A Dialogue for Two

 

Content Management Systems (CMS) are designed to provide tools to users for editing, publishing, and organizing content for the web.  They can be open sourced software or be a part of a paid commercial package, both of which have their pros and cons.  As we have read so far in class, some libraries have preferred one over the other but neither is the panacea of web programming.  I interviewed VSU Odum Library’s Michael Holt, who gave permission to use his name in this paper.  The interview was conducted via email and happened on May 27, 2015.

The name of the CMS Odum is using is LibGuides and is created by a company called Springshare.  The library has been using this CMS since late 2013 according to Holt.  I asked how and where they heard about this CMS which got the reply “I heard about it soon after I started working as a professional academic librarian in 2010.  There was a lot of suggestion that we adopt the platform among my colleagues, but there was a lot of debate over how we would pay for it.”  LibGuides is not open source code nor is it free of charge, which Holt believes is a detracting factor of the software.  He states, “I like my technology infinitely customizable and you just can’t do that when the product is closed source.”  We have read that open source software is indeed more flexible and you have more control on its customizations as compared to commercially provided products as with the case for CCFLS.  I asked whether academic libraries would be better using a commercial system for content management or if an open source solution would be a viable option, to which Holt replied that while “no one is a bigger supporter of open source solutions than I am, outside of Wordpress I haven’t come across any other open source CMS that I would put on the same level as LibGuides.  In general I feel academic libraries are better off using commercial CMS right now.”  

Thus when GALILEO began providing the CMS to USG schools free of charge, normally you would be required to pay a fee, the library adopted the software.  Odum uses the CMS to create how-to pages, tutorials, and other online materials for library instruction.  Holt also mentioned that they have “begun creating a libguide that is serving as an access point for open access materials for a Philosophy core class on campus” and that he would “like to do more with open access delivery and libguides in the future if possible.”  Before LibGuides, Holt commented that these pages were created through HTML or Adobe Cascade. I really liked the idea of incorporating the library even more into core classes. Especially since it would be available online which may prompt more students to check it out.

I asked if there are advantages or disadvantages in using their current CMS versus their previous, to which Holt replied, “LibGuides is specifically made for the purposes we use it for, so it’s naturally a better fit.”  But that’s not to say that it doesn't have its weak points.  “One of the worst features is its way of dealing with images.  It’s clunky and tends to disrupt my workflow a lot when I’m working on a guide”  because it “forces me to leave the guide I’m working on (or at least open another tab) to insert an image.”  I also asked him what sort of learning curve LibGuides had.  He expressed that for him, personally, it was very low.  And that “LibGuides is mostly pretty user friendly” but “it may take some training for some to figure out where everything is.”  To the question about how many people used the CMS to generate content, Holt said, “It’s tough to put an exact number on, because technically anyone who works in the library should be using the platform when they need to create tutorials or lists of resources.  But I’d say that our 8 reference librarians use it far more than anyone else.”

I proposed a scenario which didn’t have GALILEO offering schools LibGuides free of charges and asked what he would have liked to use/test out in its stead.  He said that more than likely the library would have stuck with using Cascade, especially since “Campus Web Services are keen on a consistent look to the website.”  But he would have liked to look into Wordpress after watching a library’s presentation at ALA last year. 

Finally in closing I asked what advice he would give to other libraries looking into a CMS.  His answer, “Think about what you need the CMS to do and choose accordingly.  LibGuides is unbeatable for Reference based materials or maybe even MOOC course delivery, but I wouldn't use it for a whole website.  Think about your staff and their abilities as well.  Do you have a knowledgeable tech-savvy staff that are willing to put in the effort to make a new technology, that might have a high learning curve, work?  Then an open source solution could be the answer.  Do you not have that?  Then you would definitely want to go with a commercial solution.  Ultimately the lesson to take away is to do your homework and choose wisely.  Or you could have your state consortium choose for you, in which case, go with what they will support!”

Many of Holt’s experiences and opinions align themselves to the literature we have read so far.  I did like how he pointed out to consult your web services since they will have standards, because that was one of the more important pieces of advice from the articles.  And it was interesting to see that he would like an open source option if it was robust enough.  All in all I think that many librarians will have had similar situations with their own institutions and CMS deployment just because many libraries are using them similar ways.