"real" v digital ---aren't they both REAL?

RE: "real" v digital ---aren't they both REAL?

2009-09-16T19:25:28Z

And many libraries think of their website as only a pointer to the physical library and its "real" services. It's a semantics game but I think it's important for everyone to think of digital and online experiences as very real.

I've had friends tell me they "never go to the library." When I probe further, I discover that they place online holds on books (and yes they have to dash into the building and use the self-check) and that they search library databases. I tell them that they are indeed "going to the library" when they do that.

RE: "real" v digital ---aren't they both REAL?

2009-09-16T15:52:17Z

Worse, they're ignoring a likely growth path among those "early adopters" who will soon be influential voters.

RE: "real" v digital ---aren't they both REAL?

2009-09-15T22:20:54Z

Yes, they're both very real. And that was really my point - some libraries pretty much ignore their website - all energy flows towards their physical library, the building, etc. By pouring no time or resources into their digital stuff - their website, social media tools, etc, I'd suggest they're are basically ignoring one of their potential major service points.

"real" v digital ---aren't they both REAL?

2009-09-15T20:37:22Z

An interesting group of twitter comments on this during the Building the Digital Branch for the 21st Century webinar with David Lee King.

Another said:

is a digital branch any less real?