The library responsive design (RWD) websites presented here are the library sites from my the previous article listing higher education and library RWD sites. The screenshots (from iPhone/iPod-Touch & iPad) give an idea of how website content changes with a small screen size. You can see the same thing on a larger screen by going to the site and changing the window size to see how the page responds.

Click the library name to go the library site; click the screenshot to see it in larger size.

Grand Valley State Univ (Michigan)

Canton Public Library (Michigan)

Regent College (Vancouver, BC, Canada)

Hendrix College (Arkansas)

George Mason Univ Law College (Virginia)

Univ Iowa

The two library sites below are strongly integrated with their institutional websites, and the first screen on the iPhone is completely taken up by institutional information. So for the iPhone screenshot, I’ve added the second screen, that has library information.

Dakota State Univ (South Dakota)

Durham Univ (UK)

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter @ericrumseytemp

Much of my use of Twitter is to tweet links to articles. Frequently when people tweet links to articles, the actual title of the article is not mentioned, only the person’s comment about the article. This is certainly fine and useful, but when I go to compose my own retweet, I like to see the original title of the article also, because I may judge it to be of interest to my followers. So I often combine the tweet text and the original title in my retweet. The great beauty of Flipboard is that it makes it easy to work in this way — The article itself is seamlessly connected to the tweet, right on one screen. I think of this as seeing the tweet in its “full context.”

Unfortunately, Flipboard does not provide a space to work with the tweet text and the article title together. So I combine the “Reteet with Comment” button with the “Email Link” button to send the text of both to my email, and compose a retweet from there. I’ve made a set of Flickr slides that show this process. It might look complicated, but with the smooth iPad multitouch interface, the process only takes 15-20 seconds. The illustration below is a brief composite of the slides showing the process. To see all slides, click the illustration below, or go here.

Here’s the text that’s in red in the composite slide above:

At this point, you can do one of two things – You can retweet directly, by tapping “Send.” Or, what I usually do, you can copy the text of the tweet, and send it to yourself via Email, along with the full title information for the linked article. To do that, tap the copy button, then close the white box, by tapping outside it. (If you get a “Clear Message?” box, tap OK)

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter@ericrumseytemp


Since Twitter launched the Official Twitter Retweet (OTRT) in 2009, there has been much talk of its pros and many cons. I won’t go into all of the issues involved here. Instead, I’ll discuss a couple of the problems of the OTRT that I think are often not considered, but have important implications for all Twitter users.

The first is that OTRT’s do not appear in Twitter Search. This is easy to see, by doing what I’ve done in the accompanying screenshots – Find a tweet in your timeline that’s been retweeted using the official Twitter retweet, as indicated by the gray arrow icon, as in the screenshot. Then do a Twitter search for some words in the tweet. As shown in the lower screenshot here, the original tweet is retrieved by the search, but eBookNoir’s retweet, in the example, is not.

The fact that OTRT’s do not show up in Twitter searches has particularly timely implications, because of the new feature that Twitter just launched, the ability to search people you follow. If you follow a lot of people with a wide variety of interests, this is invaluable because it makes it easy to find out which ones are tweeting on a specific subject. But unfortunately, if people retweet with the OTRT, they won’t show up in the search.

In addition to Twitter Search not including OTRT’s, Twitter Lists also don’t show them. Twitter Lists are an excellent way to keep track of people tweeting on a particular subject. They have become especially popular and useful in the Flipboard app, so it’s unfortunate that OTRT’s are not shown in Twitter lists.

So, OTRT’s are not found in Twitter searches or Twitter lists. Where can they be found? – On your Twitter home page timeline (of your followers’ tweets) and in the tweets of individual people that you follow. Also, interestingly, in Topsy – Oddly, this third-party Twitter search tool includes OTRT’s in its searches, even though Twitter itself does not.

