This is a promise which I don’t think the Oxford Libraries live up to in practice, because the University has not invested enough in updating the tools people use to find what they’re looking for.  The ability to quickly and efficiently find information in Oxford’s catalogs is hampered by outdated and poorly designed interfaces, and incomplete records.  The experience is not worthy of the excellent collection and international reputation the Libraries have.

We live in a world of speedy full-text search of almost the entirety of the Web, accessible instantly from any computer and many mobile phones.  As a result, libraries have a tough act to follow to make finding printed materials as quick and cognitively intuitive.  The databases libraries maintained about their collections seemed monstrous in a time before Google, but they are now very limiting: title, author, some keywords, and a bewildering string of letters and numbers aren’t much data for smart search to chew on.  Web search engines also exploit links between different pages to form their results, but collections databases are relatively flat.  Full text search might be coming, but there’s truckloads of books to scan between now and then.

So no, I don’t expect the library website to be as good as Google, but I don’t think that complete and humane are unreasonable expectations.

By complete,  I mean that I expect all records from all collections in the Oxford University Library Services to be accessible by web-based search.  As it stands, for example, Oriel College Library’s catalog is only available via telnet.  Unless you were a nerd before 1995, (or use the libraries at Oxford) you might never have even heard of telnet.  Telnet is a text-only interface designed in 1969 as one of the very first internet standards.  It’s slow, clunky, unintuitive, and there’s no way to save anything you’re doing and come back to it.

I could go on for pages about what makes websites humane, but the redesigned SOLO (Search Oxford Libraries Online) interface is a big leap forward from the previous system.  Standard web-browser behaviors, like using the forward and back buttons or saving results as bookmarks don’t break it.  It has advanced search features like boolean operators and the ability to search particular libraries.  Unfortunately, if the material is not on the shelf (which it isn’t always clear about) it simply plunks you back into the old, ugly, inhumane system to request it from the stacks.

As a scientist, I don’t often research using books. I’m much more likely to look up journal articles, which unless they are old or obscure, are very likely to be online.  Every once in a while, though, I’ll want a paper which isn’t online, and it’s good to know that the library has my back (old and obscure is Oxford’s specialty).  I’ve noticed that when using search tools by Ex Libris, a little button appears beneath many results that says “Find It Oxford.”  Ex Libris know what stuff Oxford has in its catalog and clicking it takes me to an Oxford page.  Unfortunately, this is in the old, ugly interface, and it dead-ends: giving me information about the holding but not allowing me to do anything with the information, like request it from the stacks.  If I want to do any of that, it’s back to top level interface (but at least this time, title in hand).

So, things are looking up, but Oxford’s Library access is still sub-par.  Its number one priority, at this point, should be getting all books and all the libraries available to be searched via SOLO.  The first thing researchers care about is completeness.  They can’t trust a tool that they know won’t give them all the results.  Then, it should cut the last vestige of the old system away and build a humane system for stack requests.

The icing on the cake, for me, would be seeing the full text of every title they have whose copyrights have expired accessible via the internet.  They’re partnering with Google, starting in 2005 for book scanning, but, as far as I can tell, library users have yet to see any of the benefits.  The Oxford website claims this will take three years, but my opinion of “official” Oxford timelines sinks the longer I am here.

This morning, while trying to send out some mail in Microsoft’s Outlook 2007, I noticed that after nearly 10 minutes, the message I tried to send was still sitting in my Outbox.  When I clicked “Send/Receive,” like ya do, Outlook decided to get stuck in an infinite loop of trying to send, failing, and then trying again without any kind of warning, I racked up dozens of sendmail tasks in the “Send/Recieve Details” dialog in a few seconds.  I had to kill Outlook from the taskbar.  This was no ordinary glitch: I tried restarting Outlook, switching back and forth from Offline Mode, and sending from a different account, to no avail.

Creating a new message, readdressing, and copying and pasting my email contents into the new message seemed to work.  Although, I can’t help but wonder if several of my friends got multiple (hopefully not dozens!) of copies of the email.

Then later, it happened again!

Long story short, after some furious google searching, I found some hints of explanation.  It seems that sometimes (perhaps due to ActiveSync tomfoolery) the Address Book in Outlook gets corrupted, and some display names are orphaned, no longer associated with an email address.  When you address an email to one of these orphaned names and click send, it sets Outlook into this infinite loop.

This is a pretty huge failwhale on Microsoft’s part on several levels.

