Nelson: Cooking the books

The Nelson Library is asking for input towards how we perceive its role in days to come - a survey. There probably are many possibilities for how to bring technology into it all - channeling/streamlining today's access to information - but two concerns I have are more basic.

1.
The catalogue as is and the shelving-system based on it

For many years one would find part of an author's oeuvre shelved in one genre and part in another - even when said author only wrote in one of them. And with these genres not necessarily shelved side-by-side, this usually meant a fair amount of navigating around the place - more so when several authors presented interesting variations at the same time. I got used to this rather user-unfriendly system. Others may have found it problematic - or possibly did not (still don't!) even know that there is more by a particular author somewhere else!

Then - not long before the big reconfiguration of the Library - all books were reshelved; reshelved drastically and still based on catalogue-inconsistency. Meaning - the same (non)system from before was used again; and again an author would have to be sought all over the now pointlessly very different place(s). Same basic problems! This at the time when remodeling already was on the table for the near future, and the new arrangement would only have a very limited shelf-life. This reshelving had nothing to do with remodeling-plans.

At that time I brought up: why reshelve now and why not sort the catalogue first?

Then came remodeling and by necessity much intense toing and froing of books (again), shelves, people and stuff.

But - logically - with the new improved space one could have expected to finally find appropriately shelved books, based on a revamped catalogue.

Silly me! Nothing of the sort!

So my suggestion here is to stay with basics for a bit before taking-off into cyber-bookdom - arranging this catalogue like a catalogue, and shelving books according to it!


2.
Main-page of the Library's website

The old one was just fine - with the logo presenting strong name-recognition - it all looked solid, dependable. While the new one's color-scheme is a rip-off straight from the NDCC's palette on the rebound - Pharmasave-at-Easter - insubstantial, superficial and hardly trust-inspiring. The thought-bubbles technologically are elementary and vapid in content. The info i (Nelson cross-breeding with Library) has been done before and is awkward here. All this lacks individuality, character. And there's no logo!

The Library Board - surprisingly with money to burn - may be keen on balance between the traditional and the with-it technological. But!

This ain't it!


Apparently in more ways than one!


After posting the above I learn that the moving thought-bubble business topping the main-page actually is the logo or logos - we have a choice of three toppings! Yum!

And lest the intelligence of/behind it should not be apparent to us immediately - "It reflects the changing landscape of libraries and our community with its interchangeable message: discover; connect; imagine. .... Library staff worked with a graphic designer to ensure that our logo would express friendliness and accessibility, as well as the broad range of opportunities now available through libraries as a vital resource and social and informational hub." What pretentious twaddle! And here I thought a logo is a distinct company signature, a trademark, a symbol to invoke name-recognition - like what the library had before.

This simplistic visual effort - without the verbose attempt at significance - may be just fine for a kiddie-page. As an adult the whole - visuals and explanation - makes me impatient with where our library is going. Concerned too - what with the Royal City's current cultural ambassador occupying a position of influence and responsibility there. 

May I suggest that basic "accessibility" of material on the shelves is what is pertinent before anything else.