognized three main types of information at play here: embedded, expressed, and recorded information. It is very clear that there are several different identities within the queer communities, from pansexuals to bears to doms and subs to femmes, and while observing I thought of Bates’ quote: “Because animals act, they leave evidence of their presence” (Bates 2006). Here people were acting on their gender and sexual identities and actively reaching out for shareable informational objects that represented and showcased their identities.

One example of information being produced from humans’ presence is embedded information. Bates writes, “In short, the embedded information is generally not left by its creators to be informative, but rather is informative as an incidental consequence of the activities and skills of the people leaving the artifacts” (Bates 2006). Many of the creators had started with the idea of processing embedded information from their lives and made them into recorded information. Described as “communicatory or memorial information preserved in a durable medium” (Bates 2006), these zines and ephemera were direct representations of expressed information.

While watching people interact with artists and buy zines, pins, patches, and t-shirts, I couldn’t help but consider the impact of this information setting in a wider capacity. People and their experiences were able to feel validated through the readily available and expressed information and could take this validation—in metaphorical and haptic representations—beyond the fair. As Bates writes, “Recorded information is distinguished here from expressed information because the invention of writing and the development of the technologies to produce durable recorded information appear to have had an immeasurable impact on human cultures and on the speed of development of those cultures. No longer do humans have to try to memorize all that their culture knows; now a lot of that information can be kept in durable form outside the body. The durability and storage efficiency of such information have enabled a great leap in human information processing” (Bates 2006). While seeing people use recorded representations of their identity, I could see a world of information being reborn and growing through the exchange of such information.

Help! ––I’m at a symposium and I’m trying to learn!

By Meghan Lyon

Last Friday, October 19th, I had the pleasure of observing two symposiums. I attended the first half of The Uncomfortable Archive: New York 2018 Archives Week Symposium, and the the second half of the first day of theWhitney Independent Study Program 1968-2018 50th Anniversary Symposium. These events marked my first encounter with the conference-style symposium. I have attended numerous lectures, but a presentation in the symposium format has a quality that diverges from a unique lecture; each speaker addresses their own content or area of expertise  as well as the overarching concept of the day.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of symposium includes: “a social gathering at which there is a free interchange of ideas”; “a formal meeting at which several specialists deliver short addresses on a topic”; “a collection of opinions on a subject”; and “discussion.” Additionally, it defines a panel as “a group of persons who discuss before an audience a topic of public interest.” The panel would be the object of attention, the body expected to enlighten the audience; it could also be the platform from which information is distributed. From my observation of the symposium as an information environment, I would define it as a learning-based information environment, where the audience is an information-seeking group whose attendance is predicated on the expectation of a conference of knowledge from the panelists. 

The Uncomfortable Archive Symposium, which I observed from 9:30 am through the lunch break at 1:15 pm, was devised to motivate the audience by revealing uncomfortable histories and truths about archives or loosely-defined archival materials. This goal manifested in multiple presentations about obstacles to record keeping and maintenance from autocrats, fascists, and capitalists. The Keynote Address was given by Anthony Clark, who played up the “uncomfortable” concept. Clark is an expert on presidential libraries and archives and discussed the more insidious aspects of presidential libraries—not just as propaganda machines but as active forces in politics, conservatively oriented towards maintaining the status quo of private interest groups. His address examined the unfortunate history and present mismanagement of the National Archives and Records Administration by the former director of NYPL, David Ferriero.

Clark addressed a room full of concerned professionals who were mostly cis-female, mostly white. The audience lights and stage lights were both on and remained on throughout the day; the AC was on, there was carpeting and plush chairs, there were no outlets throughout the seating area, and  there was no wifi and no data service in the hall at the Center for Jewish History. There was a podium for speakers and a table for panelists; I found that every panelist was an individual speaker and the “panel” discussion was, unfortunately, just an audience Q&A directed at the group of “panelists.”

The Uncomfortable Archives Symposium was crafted as a learning environment for archivists and professionals within the field of information. Most audience members were taking notes; actively engaged and trying to learn. However, several days after the Uncomfortable Archives, a peer who was also in attendance bemoaned that there was too little discussion of problems or troubleshooting thereof from within archives; in other words, she gained no knowledge that was useful to her as a professional.  Also, most talks were initiated after a precarious disclaimer: “My comments are my own and not my employers,” a common social media and web-based, personal disclaimer which has migrated towards any format that has the potential to wind up on the internet. This attempt by speakers to protect their professional status could relate to Robert Jensen’s paper, The Myth of the Neutral Professional. In order to keep their jobs, librarians and archivists are pressured to appear politically neutral. At the very least, they must attempt to be sure that they cannot be held accountable as a representative of their employer when speaking publicly. I find the disclaimers’ presence to be unsettling, and feel sorry that the speakers need to present defensively on stage.

Midday I walked over to the Whitney Museum of American Art for the ISP 50 Year Anniversary Symposium; This second observation lasted from 2:30pm – 8pm.

