Against the Grain
Volume 26 | Issue 5 Article 19
2014 ATG Special Report: Chromebook or Surface Pro for the Library Enterprise? Mimmo Bonanni Arizona State University, [email protected]
Dennis Brunning Arizona State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons
Recommended Citation Bonanni, Mimmo and Brunning, Dennis (2014) "ATG Special Report: Chromebook or Surface Pro for the Library Enterprise?," Against the Grain: Vol. 26: Iss. 5, Article 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6853
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Chromebook or Surface Pro for the Library Enterprise? ASU Libraries Mobile Technology Test Pilot by Mimmo Bonanni (Social Sciences Librarian, Arizona State University Libraries)
The Case feedback and input. One, an online Excel • Long battery life on a single charge. Librarians’ work has gone mobile. We use spreadsheet in SkyDrive (the Surface users), Can use a full workday without smartphones and tablets in our personal lives; and also a Google Spreadsheet in Google Drive charging. why not take advantage of them at work? (for the Chromebook users). We asked the ten • Can Install third-party apps like Last fall 2013, the Informatics and Cyber- librarians as they used either the Surface or the Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter. infrastructure Services department at ASU Chromebook to record what app or program Technology specific advantages included: they were using and record on a Likert satis- Libraries, asked librarians (the authors) • Chromebook works well with Mimmo Bonanni and Dennis Brunning to factory scale of 1-5 whether the app had a high rate satisfaction (5) or low satisfaction (1). In Google drive Apps (i.e., document, investigate technology needs in today’s mobile presentation, and spreadsheet). workflow. The proposal • Chromebook touchpad is more pre- was to purchase and test cise for day-to-day work instead of mobile technology for a touchscreen. select test group of librar- ians. We decided to con- • Chromebook keyboard is closer to a centrate on lightweight, desktop keyboard, and easier to use inexpensive, powerful compared to the attached Surface mobile computing plat- keyboard. forms for librarians. Two • Chromebooks are a better value. models stood out: tab- They are significantly less expensive lets and Chromebooks. compared to MS Surface tablets; The question was; can half the cost. tablets or Chromebooks • Surface works comes with MS Of- replace or act as posi- fice and Skype built-in. tive additional tools for • Surface monitor is brighter and has the day-to-day work of better resolution, so reading PDFs librarians? and documents is easier than on a We randomly select- Chromebook. ed ten librarians to receive Google Samsung the spreadsheet, we asked the librarians to also • Surface form factor is more portable Chromebooks and Microsoft Surfaces with record the date of use, and also any comments (without keyboard) to take to meet- keyboards. Five Chromebooks and five Sur- they would have about the app or program ings and conferences. faces were given out by lottery. based on the above criteria. Library staff • Surface offers unique multi-task The librarians agreed to use either the recorded the input over a four-month period, touch features and multi-tasking Surface or the Chromebook as their primary November 2013 - February 2014. The authors software, allowing you to see more computer in the late fall (Nov/Dec 2013) and also gathered input from the librarians during windows on the screen at once. early spring semesters (Jan/Feb 2014). The monthly meetings. • Surface has better offline capabil- group also agreed to provide feedback on During the monthly meetings, we had open ities; when offline you can save their experience via online spreadsheets, and discussions based on the input gathered in the documents to the drive of the tablet monthly discussion meetings. Librarians also MS Excel or Google Spreadsheets. The dis- and upload to Skydrive later. would use ASU digital Web-based voicemail cussions covered the criteria of how effective Some shared disadvantages of both include: during this period to replace office phones. the mobile technologies were in the day-to- We met with testers regularly throughout day workflow for communication, document • No remote desktop functionality; the year, together and grouped by computer. writing, and work specific projects. including VPN or Remote Desktop. We helped with setup and mutually discussed • Not all library-related apps are best practice guides and tips. Findings available, like libraries ILS (Inte- The technology was distributed to the We discovered that there were certain ad- grated Library System), or library librarian lottery winners in late October 2013 vantages to using a tablet, and other advantages suggested products like Mendeley. for initial setup, and the project began in No- to using a Chromebook: • Both products do not have a vember 2013. Implementing ASU Enterprise • Mobile works well remotely; taking completed integrated enterprise proved to be a significant barrier to testing. notes, answering reference ques- system using apps; cannot get access As such, we made the decision to implement tions. Users are not tied to offices. to network files or network printers. user profiles and email settings outside of the • Would need to develop a new mobile ASU system. • Mobility helps librarians stay en- gaged even when out-of-office. ASU Libraries image. We developed a rubric for Librarians to • Built-in cloud functionality would evaluate the technology. Evaluation criteria • Lighter and smaller form factor than previous laptops. need system integration work with included: communication (email, Skype, Goo- ASU Libraries. • Inexpensive compared to a laptop. gle hangouts), document writing (documents, • Confidentiality: Mobility means if presentations, spreadsheets), and work specific • Built-in cloud functionality; retrieve lost, staff information is less secure. project needs like original cataloging, Web- documents without having to save based work, etc. Since we were evaluating to hard drive (i.e., Surface had MS • Both tablets and Chromebooks rely two different types of technology, and types of SkyDrive; Chromebook has Google on an Internet connection: offline collaboration, we created two ways to collect Drive). work for both is limited. continued on page 77 76 Against the Grain / November 2014
Against the Grain / November 2014