Firstly, the Address Book, “what about it?” you ask.  “Isn’t that just your Contacts folder?”  As far as I can tell, no.  The Address Book is some vestigal part of Outlook code which is what is actually invoked to translate names into email addresses, rather than just using the Contacts database directly.  No one ever opens their Address Book, so far as I can tell (although there is a shortcut for it: Ctrl+Shift+B).  Everyone manages their contacts and email addresses in the contacts folder, and behind the scenes Outlook relies on some software scorcery to keep the two in synch.  Obviously, this breaks from time-to-time.  From a humane computing perspective, this is particularly cruel—creating two places to keep email addresses when one would do. Then, allowing the synchronization break without any warning until it causes a problem like:

The Infinite Loop: Seriously, Microsoft, when a display name pulls up a null from the Address Book, the best you can think to do is just try the whole send-mail process over again?  No error message, no looking to the Contacts folder for the address, no prompting the user for how to handle this, just keep banging your head into the wall.

And not only that, but the most information I can find about it on Microsoft’s site is from a post in October 2007 to Microsoft’s forums.  This means that this bug has been burning people for nearly a year with no visible action on Microsoft.  No Knowledge Base article explaining a work around, just some forum posts to wade through to try and pick the most appropriate solution.

For those who came via google or elsewhere looking for a solution, I’ll explain what I did to (hopefully) clear it up.  Basically, we’re going to manually clean up the Address Book.  This will be fine if there are only a few entries that need cleaning; I had about 2 dozen, If there are lots that are b0rked on yours, you might want to try some ideas listed in this thread.

1. Go to Offline mode (File -> Work Offline), and delete any offending messages from the Outbox.  Save the text first, so you can resend, by copying and pasting into Notepad or similar.
2. Open the Address Book (note: this is not the same as the Contacts folder).  Tools -> Address Book, or Ctrl+Shift+B.
3. You should see a list of names, display names, and email addresses.  Corrupt entries will be any that have the email field left blank.  Note that any Contacts you have which don’t have email addresses saved should not appear on this list at all, so anything with a blank email address is a corrupted entry.
4. Find a corrupted name, and then close the Address Book, go to your Contacts and open the entry for the name you found.  You’re going to copy the email address to the clipboard (Ctrl+C), clear the email field, then save the contact without an email address.  Then reopen the contact and paste the email address back in place (Ctrl+V), and save again.  This should recreate the entry in the Address Book with the correct email address.
5. Rinse, repeat until all corrupt entries are fixed.  (You can ignore Distribution Lists, they won’t have an email address listed.)

Shame on you, Microsoft, for wasting over an hour of my time diagnosing and repairing Outlook from a bug that should have been fixed months ago.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000100000020200502000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Yikes! (This, by the way, is the URL of our new physics paper) Getabs? Servlet? prog=normal?  WTF?

This blog, powered by WordPress, does a little better:

http://buhjillions.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/inhumane-urls-and-why-oxford-university-fails-again/

The blog’s domain, followed by the year, month, and date of the post, and finally the title.  Not bad for something generated by a computer each time I sit down and write a new post.  Wordpress also gives me the option of writing the URL myself, but I never bother.  Why?  Because people have designed systems to deal with this problem, or have otherwise learned to cope.  People create bookmarks for places they want to get back to, or remember instead of the URL, the path that they took to get there from other websites, or enough keywords that they locate it again via Google.

Still, the one part of a URL which people actually do try to remember is the domain name, the something.whatsit.com.  It is the part which is often spoken aloud, in conversation or in radio and TV adverts.  People remember the domain names, and good ones are worth a lot of money.

Which is why doing inhumane things with your domains is an inexcusable offense.  Consider the difference between typing ox.ac.uk and www.ox.ac.uk in your browser bar.  That’s right, one dumps you to an ‘address not found’ failwhale, and the other gets you to the University of Oxford’s homepage.  Why doesn’t ox.ac.uk redirect to www.ox.ac.uk just like every other website on the internet?

Fail Whale.

I requested this ‘feature’ on a feedback form from the OUCS website (located at www.oucs.ox.ac.uk).  The response?

“I’m afraid that this isn’t possible in the Oxford environment.”

That’s right folks.  Whatever crazy hosting technologies we’re packing here at the 2nd best university in the world (12th best in technology), they aren’t capable of issuing an HTTP redirect.  What kind of shady bub’s business are we running here? I’m not sure if I should be reassured that it isn’t just OUCS being too lazy to set up the redirect.

Oxford, I’m not sure how you’ve managed to rest on your laurels for this long and not drop completely off the top 100 list, but it’s high time that you get your shit together.

(Postscript: Although I mention OUCS in this post, I’m not necessisarily pointing the finger of blame directly at them.  Maybe OUCS needs to sober up to what it really takes to run a world-class information technology department, or maybe the University governanace needs to actually give them the resources they need.  How high up the org chart this issue goes, I don’t really know.)