The Whitney Independent Study Program 50 year anniversary Symposium was a very different kind of event from the Uncomfortable Archive; It was not technically a professional event. The intended audience was ISP alumni, but the ISP program is so popular that many others were also in the audience. The 2-day event was both open to the public and free, so it drew contemporary art enthusiasts, fans of panelists, social climbers, artists, museum workers, art historians, current university students, and people in some way involved in the art world who are hungry for continued education. Because of the various points of entry, there was also a more diverse demographic. It was so packed in the lecture hall that overflow seating was made available in the Tom and Diane Tuft Trustee Room on the 8th floor, which is where I wound up for the first panel that I witnessed.

Whitney ISP Symposium from the 8th floor Trustee Room

In the trustee room, there was a monitor playing a livestream of the symposium as it occurred downstairs. This room quickly filled up, although it wasn’t totally full and people wandered in and out. There was an odd phenomenon of 8th floor of attendees clapping when speakers concluded, even though the presenters were on tv.

Another unexpected occurrence (unexpected to the Whitney staff, at least) was that people who showed up at the beginning of the symposium did not leave. This created a major occupancy problem, because people who registered beforehand, or who were ISP alum, could not enter. I believe that the organizers thought that people would come for a panel, or a particular speaker, and then leave—grossly underestimating the major interest in this kind of educational experience. After witnessing this symposium, I would conclude that multitudes of people are craving high quality, free, educational experiences. The panelists in this case were key figures in art theory, writing, criticism, contemporary studio practice, and pedagogy, and it is too often an exclusive few who are able to interact with the brilliance associated with the ISP milieu.

Like the Uncomfortable Archives’ attendees, nearly every audience member had a notebook out, although I would say the note-taking at the Whitney was a little more feverish, on both the 8th and 3rd floors. Eventually, a few people from the 8th floor went down in between panels to try and claim a few abandoned seats.

A panel in the lecture hall at the Whitney ISP Symposium

I made it into the lecture hall for the Pedagogy and Critical Practice panel. The structure of the panels were similar to those of the earlier symposium; each member of the panel gave a short presentation with slides, however, instead of a Q&A afterwards, there was a moderated discussion on the overarching theme of the panel, with a short time for  audience questions. The time-ratio weighed heavily on the lectures, clocking in at almost 2 hours of serial lectures per 20 minutes of panel discussion.

A little earlier in the evening, curator Johanna Burton had referenced  “embodied learning”—which she described as something along the lines of “trying out learning through new experiences.”  I thought this would be a good opportunity to explore  Marcia J. Bates’ paper Fundamental Forms of Information.  I could see note-taking as an interaction with recorded information, “communicatory or memorial information preserved in a durable medium,” (Bates 14)  as well as an enactment of student/teacher paradigm, and an attempt to fill a knowledge-seeking need. The symposium could be examined as a place for the expression of recorded information (lectures) to be

Single-Circle Diagram that says "Information Environment / Learners / I feel grateful to be here ----->"
“Information Environment / Learners / I feel grateful to be here ——–>”

embodied by an audience through listening and interpretation, and then enacted by their future selves as more knowledgable beings.  

Nearing the end of the ISP Symposium, Mary Kelly took the stage. Kelly was the only speaker who did not use a slide-show presentation, and she was so soft spoken yet captivating, you could feel the entire audience leaning in and opening up. I drew a small diagram of the environment and how I felt.

Sources:

Bates, M. (2006). Fundamental Forms of Information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8) (2006): 1033-1045

Jensen, R. (2006). The Myth of the Neutral Professional. Lewis, A. (Ed.), Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian. (pp. 89-96). Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press.

 

Effective Engagement @ Cooper-Hewitt

Effective Engagement @ Cooper-Hewitt

by Elizabeth Phyle

To observe an information environment I spent time at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum watching audiences interact with their exhibit. The Cooper-Hewitt is at the forefront of incorporating technology into their visitor experiences. In addition, they have “Senses: Design Beyond Vision” on view until the end of the month. I am very interested in how museums incorporate tactile activities to facilitate visitor engagement with the material. The “Senses” exhibit and their other hands-on exhibits gave me a chance to observe how these features provide deeper engagement as well as how they potentially divert attention from more substantial information.

Perspective taking

I believe that sense are an under-utilized tool in museums. We ask visitors to look, listen, and read a lot while they walk through a quiet gallery. It was shocking the difference in atmosphere between the more traditional exhibits and the “Senses” exhibit. The energy was palpable while people were engaged in touching and smelling as well as looking and listening. Some of the most interesting installments were the ones that took a risk; using the senses to convey something beyond words. For example there were translucent white boxes with phrases on top of them describing a moment or feeling that is specific enough to conjure an image in your mind. Then you press a button, lean in close, and the artist’s interpretation of that scent whiffs over you. Watching people interact with the exhibit was fascinating. People had strong, immediate reactions; often in the form of interjections, not words. The scent named “the feeling for someone once loved, but no longer” elicited pained “oohs.” The one named “being perfectly entangled with another” caused many visitors to smile and “awwhh”. Not everyone thought that every scent was a perfect representation of the emotion described, but it served as a fantastic conversation starter either way. Any good exhibit asks visitors to shift their perspective. By asking them to uses their senses in unfamiliar ways the exhibit forces perspective shift. Context shifting is an important skill in a multi media and medium world. Other museums could incorporate sound, touch and smell into their exhibit in similar ways to help visitors realize their own perspective and take on the perspective of others.

