Print vs. Electronic Information
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
*-----
From: "Jim Dwyer" <jim_...@macgate.csuchico.edu>
Subject: RE: Computerspeak
Walt Crawford is once again correct that print and electronic media are
complementary.I sometimes feel like a real curmudgeon in PACS-L when I read all
the "death of the book" speculation. Print, after all, did not destroy the oral
tradition completely (we either still talk and tell stories, or "Help! I'm
hearing voices!") and tv thankfully did not destroy radio. Likewise, people
drive those economic-environmental doomsday machines called automobiles (those
who have not evolved to bikes or mass transit) but millions watched a seemingly
archaic and anachronistic "technology" when those glorious thoroughbreds ran
last Saturday at Churchill Downs. When it comes to the sheer joy of reading,
especially reading aloud to children, you still can't beat a good book. It's
not even a horse race on that score yet even though the electronic image is
certainly improving. The point I was trying to make in a previous message is
that "book learnin'" and "electronic navigation" are both appropriate roles and
responsibilities for librarians. Just as Walt asks "Buddy can you paradigm?"
One might wonder "Got a little spare sea change?" Let's not throw all the
books, all the book lovers, and all the people who need to learn to read
overboard yet.
Jim Dwyer
Chico State University
Speaking for myself, not Chico, but those nerds Zeppo and Gummo agree
*-----
From: MJE...@CHARLIE.USD.EDU (Mary Brandt Jensen)
Subject: computerspeak and the book
Walt Crawford says
>Why do so many other folks think that electronic media and print
>(that is, traditional ink-on-paper print, not print-on-demand) are
>either/or choices? Other than asinine "we can only get the money to
>make electronic publishing work by shutting down print publishing"
>arguments (this ain't the USSR--and neither are they, for that matter)
>or "we must wean people away from the media they clearly prefer,
>because we know better than they do" (this ain't Albania, either--
>or whatever's left of it), there's simply *no* reasonable case to
>be made for books (as a whole) and periodicals (excluding narrow-
>focus scholarly journals) going away because of electronic media.
>Ditto the daily newspaper, for different but related reasons.
Part of why we coming back to electronics v. print is because its all
around us. I was just talking today to some people who have pointed out
that a major print publisher is opposing a bill that would make legal
citations uncopyrightable because the publisher thinks that if it
cannot protect its form of citation it will lose market share to
other electronic publishers. I think this publisher is way out in
left field. I wouldn't dream of giving up either or the huge full
text legal services that I use. They are great for retrieval. But I
most certainly would not give up the books, no matter how comprehensive
the databases become or how full of page citations they are. I, and
a lot of other attorneys, just don't get the comprehension when we
read a database printout even printed on a laser printer. It will
do in a pinch for things not available in the traditional print sources
or for things we just can't afford. But through the years you get
accustomed to the layout a particular publisher uses for court cases
and the other little things they do. This adds to your comprehension
in little ways you just can't put a value. It also adds to your speed
of comprehension which is important in a business where time is money.
That publisher shouldn't worry about losing market shar{ to others who
can use its citations. Electronics and print truely are complimentary
and the legal profession lays out big bucks to prove it.
>When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>When all we had for widespread dissemination of information that
>needed to be retrieved on demand was print on paper, everything
>looked like a book or periodical.
>When you buy a drill and handsaw, a lot fewer things look like
>nails--but lots of things still need nailing, not drilling or sawing.
>When we add electronic publishing, either semi-traditional (PACS
>Review et al) or nontraditional (online archives, WAIS, etc.),
>we widen the range of tools, and widen the range of appropriate
>solutions for specific problems. That does *not* mean that the
>new solutions suddenly replace all of the old solutions...except,
>of course, for those who never liked the old solutions (there are
>clearly a bunch of people out there whose attention span doesn't
>permit them to enjoy reading a book from start to finish).
When you have one of those problems that needs a drill and you only
have a hammer, you feel very relieved and a little overexcited
sometimes when they invent the drill. I couldn't do most of the
research I do without electronics, and sometimes I get overexcited
about the new drills, but paper will always have its place. Maybe
when we get real inventive, we will find ways to make the drill
improve the hammer. In short, in a real dream world we would have
everything we want in whatever format we want. That's a long way
off.
>Lee quotes a simple five-syllable word that says most of it:
>===complementary===.
>Electronic access (publishing or otherwise) complements traditional
>print publishing. Some existing print products clearly make better
>sense in electronic form (most abstracting & indexing services;
>many "atomic" reference works, where typical use is as the paragraph
>or small-article level; many scholarly journals with narrow readership,
>where a typical institution requires infrequent access to contents; etc.);
>they go away as print products. They should.
>Other print products continue to make better sense in print form{
>(virtually all novels; most mass-market periodicals; most newspapers;
>a fairly large number of nonfiction books). They will continue as print
>products. They should.
>Some products will continue in both forms. If both forms succeed, that's
>a pretty good indication that they should.{
Here, here. But lets try a few more in both forms and give them a
chance to succeed. I think the nets offer a great opportunity for that.
Mary Brandt Jensen University of South Dakota
Director of the Law Library School of Law
Associate Professor of Law 414 E. Clark St.
MJE...@CHARLIE.USD.EDU Vermillion, SD 57069-2390
(605) 677 6363 Fax (605) 677 5417
CD...@umkcvax1.bitnet
I remember in Library School reading Landcaster's theories(?) on the
paperless society and the electronic book. I think of his "paperless
society" often when I am assisting a patron on the CD-ROMs and when
I pass by our recycle binds for the computer paper. [GRIN]. It seems
to me that technology has not reduced paper usage, but has increased it!
Carol Doms
Univ of MO.-Kansas City
cd...@vax1.umkc.edu
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
*-----
From: ja...@ucscm.UCSC.EDU (Lee Jaffe, McHenry Library, UC Santa Cruz,
408/459-3297)
Subject: Re: Print vs. Electronic Information
The answer is simple: Lancaster was wrong.
After Xerox's attempt at implementing the paperless office failed,
the catch phrase of the industry became, "The paperless office is
as useful as the paperless bathroom."
-- Lee (I never said I was a class act) Jaffe
*-----
From: ujac...@ECNUXA.BITNET
Subject: Re: Print vs. Electronic Information
> I remember in Library School reading Landcaster's theories(?) on the
> paperless society and the electronic book. I think of his "paperless
> society" often when I am assisting a patron on the CD-ROMs and when
> I pass by our recycle binds for the computer paper. [GRIN]. It seems
> to me that technology has not reduced paper usage, but has increased it!
> Carol Doms
> Univ of MO.-Kansas City
> cd...@vax1.umkc.edu
I heard someone say recently that the "paperless society" is about as
likely as the paperless bathroom. :-)
Joe Accardi
Northeastern IL Univ
ujac...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
*-----
From: "Judy" <SZ5@NIHCU>
Subject: Re: Computerspeak
To add my 2 cents worth (actually, with inflation, it's probably
worth a nickel by now) to Walt Crawford's comment about the
complementary natures of print/electronic media, I agree
wholeheartedly. I don't care how far advanced technology gets
and how small the screen gets, I just don't think curling up in
bed with a CD will ever replace curling up with a book.
We've been doing some strategic long-range planning (read figuring
out how to get along with staff cuts) and one of our patrons
remarked that paper products will be around for a long time. He's
never seen anyone making notes in the margin of a screen or a
microfiche.
Judy Schneider
US GAO Library
s...@nihcu.bitnet
s...@cu.nih.gov (Internet)