The basic reason that OTRT’s don’t show up in Twitter Searches or Lists is that they actually are not considered individual tweets, and consequently do not have a separate page. In a sense, they’re considered to be more of a “favorite” than a true retweet. So be aware – If you want your tweets to be in the Library of Congress’s archive of tweets, avoid using the Official Twitter Retweet!

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter@ericrumseytemp


An interesting New York Times story with a weak headline gave me a great opportunity recently to use my Twitter skills to tell the world about the story. In addition, the way my tweet was retweeted is a good secondary story, being an example of balancing Twitter retweet-etiquette with other priorities.

The screenshot at left shows a “what’s wrong with this headline” view of the story. The headline, as I’ve indicated with my highlighting, misses many of the important points of interest in the article, in my view.

The biggest problem with the headline is the dull, overused term “big data.” Apparently this is used to indicate the “12 million” items that are mentioned in the lead paragraph. But the “big data” concept has been used so broadly that “big data for books” could mean many things, from full-text to circulation. So I say mention the eye-catching “12 million” in the headline.

Admittedly, I may be library-biased, but I think it’s important to many people, not just librarians, that the library is centrally involved in this project. So the headline should say “Harvard Library” instead of “Harvard.”

Finally, the word “metadata,” which is used prominently in the story. Again, maybe it’s my librarian-centric view, but I think the term has become important for many people outside the library world, and would merit inclusion in the headline.

So, with the criticisms above, I “enhanced” the NYT headline in my tweet:

My enhancements worked — The tweet got several retweets. The way the retweets came is an interesting story in itself. My tweet was retweeted by Mathew Ingram, a prominent tech industry writer who I’m honored to have as a Twitter follower, and who has many more followers than I do. So I’m always glad when he likes one of my tweets enough to retweet it:

It’s clear that he got his tweet from mine, from the wording, which was original with me, and because he used the same bitly URL that I used. Usually his retweets follow the usual retweeting protocol of mentioning my Twitter name. But in this case he didn’t, because he wouldn’t have had room to include that and also the “pretty cool” comment he added at the head of the tweet. He no-doubt judged that adding his endorsement would draw attention to the tweet, and make people click it and retweet it, which is FINE WITH ME!

Priorities and the Art of Tweeting

The wider lesson here is that much of the skill of using Twitter is thinking about priorities. The 140-character limit on Tweets imposes a strict discipline, which requires constant consideration of “What’s important to include?” – Is it more important to give full credit to the writer of a tweet, or author of an article being linked, or is it more important to include a comment or a good quote from the article being tweeted that will draw traffic?

This all makes me think how far the fluid process of tweeting is from library book cataloging (that I experienced briefly in my early career), in which the catalog card is created from the title-page of the book according to strict rules. The only strict rule in Twitter is the 140-character limit — Within that, the canvas is empty, open to anything!

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter @ericrumseytemp

Before the iPad came out in 2010, the working assumption was that web pages needed to accomodate only two screen sizes — Desktop/Laptop and iPhone/smartphone sized. Accordingly, many sites, including libraries, built separate mobile pages, sometimes called “mdot” pages because they often have the same URL as the desktop page preceded by “m.”

Mobile First

During this time, designer Luke Wroblewski (@lukew) proposed a somewhat different approach, that he called Mobile First. This is based on the idea that the best way to make web pages is to design them first for their appearance on mobile devices, and then to take into account the large-screen appearance secondarily. This approach has the great advantage that it eliminates having to maintain separate pages for small and large screens.

Enter the iPad … and Responsive Design

While there was a variety of tablet-like devices with screen sizes between smartphone and desktop before the iPad launched, they were never very popular. With the overwhelming success of the iPad, though, it quickly became clear that tablets of various sizes were here to stay (shown nicely in designer Brad Frost’s graphic below).

Before the iPad, the idea of having separate mdot-smartphone and desktop web pages was considered difficult but possible. When it became clear, though, that tablets of many sizes would proliferate, maintaining separate pages for every size was obviously impractical.