One installment that compelled the visitor to enter the life of another was called “Portal_Soundscapes” Here visitors listened to sounds from cities around the world including voices from refugee camps. I found it very powerful, but unfortunately not many people visited it while I was in that area. This may be partly because it was slightly off the main path, or it may be that visitors did not want to engage in more serious topics while they were playing. Things like this that offer a wide snapshot of human experience could be useful in history museums. Oral histories are powerful, but visitors can also benefit from abstract views of the human experience like asking “what do humans sound like?”

The nagging questions that I had all the while was, how much are people actually taking away as they flit from one thing to the next? It is a tall order to expect visitors to be able to go from scratching and sniffing a wall to reading the placard text about accessible design. I saw that some visitors would skip any exhibit here that didn’t have some of sensory activity associated with it. Like bee’s between flowers, many people would walk up to the installment, do a quick skim for any feature that they could do something with, but if all there was was something to read or information to listen to they would flutter to the next spot and repeat. This certainly telling about how we prefer to interact with our surroundings, but to what extent should museums cater to these impulses? This reminds me of the discussion of user-centered versus system-centered design that we encountered in Talja and Hartel as well as the class discussion we had surrounding it. They discuss the traps in images about user-centeredness being warm and compassionate opposed to a cold and quantitative system centered design (Talja and Hartel 2007). Compared to traditional museum experiences where the visitor is expected to conform to the museum, we can see with the rise of sensory exhibits and pop-up museums how museums are being pressured to cater to the visitor. However, museums should not lose sight of their mission and institutional strengths. The Cooper-Hewitt overall did a fantastic job of balancing education, collection presentation, and interaction.

Conscious Consuming of Information

At a small out-of-the-way alcove there was a headset with two short hospital soundscapes. One was of a traditional hospital setting with high frequency beepings, rushing of gurneys, panicked footsteps, and doctors yelling out stats. The other one was what a “humane patient experience” could sound like. It explains how information could be communicated between nurses and doctors while preserving a environment that is beneficial to the patient. This reminds me of the way they Sengers ended the article on Practices for a Machine Culture, she argues for “technical artefacts that enrich human experience, rather than reducing it to a quantified, formalized, efficient, and lifeless existence (Sengers 2000).” Hospitals are a great example of a systems-centered environment. Since their work is so technical, fast pace, and high pressure, it is unsurprising that the externalities of their system is not something that has traditionally been at the forefront. This exhibit allows visitors to think critically about these externalities as well as examine the role that sound plays in decoding our environment and on our stress levels.

Cooper-Hewitt is a unique case for consumerism in museums because at its core it is a product design museum. The question then become are they feeding consumer culture or educating on it? There was only one stark example that I found of product promotion in the museum. There was a wall of chocolate bars in different flavors and enticing packaging, which you could conveniently find for sale in the gift shop. I could find no educational value in this installment. The purpose it served was only to generate excitement about a product. Again this brings us back to the user-centered discussion. The designers tell the user what they need and proceed to embed their product into the grooves of our lives. This is not the same as responding to a demand.

On the other hand, working through this exhibit may be an effective way for visitors to learn about the ways we react in accordance with our senses and ways we are likely to be deceived. The disability and sensory design area showed how certain scents can spark appetite and memory for dementia patients, and how color coded design can help our brains understand the functionality of items. Examples like these shows how the exhibit is educating visitors to what product design has the potential to be. In “Saturated: The Allure of Science and Color” there was a old Mac computed on display with this quote from Steve Jobs, “For most consumers, color is more important than megahertz, gigabytes, and other gibberish associated with buying a typical PC.” This placed in an exhibit about color allows visitors to reflect on their own consumer decision and how they are affected by design. This fits in to the discussion about design justice introduced to us by Constanza. The products we buy are all encoded with values, and along with the values are the frameworks of our society and all the power structures that entails (Constanza 2018). Museum experiences that let the visitor “behind the scenes” on how and why things are designed allow them to decode their consumer environment.

 

Talja, S., Hartel, J, (2007). Revisiting the user-centred turn in information science research: an intellectual history perspective. Information Research, 12(14).

Constanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design  Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. Design Research Society. University of Limerick. 25th-28th June 2018.

Sengers, P. (2000). Practices for a Machine Culture: A case study of integrating cultural theory and artificial intelligence. Surfaces. Presses de l’Universite de Montreal.

I Just Learnt the Greatest Part of American History

Observation of Frances Tavern Museum

 Oct 23. 13:14-16:14

 

Introduction & Inspiration

I am always a museum fan but I was too shy to be there alone. I guess it might feel different when I visit sites of culture with friends when we exchange views. I have visited museums in locations with history of 2000 years as well as galleries of world famous art collections. This time, I was going to a place with longer history, than the country I am staying. I chose this site, mainly because I know just a little about American history and I want to experience, hoping that my pieces of knowledge could revive and connect with each other.

