PUBLIC SERVICES FORUM

14 August 2000

RWA Notes

1. Wireless Networks.

   Oliver Habicht and Tom Hickerson attended this part of the meeting to explain University discussions about the installation of wireless networks throughout the campus. Oliver said that we have received from OIT a letter, which was sent to the deans and other key decision-makers, asking whether we would prefer a University-wide wireless network, or whether each college and unit should take care of itself. At the same time, we have been asked by CIT (presumably on the assumption that the University will opt for a single, campus-wide network) for a priority list of libraries where we would like wireless capability installed soon. (In response to this some time ago, I decided that our priorities should be based on user traffic: I have therefore told Oliver that OKU, Mann and Engin are our top three priorities, followed by all other unit libraries in the order of their circulation levels.) CIT will concentrate on installing such a capability in public spaces only. LMT will be discussing this issue tomorrow. We will probably need to designate a contact person in each library unit, with whom Oliver and John Hoffmann can work on this.

   Oliver and Tom explained that, at this point, such a wireless network for the campus will not be centrally funded. The costs will rather probably be recovered by individual subscription: individual students and faculty, or individual units will subscribe to this service. At this point, therefore, it would seem that either the Library would need to subscribe (perhaps circulate laptops with wireless cards?), or individual users would need to subscribe. As Oliver pointed out, this could have an effect on equitable access--if some users can subscribe, and others cannot. John Saylor said that, in his experience, users will use and appreciate this service--but it has got to be affordable or free, and it has got to be easy to use. Ease of use is the best reason for having a single campus system, rather than multiple systems in different locations on campus that have different requirements and procedures. John also noted that kiosk machines in libraries are not nearly as useful as personal laptops, since the latter can be customized and contain one's own files.

   Lynn Brown said that JGSM has already installed a wireless capability, the use of which is limited to JGSM faculty and students. [NOTE: This is incorrect--JGSM is planning to install a wireless capability. RWA]. Oliver said it is unlikely that a campus system could be installed simultaneously in JGSM for other users: the two systems would very probably interfere with each other. These are issues that will doubtless be worked out at the campus level. Jill said that, if we do provide this new service, it is essential that we have a clear sense of who is responsible for technical support--otherwise, it will simply be assumed that this is the responsibility of reference or circulation.

2. Voyager Scan.

   Nancy Skipper asked about the CD-ROM that will be produced showing payment history. George said that Joel and Scott are working on this, and that it should be available very soon. Given the amount of information, it will probably need to go on more than one CD-ROM. The main use is for acquisitions, but any other functions that would find it useful will certainly be welcome to it.

   We talked more generally about the novelty of Voyager. There was a sense at both PSEC and this meeting that users may be much more appreciative of Voyager initially than staff will be--because staff have become over the years experts at NOTIS. For less experienced users, Voyager has many features that are much more user friendly. Tony Cosgrave remarked that the real test may well be how easily the new freshmen take to it.

   George said that two main problems with Voyager that we are especially aware of are the fact that it still does not work well with Mac's, and that one must type in one's barcode number to see one's personal borrowing information. We know these are real problems, he said, and we expect to do something about them eventually--but not in time for the fall semester. Nancy said that it would be helpful, if the OPAC Design Committee could provide a list of the features which we expect to change in the Voyager OPAC in the near future--and possibly a list of items that we would like to change but cannot. I will relay this request to Ed.

   As for instruction, PSEC has asked Tony and Nan Hyland to put together a short list of what they consider the most essential issues about Voyager that students should be taught. This list will be sent to all library units, as something which may help in planning unit instruction programs.

   George said that there has been some problem with the screen announcing that Voyager is unavailable for use. This screen is put up when Voyager is being updated weekly. The problem, George said, is that the screen was staying up, even after Voyager was no longer down. As a result, he has disabled the screen--and will do some work on it. In the meantime, there is still a feature in Voyager which will alert users to the fact that the system is not available, should they try to use it during that time. Nancy asked about the back-up schedule. George said that Voyager is backed up in part every night, but that once a week (Friday nights, beginning at 10:00 pm), a complete back-up is run, which requires that the system be down until 7:00 am or 8:00 am Saturday morning. This will be a regular feature of Voyager service. George also noted that it should be possible to create what he called a "triple mirror," which would allow us to continue to make Voyager accessible to users even while the full back-up is being done; this would not be very expensive, he said. There was a strong sense of the public services staff at this meeting that this would be money very well spent--since some users certainly will want to use Voyager late Friday night or very early Saturday morning.