What was needed, thoughtful developers realized, is a way to code pages so that they look good on any size screen. So, soon after the iPad launched in April, 2010, Ethan Marcotte (@beep) — building on Wroblewski’s Mobile First idea — launched what he named Responsive Web Design (shortened to Responsive Design or RWD). This uses sophisticated coding (CSS media queries and fluid grids) to build pages that “flow” to look good on any size screen.

The RWD idea spread quickly with developers, who implemented it on their own sites and on smaller dotcom sites. In 2011, high profile sites began to launch RWD versions, most notably The Boston Globe and

On a desktop/laptop screen, a nice thing about looking at RWD sites is that it’s easy to see how they look on smaller screens — Just narrow the browser window, and the RWD site changes to the appearance it has on smaller screens – Try it out on a sample of RWD sites that have appeared in the last year: BBC, MinnPost, Center for Investigative Reporting, ProPublica, Univ Notre Dame, Arizona State U Online, A-W architecture, Jason Weaver (a small, exemplary developer site).

Libraries have been slow to adopt RWD so far. Our library system at Univ of Iowa has started with it (which is how I got interested) – We have it on the main University Libraries site and on the Hardin Library site. The only other RWD library I’ve found is Grand Valley State Univ (Michigan), which has implemented it on a sub-section of the library site.

Related articles:

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter @ericrumseytemp

The essence of Flipboard is well-captured in the headline of the press-release when it was launched in July 2010:

Inspired by the beauty of print and designed for iPad, Flipboard transforms the social media experience

With many rave reviews when it came out, Flipboard was chosen by Apple as the best iPad app of 2010, and selected by Time magazine as one of the top 50 inventions of 2010 (along with the iPad). Much of the commentary on Flipboard has focused on its transformative effect on Twitter, and that’s what I’ll focus on in this article.

Flipboard: “Twitter Cleaner-Upper”

As @alex says in an early review, Flipboard takes the raw, text-based Twitter stream, filters out the chatty, “what I had for breakfast” tweets, and presents the user with an elegant, graphic screen of news and articles that are linked in tweets. On the same theme, Mark Wilson calls Flipboard the Twitter cleaner-upper, because it “transforms any confusing stream of Twitter … posts into a dynamically generated digital newspaper.”

The shrunken screen shot at left has my tweets as they appear in Twitter on top, and the corresponding tweets in Flipboard below (click image for large view). The headlines and the text in the Flipboard entries are from the articles themselves — When one of these is clicked, the whole article appears. The tweet also appears at the bottom of the screen, from where it can be retweeted or replied to.

I should mention that most of my tweets contain links, as do all the ones in the screenshot, so this doesn’t show Flipboard’s filtering out of non-linking tweets, which, as the reviewers above emphasize, is one of its best features.

Before Flipboard, Twitter Lists never really took off — With Twitter, exploring a new List can be fairly imposing, especially because of the raw, unfiltered chatty tweets of many unknown Twitter users. In Flipboard, though, Twitter Lists come into their own — By turning the raw Twitter feed into a graphic, filtered screen of newsworthy articles, Flipboard makes it much faster to explore a new List to see if it’s worth reading.

The Elegance of the Experience: “A Ballet-Like Flow”

The screenshot and brief description above give only a rough idea of how transforming Flipboard is. It’s hard to convey in words what makes it so appealing — I suspect it’s that it does such a good job of capturing the touchy-feely, animated potential of the iPad. Without a doubt, this makes it fun to use, but it also makes it a much faster and more efficient way to browse through tweets than can be done in Twitter and other non-graphic clients.

One of the specific parts of Flipboard that shines is the smooth, fluid “sliding panel” transition that pulls the reader from the initial, abbreviated view of an article into the full view. The sliding panels metaphor is more fully implemented in the Twitter iPad app, but I like the fluid sliding effect in Flipboard better.