I visited the Fraunces Tavern Museum in Oct. 23, in a different manner. I observed with my eyes big and round. Usually I visited museums casually and I believe that I can come back another time with a fresh new mood and look. I tried to grow with the communication I had with friends whom I talked with during the visit. Sometimes, it is also valuable to try to talk with yourself, when you emerge yourself in front of historical occasions and sites.

I knew I love museums, but now I understand more of why, with some knowledge from Course 601: Foundation of information.

 

I See Different Types of Information Interaction

Come to the Real Site of Historical Places

Read and Touch Tallmadge Memorial erected Dec.4, 1907

Read Event Calendar Brochure

 

Play Scavenger Hunt

Watch Orientation Video

Touch Art and History

Take a Selfie with Mascot

Smell the Merchandise-Tea

Decode Confidential

I Learnt Big Names and Great Events on Site|

Museum Collections

Fraunces Tavern Museum’s mission is to “preserve and interpret the history of the American Revolutionary era through public education”. On the history page of the museum online, we can find longer lines of history of Manhattan, than United States. If there is one collection to be the greatest moment, the next one would be the one: Signing of the Constitution of the United States.

It was in this room that President Washington took leave in Dec. 4, 1783, and the most emotional Memoirs of Colonel Benjamin Tallmadge, written in 1830 and now in the collection of Fraunces Tavern Museum.

“After the officers had taken a glass of wine General Washington said ‘I cannot come to each of you but shall feel obliged if each of you will come and take me by the hand.’ General Knox being nearest to him turned to the Commander-in-chief who, suffused in tears, was incapable of utterance but grasped his hand when they embraced each other in silence. In the same affectionate manner every officer in the room marched up and parted with his general in chief. Such a scene of sorrow and weeping I had never before witnessed and fondly hope I may never be called to witness again.”

The Long Room is preserved and no photo is allowed in this room. The best picture of that moment can be found in the engraving with hand coloring below.

Samuel Fraunces, as the “inn holder” of Frances Tavern, centered in the middle of commercial district, who owns business but also brings him politics connections.”On December 4, 1783, nine days after the last British soldiers left American soil, George Washington invited the officers of the Continental Army to join him in the Long Room of Fraunces Tavern so he could say farewell.” Later from May 1789 to Feburary 1790, Fraunces was hired, by Washington, as  the newly elected President, chief steward in New York. “He was responsible for overseeing the operation of the house and a staff of twelve. ”

The “inn” is more than a living space, in 1768, chamber of commerce was founded here. It became actually the “center of politics”

 

Thoughts & Reflection

Museums to me,  is another form of reading, in an interactive way, from multimedia sources. Compared to watching movie or documentaries, I love more of reading text and paragraph on a piece of paper material, such as a book. In this way, the reader has more rights to break and think twice at any pace. You can also take note, ask question or scan or search back and forth. A book after a reading process is never the same book it used to be, it became a product of both the writer and the reader.

My favorite categories of reading was biography and travel notes. These are based on true stories, it is supposed to. Publishing books is a way of telling a story in author’s tone. However, it is never the same, with a realtime and real space experience. Museums, are devoted to preserving the history and culture, in a different time, but real place.

Through the real touch of the original site, I feel the strong sense of politic hand in hand with finance. This museum was established in 1907. I wondered, will there be a museum of people in general, instead of politics. In Jensen’s words, there should be a shift from capitalism to liberal and pluralist, as well as democracy rather than corporate.

In Jenson’s article, 2008, “Library-Neutrality”, with open-minded applied to sciences, innovation increases; while with progressive applied to humanities, sometimes it is dangerous, well, “American revolutionary war arose from growing tensions between residents of Great Britain’s 13 North American colonies and the colonial government, which represented the British crown”. I feel that it maybe dangerous to British government at that time, but for American at this time, it is the opposite.

 

 

Reference

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/american-revolution-history

http://www.frauncestavernmuseum.org/history/

 

 

 

 

 

 

NYPL: Constraints Outside Bars by Amber Pasiak

NYPL: Constraints Outside Bars

Nestled in an unassuming building on 39thstreet in Manhattan, lies the backbone to many of the programs offered through New York Public Library. One of these outreach programs is the Correctional Services. This program is a small staffed group of librarians and volunteers who help provide reference information, circulating book service, video visitation and recorded readings for children to people in jail. These are primarily New York state jails; however, the reach and depth of this program is rapidly expanding. It is here that I got a firsthand look at what it entails to run a program of this kind. I had the pleasure of meeting and spending the morning with Emily Jacobson, aCorrectional Services Librarian.

Before I went to do this observation, I read The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions guideline for library services to prisoners which details practices that “reflect an acceptable level of library service, which could be achieved in most countries where national and local government policies support the existence of prison libraries.” This guideline stresses the shift from punishment to education and rehabilitation, wherein the role of the library is paramount. These guidelines offer hopeful, democratic and, which I was soon to discover, slightly unrealistic in practice, suggestions. This is not to say that the staff at NYPL has disregarded the suggestions, quite the opposite actually. I felt that they were doing their best to emulate them with what they were allotted. I also want to stress that I do recognize that a large general guidebook is going to have different uses across different institutions, whether it is a federal vs state jail or prison or a different type of correctional facility.

