Google Voice: A Voice in the Library

Introduction

Released to the public in 2010, Google Voice is touted as the next step in telecommunications.  To put it simply, it “gives you one number for all of your phones” and works with mobile phones, desk phones, and work phones (“About Google Voice,” 2015).  In order to use Google Voice, there is no downloading, uploading, or installation required.  Instead, all that is necessary is to create a Google email account and activate Google Voice (Mairn, 2012, p. 267).  Simple and free, the many possibilities offered through this service make it attractive to both public and academic libraries.  This paper will review existing literature on this topic, explore how libraries are already making use of Google Voice, and examine challenges and potential future uses as libraries continue to embrace technologies such as Google Voice.

Literature Review

There is a growing body of literature that covers mobile technology, its uses, and how libraries are adapting it to suit their needs.  Breitbach and Prieto (2012) mention a Pew Research Center report that shows that 96 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 298 own a cell phone as of 2010.  Another Pew Research Center report found that text messaging is the preferred method of communication among teenagers (p. 2).  In order to reach this growing demographic, libraries have begun to experiment with short message system (SMS) or text messaging reference services.  Breitbach and Prieto follow the Pollak Library’s use of such a service, tracking how the library offered SMS by merging Google Voice with LibraryH3Ip and what types of questions were received through text messages (p. 1).  Mairn (2012) discusses how libraries can implement three different types of mobile technology, specifically discussing Google Voice and its potential uses in libraries.  This includes creating personalized greetings for different audiences, blocking and screening callers, transcribing voicemail messages and sending them via email and text messages, and using it as a basis for SMS reference (p. 267).  As Google Voice continues to evolve and add services, more research will be needed to study how libraries incorporate them and how patrons respond.

Use of Google Voice in Libraries

Breitbach and Prieto (2012) and Mairn (2012) recognize Google Voice’s potential use for libraries both outwardly, in remote reference, and internally, where it can connect and assist departments and staff.  In Breitbach and Prieto’s study, they tracked the use of Google Voice merged with LibraryH3Ip within the Pollack Library at California State University, Fullerton.  This library serves a student body of approximately 35,000 students across 23 campuses, many of whom commute to school or take online classes (pp. 2-3).  Due to this, Pollack Library implemented a text messaging service using Google Voice, through which patrons can send text messages to the Google Voice telephone number, which are then collected and integrated into the system through LibraryH3Ip, so that librarians only need to check one place for both texted queries and IMs.

            Google Voice can also let libraries decide which phones ring based on who is calling and route calls so that, if a librarian is already busy with a call on Google Voice, the system will recognize that and use call waiting (“About Google Voice,” 2015).  This allows for smoother operation and faster service, since librarians can use their personal phones and take calls when they are away from the desk.  By personalizing the default settings, libraries can also set the library’s phones so that calls that come in after the library is closed will go directly to voice message.

Potential Applications

While Google Voice was only used to enhance the reference service already in existence in Breitbach and Prieto’s study of Pollack Library, they note that libraries can monitor the service through their Gmail account or with third-party options (p. 7).  They also predict that students who use SMS reference services at their university libraries will eventually bring the practice to public libraries.

Besides reference services, Mairn (2012) records various potential uses, specifically within library departments.  For example, Google Voice allows users to “personalize greetings, share voicemails, block or screen callers, have voicemail messages transcribed and then sent via e-mail and text messaging… and conduct conference calls” (p. 267).  A library could potentially save and share voicemails with staff members not on shift when a call comes in, block bothersome calls, and transcribe and email voice messages between staff members or library departments.  All of these things enable library staff to keep track of what is going on and make sure everyone is on the same page and has seen the same information.  To make it simpler, a library can create its own account, connecting Google Voice to the institution and not to a specific individual who might leave the library.

Issues

While Google Voice has only been available to the public for five years, many libraries have already established electronic reference through IM, online chat, and email.  In their study of Pollack Library’s use of SMS reference through Google Voice, Breitbach and Prieto (2012) found that the traditional walk-up queries was the most common type of reference question, followed by IM, QuestionPoint, telephone, and text messaging (p. 3).  Most of the questions received via SMS were non-resource based and ready reference, while only eight of the 142 received and analyzed during the study period were identified as complex questions.  Other methods of remote reference, such as QuestionPoint and IM received a higher percentage of complex questions (p. 3).  The authors concluded that patrons may have “self-regulated,” recognizing the limitations of SMS reference and so asking questions easily answered via text (p. 5).  Patrons who asked a question via text message seemed to want quick answers and difficulty arose when librarians replied with long URLs, screen captures, and other information that was difficult to access on cell phones (p. 6).  Studies found that another issue with Google Voice – and text messaging in general – is that it is principally used for more personal communications.  The lack of use for reference transactions may be because using text messaging to ask reference questions is simply a foreign idea to people in general (p. 4).

