Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index
13 April 1998
RWA Notes
1. LC Resource File. In response to the question as to whether there are specific public services uses of the LC Resource File (LTLC), Lynn and Lenore said that they do use it occasionally, because it is so easy to access (since we load it ourselves)--but it was clear that, if the file were not available, there would be no appreciable effect on any public service operations.
2. Database Review. I explained that the most important recent development in the database review for 1998/99 is that our core aggregator, OCLC Panorama, has told us that the price for the same databases we have had this year will increase by 600% ($40K this year, $256K next year). The whole central database budget line is currently only $286K. This means that we will need to start over for next year, and decide again what databases we want. Ed noted that all but a few of the databases in the OCLC package are indeed available from other vendors. Several other people reminded us of the difficulties we have had working with OCLC--the dissatisfaction with the interface and the speed of the Web access, as well as the hard time Fred has had making the databases accessible through the navigator. These are all things we knew about, but were prepared to give up, because of the very low price. Now that the price is no longer low, we obviously need to reassess OCLC as our central navigator.
I heard no objections to the plan of the Database Review Task Force to use the poll from last year, provided that an effective mechanism is developed to allow for updating that input. I urged everyone to review the poll results from last year on the task force Web site: www.englib.cornell.edu/cul/a2i/reports/ .
Paul, Michael and others raised the concern about the effect of changing vendors every year. If this year (with the abnormal price increase by OCLC) is not the exception, if we are obliged to change vendors and interfaces every year, it will be a serious burden on both users and staff. Tony emphasized that the major effort we make in user instruction would be adversely affected by a total shift each year to a new vendor, and Marty said that the effect on staff training would also be far from inconsequential. Suzy said there is indeed a value to stability, and we should be prepared to pay for that--but there are limits to what we should be willing to pay, and 600% has got to be beyond those limits; we must be careful, she said, not to pay so much for stability that we will be unable to support other resources that we need. Lenore said that this is all the more reason that we need to have our own system, that will allow us to provide a common interface to all of the databases we make available. She and Michael stressed that we should also work with vendors toward multi-year subscription options, so that we would not be caught after one year with such untenable price increases.
3. Z39.50 Clients. Marty introduced the issue of Z39.50 clients, that are now being included with some software packages. EndNote, he said, is one example that Mann has already been dealing with. There are two broad issues. One is the extent to which the Library should be responsible for providing support for selected software that has this capability. The other is whether we should assist users in getting access to our databases by using their own clients, especially if authentication is based on passwords. If we want to help users gain access using their own clients, obviously we do not want to be distributing our passwords--so we will need to develop some kind of technical solution. Brendan remarked that this is a can of worms, but a very important one, with long term policy implications. It is possible, for example, that some access providers, like Yahoo, might eventually provide a common interface that can be used for any resources. -- We will therefore need to stay alert to these developments, and identify policy decisions as they need to be made.
4. LMS Implementation Schedule. There was a relatively strong consensus among those at the meeting (as well as several people not at the meeting, who had taken the time to send me e-mail notes on this issue) that a January implementation of whatever LMS we eventually select is not a realistic option. Regardless of how much time we spend on testing, there will be difficulties implementing, and the winter break does not provide us with anything approaching adequate time to deal with those problems. We have, Susan noted, never been able to create a test system that provides us with a realistic assessment of what will happen when we actually throw the switch. One of the main arguments against a January implementation is that we train thousands of students in the fall, and we cannot retrain them for an entirely new system in the spring. Carmen also noted how problematic it would be to convert all of our reserve materials in such a constricted timeframe. It was above all clear from this discussion that Access Services, which is probably more concerned than any other operation area that we move quickly to a new LMS, would far prefer to delay any migration until June, even if it were possible from the vendor's and University's perspective to do it in January.
5. Public Printing. The purpose of this discussion was to review the main issues. Lenore noted that, if we are moving toward stand-up printers for certain kinds of access and sit-down printers for others, we need to bear in mind ADA regulations. Paul said that, even with the introduction of vendacard printing, we are still spending enormous amounts of money on public printing. We need to decide at some point how much we are prepared to spend, and decide how to set limits. Suzy added that the increased availability of Web based databases, notably Lexis/Nexis, will further increase the amount of printing that will be done. Lenore and others hoped that some of this public printing will abate, if we are able to improve users with the ability to e-mail search results to themselves.
Lynn agreed: we have got to provide users with more options. The new LMS will almost certainly be Web-based, which will allow users to have access to a range of information. We will have succeeded, therefore, in getting our users to all kinds of useful information, but we have still not solved the problem of what they do with that information when they get to it. Jill said that some universities apparently give their students a certain amount of free printing, with which they can print what they want--but once they have used that, they must pay for all they print. Something similar has been done here in the NetPrint program.
Brendan said that users print for two main reasons. One is that they want to take the item away with them--and that is something that can be increasingly accommodated in future by e-mail or downloading. More and more of our users will have laptops for that purpose. But the other reason people print is in order to read something--because reading anything of substance from a screen is too difficult. We must be careful, Brendan said, not to deny people the ability to print easily for this second purpose--otherwise we will in effect be reducing their interest in using online resources.
Paul said that we need also to recognize that charging for printing already causes us some PR problems. Students, and their parents, feel they are paying a very substantial tuition--so they should not be nickled and dimed for every service provided. Mary Patterson said that she sees little difference between printing and photocopy: if you want to make yourself a copy, you should be prepared to pay for it.
In general, the same conclusions reached at PSEC were underscored in this meeting: we need to provide some free printing, but we need also to find a way to set some limits for the amount of printing that is possible.
6. Netscape 4. Jerry Caswell talked about the potential effects of CIT's decision to issue Netscape 4 with the summer release of Bear Access. Since Comet does not work effectively with Netscape 4 at this time, access to the Library Gateway could be impaired on all Mac platforms. Tony noted that there is also a Windows problem with TN3270 sessions; the only answer so far seems to be to make a hard fix, which would result in any TN3270 link being to NOTIS. Jerry asked whether there are still other significant uses of TN3270; no one seemed to know of any. Ed said that this is really a Netscape problem, which Netscape should be fixing; obviously we are not the only ones experiencing it. Jerry said that CIT is working on these problems. Lydia is our liaison to CIT, and she will be reporting on progress.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index
rev. 5/1/98 peo