The Day:

Emily and I started the morning with a general overrun of all the services that are provided and how. The first task of the day was to sort through the many reference letters that have been mailed in. A great many of these letters requested a copy of NYPL’s “Connections” guide. This is a reentry guide that is free to people who are in jail or prison and offers information on housing and finding a job. Most of the other letters addressed issues about self-help resources, general reference questions and legal information.

The second part of the day was the selection and shelving of books that have been donated to the program. The correctional services is a donation based service. This means that a lot of the books that are donated cannot be used for certain reasons. Although there is a very limited “banned” book list, a great many others were in too poor condition, repeats or, to my surprise, very out of date magazines.

I was also surprised to learn that the program is all analog. Emily explained that there were several reasons for this. The first was that many of the jails do not have internet access, hence why this program’s reference letters were so popular, and there are many safety procedures in place that would make carrying out a regular library check out difficult. Another reason is that there are very few library locations inside jails, and thus the library will either be a popup that happens roughly twice a month or a book cart service. Some of the jails do offer some storage space, but when everything is in constant transit it makes hard to keep track of most of the books, as checking out a book is a hand-written paper process, with just a title and a patron name.

Keeping track of the books while working in a jail is the sort of dilemma that a regular library doesn’t normally see. As Emily explained to me, a jail is where someone is either awaiting trial, or has been sentenced for less than a year. This means that the patrons to a library jail are very often in flux and books tend to go missing or get lost, making it nearly impossible to have a traditional check out system.

The Days Reflections:

Although I spent most of the morning doing physical aspects of the job, it wasn’t hard to see how the theoretical frameworks that have been discussed in class were in play. The first that struck out to me was the curating choices of the librarians. As this is donation based, the variety of books coming in was already limited, and then the books about bomb making, etc. (if any) had to be removed, any damaged or watermarked books could not be used, and any hard cover books were deemed physically dangerous. So, what does this leave you with? Well, it looked to me that it was a million copies of the same Jo Nesbo and Nikki Turner books.

How does a librarian deal with trying to offer a balanced selection with limited resources and restrictions? How does a librarian take hold of their accountability, responsibility and recognize their “power” in a much stricter and limiting politized institution? Reference letters and book requests do show how a librarian might try to build a certain collection, however, this is not always possible to do, due to funding, donations and general stigmatization of the rights owed to a person in jail. When do these critical questions about a library space overlap or go against the critical questions about the roles jails and prisons play in society? William Birdsall articulates in his article “A political economy of librarianship” that: “librarians need to devote more effort researching the political and economic dynamics that define the past and current environment of libraries. Libraries are the creation and instrument of public policy derived from political processes.” Could this also not be said about jails and prisons?

In the article, “Information needs in prisons and jails: A discourse analytic approach”, the authors Debbie Rabina, Emily Drabinski and Laurin Paradise state that the information needs of people in prison and jail are actually constructed and created by those institutions. This article was written using data from the actual reference letters that NYPL correctional services have received. The article goes on to talk about the term digital divide. This term, otherwise referred to as information poverty, has been contested due to the binaries that it creates and simplification and stigmatization that it reinforces. They state that creating binaries related to the digital divide can be dangerous by placing librarians in a higher viewed position of power. They argue that the problem of information access is not solely the result of a lack of internet.

I found this point interesting due to the already existing idea that people in jail or prison are coming from a place of poverty and that by placing them in a binary of digital divide, scholars are reinforcing that separation, while also adding another level of authoritative power above them.

Conclusion:

Although I do not have an answer to many of the questions I have raised here, I did find it enlightening to have seen how some of the critical questions and theoretical frameworks we have been introduced to as students fit into real world situations. My day spent at the NYPL correctional services has made me think about these questions in a different manner. There has already been much discussion on how some of these issues of power play out differently between public and academic libraries, however when dealing with a public library situated in a very specific authoritative politized institution they take on another new role.

 

“Future research should address the information that incarcerated users have, not what those of us on the outside imagine they do not.”(Rabina, 2016.)

 

Resources:

American Library Association. (2017) “Prison Libraries”. Retrieved from http://libguides.ala.org/PrisonLibraries/Home

Birdsall, W. (2001) “A political economy of librarianship?” Progressive Librarian, 18, Summer 2001. Retrieved from https://lms.pratt.edu/pluginfile.php/828932/mod_resource/content/0/02_Birdsall_2001.pdf

Lehmann, V., Locke, J., & International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, T. H. (Netherlands). (2005). Guidelines for Library Services to Prisoners. 3rd Edition. IFLA Professional Reports, No. 92. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497652.pdf

Rabina, D., Drabinski, E., & Paradise, L. (2016) “Information needs in prisons and jails: A discourse analytic approach.” De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://lms.pratt.edu/pluginfile.php/829457/mod_resource/content/0/2016_Libri.pdf

Pop Up Museums: User Centered-Research at it’s Full Potential by Sloan Strader

The phenomena of “Pop Up Museums” has taken the art world by storm. Known for their trendy themes, and picture perfect exhibitions these sites present a real challenge to traditional museums and cultural institutions. Some disagree with the use of the word “museum” to describe these sites as they appear to fall short of particular requirements like, a permanent collection or a physical permanent location. According  to the International Council on Museums (ICOM):

A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment” (ICOM 2016).

