Just wanted to wrap up a few thoughts I had after sitting through the “input session” organized by ITI and The Otter Group on the whole SWIFT/CiL thing. Several really important points came up during that session, which I felt like needed to be pulled out for comment.
First was Ryan Deschamps comment during the (admittedly somewhat tense) discussion. Paraphrased, it was “you don’t just have to be good, you have to be better than me.” This wasn’t said egoistically, just to point out that any particular tool, especially a tool that is commercial in nature, has to be better in significant ways than the tools that are available for free. As well, the tool has to do something that the individual attendees of the conference can’t do either as easily or as quickly by themselves. While I’m quite sure that not everyone at Computers in Libraries is as talented as Ryan, I’m equally sure that anything he or any of the other seriously talented people who were at the input session were to build would be sharable and community driven. As Michael Sauers pointed out on llyfrgellydd.info, several presenters created tools for free, for the hell of it, that ended up being huge drivers of the conference. SWIFT has to be better than them, and it’s not.
Second was the issue that I have with perceived audience of this product. The product is marketed at people who use tools that rely on tags as metadata…flickr, blogs, delicious, etc. It, by necessity, has to have tags in order to pull all the disparate pieces together. But the very people using those services are the people who don’t need SWIFT. The Otter Group developed a platform that is useless for the very people that must use it for it to work.
Third and last is what the session turned out to be. Meredith Farkas has, as usual, a thoughtful post on her take on the session, and comments on the very real tension in the room. I think the tension was a result of the clash between expectation and implementation…we expected an actual feedback session, and we got a sales pitch. Meredith got to the party a little late, and might have missed the fascinating anecdote about where Kathleen got the name for the product (SWIFT is named after a bird!).
We. Don’t. Care. We use products called things like ooVoo, Tumblr, Hulu, and Twitter. Clearly names are not at the top of our list when we choose products or service. We didn’t care about the history of the product, nor even really about its intended use. The street finds its own uses. The point of Web2.0 and Library 2.0 is to provide tools.
Several people in the room commented on the fact that The Otter Group seemed not at all interested in really hearing about the problems with the product. Everything was blamed on “being beta”, or on the lawyers, or something. My take on it is that they just don’t seem to get the social web, as hard as they tried and as much history as they have in trying to make it a commercial product. They fell hard once with their ALA Bootcamp, and if possible fell even harder with Cil2008 and SWIFT.
Oh, and since I know that eventually Kathleen and The Otter Group will see this: Who won the Wii?
8 replies on “Last thoughts on SWIFT at CiL2008”
What you said.
I’ll try to swim to the surface and post a me-too that also talks about our ole pal, the tipping point.
I caught enough of her presentation to know that it was incredibly misguided. I’m not sure how she thought that better explaining what SWIFT was would help. I guess she really believes that SWIFT is amazing and we just don’t get it. Sigh…
I know when I created a wiki for the Buying and Selling eContent conference for Information Today last year, there was a company that wanted to display their feed of blogs about eContent (which they didn’t know how to display themselves, but that’s another story). When I found out that they were SELLING mashed up feeds like that, I was baffled, because it’s something you can accomplish with any number of free tools (RSSMixer, Feed Digest, Yahoo! Pipes, etc.). It seems like the best market for tools like that is for people who know nothing about the technologies and just want to pay for something that works. Of course, SWIFT can’t even do that because they need to market it to people who tag things who, for the most part, know how to do this stuff on their own. I find it interesting that companies like this are still managing to make money when there are so many models for doing this sort of stuff for $0. And even if the conference organizers don’t want to put it all together themselves, there are lots of people like us who would be happy to do that for them for a lot less than these companies charge.
So, techie conference organizers, look for help from within. There are lots of smart, able folks who would love to set up or build you what you want and will charge you a lot less to do it.
This tracks pretty closely with how I remember it. Thanks for writing it up.
Ryan, thanks for the summary. Although some of us were a bit harsh, I think we said what she/Otto Group needed to hear. We didn’t get it what made SWIFT better than what we’re doing now. And we were their test market.
The feedback continued at the reception afterwards. I was pleased to hear Dick Kaiser talk about it. They had jumped at what sounded like an idea, but the decisions sounded rushed. I think he appreciated our input and questions. In our case, we were able to think about it in a way that they could not.
BTW now I’m glad I took those photos! (I wondered if they would be useful….)
[…] Jason Griffey summed up my conclusions almost to the letter. See, there was this meeting with the Otter Group. I was only at the meeting with the Otter Group for twenty minutes, since I had to catch a flight, but it seemed o.k., as far as meetings go. […]
JASON, sorry…was typing fast and saw “Ryan”. Color me very apologetic!
Yes, the URLs on the photos are perfect!
Well said, Jason. I respect ITI for trying something new–heck, isn’t that what we always say libraries and librarians should be doing? Taking risks? Daring to fall? Getting back up again and trying something else? But any harshness we had for SWIFT itself was, as far as I’m concerned, the ugly truth. It’s not just librarians who care about terms of service. It’s not just webby librarians who can navigate and aggregate without needing a commercial platform. Maybe there are conference-goers who want SWIFT and would use it, but I think there are more people than just those of us in the room who wouldn’t need it at all. And while I appreciate what Kathleen Gilroy’s original motivation and inspiration was…in the end, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the result, the product. And it’s just not something I see any use for.
[…] April 13, 2008 in Trends People around town have talked about Swift, and some were invited to a feedback session on Swift. Already, comments have come out about that session, and I’m even mentioned in one of them. […]