(Fwd) RE: Ebsco Full-Text Databases Post

["Richard d'Avigdor" <r.davigdor@unsw.edu.au>]

Hi Karen / Marg 'n all,

I'd suggest that we are probably talking 'diffr'nt strokes for diffr'nt
folks' argument here. There are losses (ironically)  in some of the
intangibles of browsing with electronic cf.  online. With the transition /
conversion print --> electronic some of the content seems to have fallen
between the cracks as well (I've had some complaints in this regard with
ScienceDirect - but that's for another forum I suspect).

However, we are probably dealing with a numbers game here - I don't think
there's any question that the 24x7 anyplace electronic variety has opened
up content to many more folk than would have otherwise taken the trouble /
find the necessary time in a time-starved world to navigate the physical
library equaivalent.

Hence BOTH your comments are correct. We just have to be careful about
characterising our customers' behaviour with too broad a brushstroke.

The other point might be that most of what we call electronic / online
still, for all practical purposes, becomes the paper world again - i.e.
PDFs chugging out of the printer at the end of the chain - screen-reading
is still not the main reading medium. I don't think we've truly moved
online yet - technology still has some ways to go before new grammar of
online discourse / communication is possible.

Bye,

Richard

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Marg Walker <marg.walker@chmeds.ac.nz>
To:             	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject:        	RE: Ebsco Full-Text Databases Post
Date sent:      	Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:28:15 EST
Send reply to:  	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

Karen

You asked me to elaborate on my comment that "our users obtain better
access to information via the paper copy.".

This is just a perception - no real evidence at all.  However a number of
library users have commented that they find it easier scanning a paper
copy than reading the electronic version.
 
This may be partly a result of time constraints, but their comments seem
to indicate that their mode of reading involves fast scanning the article,
or flipping backwards and forwards and that they can't negotiate the
electronic copy as fluently or quickly as they can the paper copy.

We are also aware of the value of browsing journals, and at this stage we
aren't browsing the electronic journals although there would be related
ways of accessing electronic journals.

Re browsing access - our Senior Clinical Advisor, a highly respected
person who is very aware of costs, surprised us by stating in a recent
workshop that he preferred paper copies as many important pieces of
clinical information which had a direct bearing on improvements in
clinical services have come to him serendipitously as he browsed a journal
next to the one he was intending to view.

However, our clinicians must have early access to information they can't
wait for the paper copy to arrive so they need electronic. Since we won't
be able to pay for two subscriptions I forsee an eventual move to
electronic-only for our library.

Regards
Marg