Pop Up Museums are more fluid, they move from place to place depending on interest. Unlike traveling exhibitions, Pop Up Museums do not need the support of a museum as a host. Instead any space can be rented out to host the exhibition.  They are less of an institution and more of an experience, one of the many reasons for their rise in popularity. I chose to attend a Pop Up Museum as opposed to a traditional museum because I was curious to observe patrons in a completely user-centered information environment marketed towards contemporary interests like taking selfies.

For my observation assignment I visited The Museum of Illusions, which arrived in New York a few months ago. I would describe the museum as a “hyper interactive space”, where the focus was not on art, historical objects, or other things we’d typically find in museums but instead was focused almost entirely on games. According to their website, the museum’s purpose is to “offer you an intriguing visual, sensory and educational experience with a handful of new, unexplored illusions” (Museum of Illusions 2018). I went to the exhibition alone so I was unable to participate in some of the activities. I spent a majority of my time watching several families and made the following observations during my visit:

1. Instagram Focus

While walking around the exhibition I noticed the following image at each stop posted on the floor. A graphic of a camera encouraging the patron to stand in that precise spot to take a photo, suggestively for Instagram, Twitter, or some other form of social media as the graphic was followed by “#museumofillusions”. This idea of “Insta-worthy” museum spaces is what makes Pop Up Museums a competitor to traditional museums and cultural institutions. 

During my visit every patron had their phone out to take pictures, which is not odd behavior in a museum per say, but I was surprised by how much phones were being used. It felt as if I did not have my cell phone I would be missing out on part of the experience. This makes me wonder if there is a shift away from museum objects and their collections, or their information value, towards their entertainment value. Are pop-up museums perhaps an over-correction of traditional museums historical difficulty of engaging with their audiences? Especially in thinking about younger generations who may not be as interested in visiting a history or art museum, the Museum of Illusions is approachable and fun. I saw a lot of families with children ranging from toddlers, to teenagers, to grandparents running around the exhibition, taking pictures, and playing with the installations.

2. Multi-User Interactive Activities

As I mentioned I wish I would have attended the exhibition with a friend. As most of the pieces were intended for use by two or more people! The interactive component of the museum not only makes it more fun for patrons, but also speaks to the intentions of curators or exhibition designers. In our readings about user-centered research, focus has either been placed on the user as an individual or on the community. I would love to learn more about the relationships between users in an information environment. Seeing families and friends interact with one another at the museum was one of my biggest takeaways. One of the more simple illusions was a kaleidoscope with openings at both ends for people to look at one another through. I imagine the effect was much cooler when doing this activity with another person, as when I did it on my own the kaleidoscope did not produce the same effect. The most popular piece on view combines my early point about Instagram potential with social elements. Upstairs there is a room with furniture set up on its side, when people stand in this room they can take photos that create the illusion they are suspended.

I observed a family who spent about fifteen minutes planning how they were going to stage this photo. What I witnessed was more than the typical Instagram posing, instead the daughters were problem solving with their parents, engaging with the illusion part of the piece by trying to figure out how to take the photo. My observations of the relationships and interactions I saw at the Museum of Illusions makes me consider the importance of social interaction in information environments, and how this may be one of the reasons for Pop Up Museums popularity and success.

3. Size of Exhibition + Cost

My two biggest criticisms of the Museum of Illusion would be size and cost. A student ticket was $18 and family tickets are $53. I understand why museums charge admission fees, but am baffled as to why the Museum of Illusions cost so much. The exhibition itself has no more 20 pieces. It took me about 45 minutes to go through the museum and I spent the rest of my time watching patrons interact with the exhibition. This made me think about incentive and how museums can successfully entice users into visiting their spaces. As someone who worked in visitor services at an art museum I have overheard a lot of griping and complaining about whether or not museums are worth their admission fee, but surprisingly enough the patrons at the Museum of Illusions seemed to be happy costumers. The museum seemed to know its market very well, and shaped the exhibitions to the wants and needs of the people.

All in all my observation of the Museum of Illusions as an information environment was eye opening. As a critic of the Pop Up Museum phenomenon, I was wary of what these temporary exhibitions with seemingly arbitrary themes had to offer patrons. Yet in thinking about my observation in conversation with Sanna Talja and Jenna Hartel’s arguements in their essay Revisting the user-centred turn in information science research: an intellectual history perspective, Pop Up Museums appear to be a natural progression in the over arching trend of information studies and user interaction. Talja and Hartel argue:

“The conceptualization of ‘users’ in the dual role of producer and consumer of information yields a broad and active role to the user. Garvey and Gottfredson (1979: 320) not only assumed that users should be placed at the center of systems designed and planned by someone else, they stressed that innovations and interventions in communication systems must ultimately be designed in collaboration with, or within, scholarly communities themselves or they will not become efficient and effective” (Talja Hartel 6).