PC Magazine reviewer Jill Duffy’s poetic words are the best description I’ve found of the Flipboard feel:

A Ballet-Like Flow, Flipping, Scanning, Touching … Graceful with Rhythm

Is this enough to convey the idea? — Get your hands on an iPad, and let your fingers experience Flipboard!

Flipboard & Twitter – “This is the Next Step”

Another quote from @alex about the Flipboard-Twitter effect:

I truly believe that anyone who finds … Twitter to be dull, or unusable, will find [it] to be 100% more engaging on Flipboard. This is the next step.

Steve Jobs felt similarly — As reported by Robert Scoble, he wasn’t a big fan of Twitter, but he loved Flipboard.

I shy away from the term “killer app,” but it’s hard to avoid with Flipboard — I’ve had an iPad for three months. I thought when I got it that I’d spend much time exploring all the great apps I’ve long been reading about. But instead, I’ve spent most of my iPad time on (free!) Flipboard – By itself, it justifies the price of the iPad — Is that a killer app?

About the title of this article — As I was writing, and thinking about a title, I tweeted this phrase I came across in another article: “FlipBoard & iPad were a Match Made in Heaven.” I was flattered when Flipboard CEO and Co-inventor Mike McCue (@mmccue) favorited the tweet — Aha! — There was my title!

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter@ericrumseytemp


Like a lot of people, I imagine, I had trouble sorting out the many implications of the announcement two days ago by Google that they would be acquiring Motorola Mobility. My point in this article is NOT to talk about that deal, as interesting as it is. Instead, this article is a “meta-view” of the story — Looking not at the content of the story itself, but at the process I went through in learning about it.

My first stop in looking for commentary about the Google-Motorola deal was Google News. That certainly had a lot, but the traditional journalistic articles covered there lack the nimbleness of new media sources — blogs and tweets — that are so valuable in covering fast-moving stories like this one.

Turning then to Twitter, searching on Topsy, I had much more success in teasing out the many issues that are involved in the Google-Motorola deal. The main stated reason given by Google for the acquisition is control of patents. This is certainly important, but there are many other factors that quickly become evident in looking at the Twitter stream — The sheer size of the acquisition, for one, but also the implications for Android, Apple, and the whole future of mobile. And personality comes into play, with speculations about how new CEO Larry Page seems to be shaking things up at Google. The screenshot below, of a few tweets in a Topsy search the day after the deal was announced, gives some idea of how the Twitter stream makes it easy to get an idea of the many issues involved.

The idea I want to stress here is that Twitter’s simple interface, paradoxically, makes it an excellent vehicle to present complex ideas. Taking advantage of the collective intelligence contained in a group 140-character tweets is a quick and efficient way to see the many facets of a complicated story. A recent comparison of Twitter and Google Plus brings out a related aspect of Twitter that makes it so useful for cutting through complexity: Information density — A stream of tweets like those in the screenshot below is heavily-laden with information-nuggets — Article titles and subtle spin-words added by tweeters that help see the complex pattern.

In conclusion, connecting the discussion above with Neal Gabler’s recent Blame-the-Intenet commentary — Gabler hits on Twitter as an example of how the Internet keeps us from thinking about Big Ideas. Considering how well Twitter does in bringing out multi-faceted views on a complicated subject, as shown here, I’d beg to differ — Google-Motorola is certainly not the sort of “big idea” that Gabler is talking about, but I think the power of Twitter to cut through complicated ideas to give a quick “meta-view” can be extended also to discussions of Gabler’s Big Ideas.

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter @ericrumseytemp

There’s been much questioning in the medical library community about the nature of PubMed Health (PMH), the new source from the National Library of Medicine. When it first came out, in early 2011, it seemed to be pretty much a copy of the ADAM Health Encyclopedia that’s part of Medline Plus. Before the Medical Library Association annual meeting in May, NLM staff had said little to clarify how PMH would be different.