            Another issue to consider is that Google is a money-making company known for its customized advertising.  If libraries choose to use Google Voice, they should be aware that patron information may be accessed and their privacy compromised.  It is therefore very important that libraries pay attention to the settings of their Google Voice account and make patron privacy a priority.

Conclusion

While the use of Google Voice in libraries is still rather small, Mairn cautions that libraries should not put off adopting mobile spaces, since the Web is becoming more prevalent and use of smartphones and other devices is increasing (p. 268).  The ability to connect multiple phones with one phone number, to text in reference questions, and to transcribe and email voice messages all with one free service is a valuable tool.  Libraries would do well to cultivate this tool and use it to connect with a rising patron population that is increasingly attached to some sort of device.  Mairn states that approximately 80 percent of the world’s population has access to information via mobile devices and that they will look for it wherever it is easily available and visible.  If libraries do not embrace mobile optimization, potential patrons will move on to other resources that work on their devices (p. 268).  Google Voice provides a way to embrace mobile devices easily and cheaply.

References

About Google Voice. (2015). Retrieved June 4, 2015, from 

   https://support.google.com/voice/answer/115061?hl=en

Breitbach, W., & Prieto, A. G. (2012). Text reference via Google Voice: A pilot study. 

   Library Review, 61(3), 188-198. doi: 10.1108/00242531211259319

Mairn, C. (2012). Three things you can do today to get your library ready for the 

   mobile experience. The Reference Librarian, 53(3), 263-269. 

   doi:10.1080/02763877.2012.678245

Walker, C., & Paquet, V. (2010, June 22). Google Voice blog: Google Voice for 

   everyone. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from 

   http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/google-voice-for-everyone.html

Assignment 3: Interview with a Librarian

For this assignment, I chose Option 1, which was to identify a library that uses a Content Management System for its website and interview the librarian in charge of the system.  I interviewed the Computer Services Librarian (whom I will keep anonymous) for the Piedmont Regional Library System.  This librarian is in charge of most of the technical aspects, including the regional website and the public access computers, of the library system.  Piedmont Regional consists of ten libraries across three counties.  Our interview was conducted via email.

Q: How and where did Piedmont Regional hear about Content Management Systems?

A: I talked to the web master at DeKalb County Public Library at a conference.  He recommended CMSs.  I investigated and reached the conclusion that this would be good for our library system.

Q: What were your motivations to adopt a CMS for its current use (the library website or any other purpose)?

A: Making it possible to have more staff posting content on the web page, frequently.  As a result, our web page would be more dynamic. 

Q: What were your decision making criteria?

A: We wanted a CMS that was popular and user friendly.  Popularity was important because we want a CMS that would have a community of support.

Q: What is the name of the CMS you are using now?

A: WordPress.

Q: What are the important benefits or advantages of the CMS you are using now over the old system or another CMS system you have used in the past?

A: The CMS has made our web site more smartphone friendly. Staff can also, now, make changes to our web page without having direct access to the web server or having to wait for me to edit and save files.

Q: How was the learning curve?

A: It depends on what you need to do. The learning curve is not bad on doing a simple post, but on managing CMS page there is a big learning curve. You will need to know how to install themes, plugins, and widgets. At some point, you will probably need to edit php code.

It was interesting to learn about the factors the librarian took into consideration when choosing a CMS.  After hearing a recommendation of CMSs from a fellow library webmaster, he investigated the pros and cons to such a system based on the needs of the region.  Among the factors considered were how a CMS would fit the library system, whether it was “popular and user friendly” with an existing community of support, the desire to have a more “dynamic” webpage, and the relative ease of use of the CMS.  After taking into account all of these aspects, the system chose to use WordPress.

Compared to the previous system used, the librarian specifically mentioned how WordPress has made the library website smartphone friendly and enabled staff to make changes to the webpage without relying on him too much.  This reminded me of the Joomla tutorial videos, one of which mentioned how the look of a website should be designed so that the formatting will not change when viewed across different devices.  WordPress also fit the need for a CMS that was popular and user friendly, providing access to support from other libraries and the online community.  Having a user friendly CMS also spread the workload so that staff can edit the webpage without direct access to the web server.

According to the librarian, the learning curve for WordPress varies depending on the skill of the user and what one wants to do.  Creating a simple post is relatively easy while actually managing the CMS page is more difficult and has more of a learning curve because it involves knowing how to install themes, plugins, and widgets – skills an untrained staff member probably will not have.

Outside support seems to be one of the major factors in Piedmont Regional’s decision to use WordPress.  Rather than building a system from the ground up to suit the region’s needs, the region deemed it more important to be able to ask for help and advice from other libraries and the online community.  This would also be helpful in reducing the learning curve for how to manage the website.  The region’s webpage is vibrant and its design and theme easily changed to fit with the time of year or current programs.  This enables the libraries in the region to draw the public’s attention to what is going on and allows libraries to personalize their pages as well.