Although the systems referred to in this passage are academic, the framework presented can be useful in helping us understand the success and overall importance of Pop Up Museums as information environments in the digital age. The Museum of Illusions is a direct response to the entertainment needs of its patrons, an observation that’s visible in the way the exhibition is constructed. The entertainment value of the space seems to take precedent over the content, but does not inhibit the exhibition’s success. The museum’s focus on fun as opposed to prestige or namesake makes this information environment approachable and in turn, accessible.

 

  

Works Cited:

  1. Hartel, Jenna & Talja, Sanna. (2007). Revisting the user-centred turn in information science research: an intellectual history perspective
  2. ICOM. (2017). ICOM Definition of a Museum. http://archives.icom.museum/definition.html
  3. Museum of Illusions New York. About Us. https://newyork.museumofillusions.us/about-us/

Meetup: Designing Technology for Older Adults

In September, I attended my first Meetup – ‘Designing Technology for Older Adults.’ The speaker was Yasmin Felberbaum, a Ph.D. student at the University of Haifa. The focus of the talk was threefold: (1) the challenges of designing for older adults; (2) the design decisions that could improve products for these users; and (3) examples of well and poorly-designed products aimed at older adults. For this article, I will use Felberbaum’s research to show how these design considerations tie into our readings about user-centered design, design justice and the political economy of information. First, I will highlight the design challenges associated with older adults, and how these are undergoing a transformation. Next, I will discuss what inclusive design means in the context of Chock’s ‘Design Justice.’ Finally, I will use Felberbaum’s research to show how we can best design for an elderly population, reflecting principles championed by the Design Justice movement.

Design challenges for older adults 

The event began by defining an ‘older adult’ as anyone over the age of 65 and highlighting the challenges associated with designing for this segment of the population. These fall into three main categories:

  • Physical – motor changes, e.g., inability to hold a device for an extended time;
  • Mental – cognitive and emotional changes, e.g., loss of loved ones may cause depression or decreased motivation;
  • Educational – low levels of technology training and skills are still prevalent.

Due to population increases and improved life expectancy, estimates currently put the number of adults aged 65+ at roughly 2 billion by 2050, according to Felberbaum. However, the older adults of today are vastly different from those of the future, a point which Norman references in his ‘Being Analog’ article. As our everyday lives are becoming increasingly complex, ‘the slow evolutionary pace of life is no longer up to the scale and pace of technological change’; meaning that humans must now try to keep up with ever-increasing and oppressive amounts of knowledge. As a result, the current generation of young, digital native adults, are being shaped by different experiences with technology. They have higher expectations for technology to help them cope with so much information. The way that young adults today interact with technology is also fundamentally different. According to Benkler’s ‘The Wealth of Networks,’ our interaction with technology today is much more pervasive than it was 50 years ago. The conclusion we can draw from this is that to disregard older adults as an insignificant portion of technology consumers is seriously misguided. Not only will they become increasingly significant in size and purchasing power, but they will also be more demanding in the quality of that technology and how it serves their lives. They will be healthier and better technically educated and will fully expect to be included and designed for, much as they would have been when younger.

‘Design Justice’ as a way to overcome exclusive design processes

One of the main arguments presented by Felberbaum was that stereotypes about technology products for older adults, e.g., low adoption rates, are often a result of the exclusion of the user group from the design process. This omittance is just one example of designers overlooking users who do not conform to the stereotypical ‘imagined user […]. In the U.S., this means straight white middle-class, cisgender men, with educational privilege and high technological literacy, citizenship, native English speakers’ and, I would also add, young age. Constanza-Chock discusses recent attempts to overcome this in her Design Justice article. Design Justice champions a set of principles that, when included in the design process, should fairly and accurately represent marginalized users. It recognizes that the participation of these end users in the design process is crucial to creating products that are valuable for them. This is relevant to Felberbaum’s presentation, as she gathered her insights through the direct participation of older adults in her research process. She conducted in-depth interviews with her users, who were questioned and observed while using technology products with both inclusive and universal designs. The feedback gathered included which products users were more likely to adopt and why, what product issues they could not overlook and what they found attractive or helpful. Here is a clear example of Design Justice at work: the inclusion of the participants and recipients of the design as key contributors.

Constanza-Chock also presents the idea that designers with diverse backgrounds and experiences, especially those from marginalized communities, could help broaden perceptions of the ‘imagined user,’ resulting in fewer overlooked groups. While this is a worthy goal that should be encouraged, it may prove difficult when considering an elderly population. One of the very reasons that old adult marginalization occurs in design is because they are physically or mentally unable to participate in the process, or are retired from the workforce. Therefore, advocating that adults over 65 become designers to mitigate their exclusion may not be feasible. In these cases, applying concepts of user-centered and empathy-driven design become even more critical. These can help to supplement knowledge and experience gaps when designing for users that cannot fully participate in a process that was created precisely for their inclusion.