At the MLA meeting, NLM staff said that the unique feature of PMH would be the addition of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) information to help consumers make health decisions. They didn’t say that adding CER information has already started, and it was only after I got back from MLA that I saw that indeed it has. I tweeted to see if anyone else had noticed this, and got only one response — PMH watcher Alisha Miles replied, saying that “limited articles” in PMH have had CER links since it launched, and that NLM is now adding more (Thx, Alisha!). I did a small random sample of 26 PMH pages and found that 6 (23%) of them have CER links.

In this article, I’m providing screenshots of PMH pages that have CER data and that don’t. Below the screenshots, I have a few comments and data on the random sampling that I did.

Here’s the PMH page for Asthma, which does have CER links, under “Evaluating your options” (lower right):

For comparison, a screenshot the Asthma page when PMH first launched in Feb, that doesn’t have CER info, is in this article.

Here’s an example of a current PMH page that does not have CER links – Sleep Disorders:

A few quick observations:

It appears that, if a page has more than five CER links (like the Asthma page above), there’s a link for “See more” CER links — For Asthma, the “See more” page has 22 total links, with a URL that ends with this:
… term=Asthma%20AND%20subject_comparative_effectiveness[sb]
This indicates that the CER links are obtained by AND’ing together the subject (Asthma) and the CER subset. Searching the CER subset by itself <subject_comparative_effectiveness[sb]> gets 252 links. This seems like a fairly small number in comparison to the total number of subjects in PMH, so I suspect that there will be considerably more CER data added.

In some cases, the indexing for CER sources may be questionable — For example: The PMH page for Brain Surgery, under Evaluating your options, has 4 links. Two of them seem doubtfully relevant – Fact sheet: Period pains and Low back pain: Can massage help?

I did the random sample by looking at the first stand-alone link (not a cross reference) in the middle column for each letter of the alphabet of the PMH alpha index.

NO – Pages do NOT have CER links – 20 pages on June 8, 2011

YES – Pages DO have CER links – 6 pages on June 8, 2011

It’s encouraging to see that NLM is beginning to give PMH an identity separate from Medline Plus. As discussed in another article, however, I hope NLM will do more to communicate the timetable of this process, and other CER features that they plan to add to PMH.

Related articles:

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter @ericrumseytemp

I participate in several Twitter communities, which sometimes overlap in surprising and interesting ways. A case of this happened recently, when I did a tweet in preparation for the Medical Library Association annual meeting next week, which is having a special emphasis on Twitter this year — I tweeted about a blog article I wrote last Fall that I thought might be of interest to MLA attenders — Academic Health Sciences Libraries on Twitter & Facebook.

The tweet was retweeted two times, by long-time Twitter co-followers who have no apparent connection to the medical library community — Michael Cairns (@Personanondata), who’s in publishing, and Yael K. Miller (@MillerMosaicLLC), who’s in social media marketing. As far as I could tell from Twitter search and Google Realtime search, my tweet was not retweeted by anyone in the medical library community.

The point of this little case study is — Don’t have tunnel vision in tweeting — You can never tell who might be interested in what you have to say! Write tweets with the idea in mind that they may be of interest to the general Twitterverse. A few more ideas on being open to the world:

  • When space allows, write tweets in a way that doesn’t restrict their interest to non-library people.
  • Avoid using language that won’t be understood by the general Twitterverse.
  • If someone is interested enough in your tweet to retweet it, reciprocate the interest — Look at their tweets and consider retweeting them.

Medical Librarians (and other librarians too) have some great ideas — Don’t be afraid to share them with the world!

Here’s the text of my tweet:

Academic Health Sciences Libraries on Twitter & Facebook #mlanet11 #Medical –

And here’s the retweet by @MillerMosaicLLC (the retweet by @Personanondata isn’t linkable because he used Twitter’s retweet function).

Eric Rumsey is at: eric-rumseytemp AttSign uiowa dott edu and on Twitter @ericrumseytemp