   Nancy asked that any changes in the schedule of Voyager downtime be communicated to IRPC-L, since reference desks do receive questions about this. Leah asked that anyone who has any suggestions for adjustments or improvements to Gateway Help send those suggestions to the help committee, i.e., Lance, Leah or Nan.

3. Updates.
   
   1. Ubiquitous Returns:
      Access Steering met last week to consider the long-discussed issue of ubiquitous returns, i.e., allowing users to return materials to any library. This is something we intend to do. Access Steering noted at least four issues that would need to be resolved to help this happen: (1) some extra seasonal staff assistance for some units at the end of the semester, (2) some extra shelving in some units, (3) a computer program that will ensure that the right fines are sent to the right units, regardless of where an item is returned, and (4) some increases in our shipping operation. We are also discussing ubiquitous delivery: if users can have articles from the Annex sent to them electronically, and if they can have a book delivered to them from the Annex to the library of their choice, why can we not provide similar services among all CUL libraries? We are not as far along in our discussions of ubiquitous delivery as we are in our planning for ubiquitous returns, but we do intend to do all we can to put both services into effect in the near future.

   2. E-mail circulation notices:
      Effective 23 August, users will receive overdue, recall and similar notices by e-mail. All users who have e-mail will receive circulation notices in that way; users for whom we do not have e-mail addresses will continue to receive these notices in paper. (Users with e-mail who want to continue to receive paper notices should let us know, and we will provide that service.) The e-mail notice forms have been drafted, and I will distribute those to LMT tomorrow. They are identical with the forms we have previously used in paper. It is essential that all CUL units use the same e-mail form, just as we have all used the same paper form--otherwise we would create considerable confusion. Suggestions for changes to the form should be sent to Access Steering.

   3. CDRS:
      The Cooperative Digital Reference Service project continues to move forward, under the able leadership of LC. Paul will be sending a summary of CDRS activities to IRPC-L.

   4. Creation Station:
      Tony explained that the Creation Station project is a joint effort of CUL and the Human Computer Interactive Group led by Geri Gay. The creation stations are high-powered multimedia workstations. There are now eleven such workstations, located in Uris, Mann and Engineering. The aim of the project is to empower students to undertake multimedia projects for their classes. Part of the program involves library staff partnering with faculty, to assist faculty in integrating creation stations into classroom work. Tony asked that anyone knowing about classes that might make use of such creation stations should please contact him.

4. Digital Futures Plan.

   We talked about the DFP, the goals of which we intend to complete by June of 2002. As in the DFP discussion in PSEC, there was a sense that we are already working on several of the goals, and that we need a method for determining systematically what has already been done, and what remains to be done.. There was also a strong sense that we need a clear process to work on the DFP in such a way that we can balance its requirements with traditional services. A question raised about the effectiveness of creating new programs for K-12; I said that at this point we want mainly to consider the practicability of doing this--and that we may very likely be talking not so much about new and separate programs, but rather about potential adjustments or supplements to existing programs that might have K-12 applications.

5. Public Space.

   We had a short but lively discussion about public space needs later in the decade. LMT will shortly be considering space needs in 2005-2010, on the assumption that planning for any such adjustments must begin now. Jill noted that we will need places where students can design and practice power-point type presentations. Nancy said that faculty are already asking for seminar-type facilities that include state of the art video services. There was also a strong sense that reference staff are going to need better private spaces--both to meet with those students who require help enough to come to the library for assistance, and to be able to carry on extended online reference services in a quiet environment. Carmen and others emphasized that the responsibility of the Library to provide a quiet place to study, with the key reference resources close at hand, will not change. We need to supply the best possible traditional and electronic resources and services--but we also need to provide a calm and comfortable atmosphere where people can think. Noise in the form of clicking electronic keyboards is already becoming a serious problem--and if we move soon into voice activated computers, the need for soundproofing will be even greater. There also seemed to be a clear consensus that one or more good coffee bars will be essential.

Minutes recorded by Ross Atkinson.

8/15/00, RWA

CUL,
In my notes from yesterday's Public Services Forum meeting, I indicated that a wireless network has been installed in JGSM. I misunderstood that. A wireless network is rather now being actively planned for JGSM. See Lynn's note below. Sorry for the mistake.
--Ross.

Ross:
The Johnson School plans to install a wireless system soon, but has not as yet done so. The minutes indicated that this was already in place. I raised the concern due to potential incompatibility between what my building is planning to do, and what the campus and the CUL might do. At the present time we are still using "wire" access to the Internet. Thanks,
Lynn
_________________
Lynn C. Brown, Associate Director
Management Library
S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management

StaffWeb Index | Back to Committee Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index

8/15/00, jwg