Instant Messaging: An Alternative Virtual Reference Solution?: Virtual Reference Desk Conference

Instant Messaging: An Alternative Virtual Reference Solution?: Virtual Reference Desk Conference
Jeff Penka from OCLC

OCLC held a forum for conference attendees to discuss the possibility of using instant messaging for virtual reference.  About forty people showed up for the discussion.  I thought it was a very productive discussion, and I was pleasantly surprised by Jeff’s lack of OCLC-bias.  It was an open discussion and criticisms of web-based chat clients were heard and responded to.  Thank you for doing that Jeff.

Highlights from the discussion:

1. Jeff said that instant messaging integration is key to virtual reference’s continued relevance.
2. A number of the participants use instant messaging for personal or intra-office communications.  Very few were using IM for reference.
3. Some concerns about using IM for reference included getting IT to let you use IM, students at local schools only having access to school computers that have disabled IM installations, administrative bans of IM as “frivolous communication.”  Concerns from parents have also been expressed about the cost of text messaging or IMing on cell phones.  One library’s colleagues were concerned about users needing to create a new account to use IM reference services.
4. Jeff proposes an environmental scan of IM integration opportunities and to examine what our expectations are for IM services.
5. Why do commercial providers offer free IM?  Suggestions included revenue-generating ads, for-pay add-ons, brand loyalty, brand exposure, targeted ads based on keywords from your messages, and possible integration into other existing projects (like MSN Messenger integrating into Outlook and Office).
6. Why does IM seem like a good fit for virtual reference?  It serves the millennials and it serves the users at their point of need—being right there where they are already (especially if you’re on their buddy list).  Users often have IM open during other online tasks, so we’re not a specific destination—we’re just there.  People also spoke about relationship-building through online chat (IM or web-based chat).
7. There is also a concern about web-based chat service becoming financially unsustainable over time and ceasing to be an option.
8. We talked about audio and video features in IM, and it was agreed that they are nice add-ons and possible new areas for exploration, but right now what’s key for us is the utter simplicity and speed of the text part of IM.
9. We talked about IM bots a bit, auto-answering bots and advertising bots.  Someone suggested that we could use bots for auto-sending follow-up surveys to patrons or discerning who else is online monitoring the IM service.
10. Jeff suggested that the Open WorldCat “Ask a Librarian” button could go to a list of IMing libraries, web-based chat libraries, e-mail, etc.
11. Legal issues discussed included privacy concerns, commercial services’ terms and conditions, and data storage.
12. Technical issues discussed included the vulnerabilities resulting from rootkits installed through IM (DO ROOTKITS ACTUALLY COME FROM IM?????), the technology not existing right now to allow multiple librarians to monitor multiple queues in a cooperative setting, the requirements that users create an account and (for most services) that the user download software, and a concern that by the library endorsing IM, are we also endorsing security holes?
13. What’s ideal for a library IM reference service/product?  Have complete control over all patron data and be able to maintain patron privacy.  Allow multiple librarians to monitor multiple queues.  Offer a library IM interface to the libraries that will interoperate with all the commercial IM accounts, but also offer a library-IM client for patrons to download or use online through a web form if they don’t already have a commercial client.  Maintain the features in the native interface, if possible.  Maintain simplicity at all costs.