Best practice design for older adults

The final part of the event focused on the insights Felberbaum gathered from her research with older adults. These can be summed up as:

  • The social or gamification component of a product was vital to secure adoption and continued use;
  • Adoption only happens where there is a clear added value, e.g., what am I gaining by using this, that justifies introducing a new habit at a late stage of life;
  • The design should be universal and not inclusive – older adults did not want to use products aimed specifically at them due to stigma or emotions in acknowledging a perceived diminished place in society;
  • The lower the interaction and learnability requirement to use the product or device, the higher the adoption rate;
  • Where new information is necessary to use the product, this must build on existing or prior knowledge to secure adoption;

These insights provide good examples of best practice when designing for adults over 65, and they were all elicited by communicating with the target user group. These insights also touch on one of the action’s outlined in Gehner’s article, specifically: ‘understand that charity is not dignity; dignity is inclusion.’ I think this is particularly poignant and applicable to the outcomes of Felberbaum’s research as the products that had the most success were those that did not treat older adults as a separate segment of the population that needed unique designs. The older adults interviewed wanted to feel included, empowered and just like everyone else by being able to use the same products as their children and grandchildren – universal design was overwhelmingly the preferred choice.

Conclusion

The event made me think critically about my relationship with technology as a future older adult. It was also significant, as an aspiring UX designer, to see an example of design justice at work providing higher quality insights. Often, as Norman points out, what we attribute as issues with users, are a result of poorly designed products. Stereotypes, such as low adoption rates among older adults, are dangerous because they similarly focus the problem on the user and not the product, making designers less inclined to change their design process. The key takeaway for me was that it doesn’t matter what user segment you are designing for – if a user-centered approach is used, adoption will occur.

Works cited:

  • Costanza-Chock, S (2018). Design Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice, Design Research Society 2018.
  • Norman, D. A. (1998). The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer is So Complex, and Information Appliances are the Solution. MIT Press. Chapter 7: Being Analog.
  • Benkler, Y. (2006). “Introduction: a moment of opportunity and challenge” in The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, 1–18.
  • Gehner, J. (2010). Libraries, Low-Income People, and Social Exclusion, Public Library Quarterly, 29:1, 39-47.

Event Reflection-WLA Immigration and Library Service in 2018

This event, held at the Westchester Library System Headquarters in Elmsford, NY, consisted of a panel discussion with Carola Bracco, executive director of an organization assisting immigrants in Westchester County called Neighbors Link; Karin Ponzer, the organization’s legal counsel; and Karen LaRocca-Fels, Director of the Ossining Public Library.

For an event of only 90 minutes, a lot of ground was covered. Much attention was given to challenges facing the library system in connection to the increase of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, in Westchester County. Aside from the language barrier, immigrants were reported to be hesitant to use the library services because they perceive the library as a government institution which might turn them in to ICE . Another source of worry is the few examples of hostility from the residents toward immigrants. As an example, prior to an event the WLA held in conjunction with the Ecuadorean Consulate, an anonymous phone call was made threatening to call ICE.

Before addressing more local issues, Karin Ponzer, the legal counsel for Neighbors Link, began with a overview of recent developments in national policy affecting immigrant communities. She noted that there is no constitutional right to stay in the United States unless one is a U.S citizen. This is as true with asylum seekers as it is with economic migrants. Supposedly in the interest of national security, benefits have become increasingly denied to immigrants. Ms. Pozner lamented that the Attorney General has been interfering with the judicial branch to rewrite law so as to extend the authority of the Federal Government. She concluded with remarking that current restrictions on immigrants are worse than they were after 9/11.

One of the primary issues discussed was the challenges surrounding immigrants obtaining library cards. Currently, one is required to provide a picture I.D, however many immigrants are not carrying photo IDs with them for fear of being stopped by ICE. One of the solutions offered was that immigrants could get Westchester County IDs for $18.00. This would necessitate going to the county clerk’s office, which some immigrants may be wary of doing. If was further suggested that libraries may be able to become qualified to give these IDs themselves. This would require a change in legislation at the local level, but it was indicated that this would not be exceedingly hard to do. The panelists emphasized how important it is for immigrants, irrespective of their status, to be able to use the library services. Libraries have been a reliable place for immigrants to gain information on the Immigration Protection Act and education in technology.

The panelists also suggested that  a policy be introduced in the unlikely event ICE entered the library to apprehend anyone suspected of being undocumented. Ms. Ponzer reviewed some of the  current ICE policies. At the moment, though it may change, ICE’s current policy is that it would not enter educational facilities (including libraries), funerals and weddings, and places of worship. Ms.Ponzer noted that the library is required to comply with the police because that is a matter of criminal law, however, because ICE operates under civil law, libraries have fewer obligations. ICE would need a judicial warrant before the library is legally bound to cooperate fully. In contrast, an administrative warrant, which is easily distinguishable by how it looks, is not legally binding.

This discussion reflects an issue of paramount importance for the information profession in general. David Bawden and  Lyn Robinson, in their book Introduction to Information Science, state that  the “main areas of concern within information ethics include…universal access, information poverty and the digital divide” (237). Ensuring that immigrants have access to the library is essential for addressing the issue of information poverty and providing universal access.

http://www.westchesterlibraryassociation.org/