Date:         Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:22:48 -0500
   From: [log in to unmask]

   Digital card catalogs. I love certain aspects of them - I don't have to
   stand up, move around, I can find out if they library has the book I need
   from my lab, and I know if the book is checked out and when it will be
   returned. But last week I was in one of Yale's main libraries and had to
   wait for 10 minutes before I could get a terminal in order to find a call
   number. Don't get me wrong, they have a lot of terminals - at least 35.
   But the same amount of space that those terminals employ holds the entire
   card catalog. I'd estimate that at least 100 people could simultaneously
   use the real card catalog. Sure, there are times when you might need the
   same drawer that another person is using. But chances are that the person
   won't need it for a whole 10 minutes. When people do online searches they
   can easily use the terminal for a long time - 20 minutes or more,
   effectively stopping anyone from using that slot to access the entire card
   catalog.

   Of course, the argument is *yeah, but next year we'll have 20 more
   terminals and this won't be a problem*. Right. So instead of supporting a
   method that has worked well (for patrons, at least) for many years, I've
   been put into digital purgatory always waiting for the next installment of
   new machines, faster processors, new versions of software. It is hard to
   say if things are better or worse, sometimes.

Can this be true? At libraries I am familar with, the physical card
catalog is HUGE. At NYU, the old card catalog, which has had no
additions for around 15 years is in an area that could support a
zillion (ok, I'm exagerating) terminals. Unlike the computer system,
it also has to be onsite, taking up space that books could be using.
Oh yes. Onsite.  Ummm. So why is it you were doing a catalog search at
the library?  Before I head out on an adventure to NY Public Library
(a closed stacks, noncirculating experience), I do almost all my
searching at home via the internet. Then I can be there working with
the resources.  Yep. NYU (an open stacks, circulating experience) too.
In fact, when I sit in my advisors office, and she thinks of yet
another book I should read, she telnets over to NYU's online catalog,
and can get a call number for me. Ah, Access.

I dunno what it is like at Yale, but at NYU there are a dozen or so
terminals scattered in the stacks, as well as a bunch around the old
card catalog, so when that last minute insite strikes me, I can get to
the card catalog. Wait a second. I wonder if yale has any books
relevant to my thesis. Let me do a subject search here....Nope. Whew. I
guess I won't have to stop in New Haven on my way up to Boston, to
review some resources there I found via the internet version of their
card catalog. Hmmm. Oh. Wait a second. Their online catalog only goes
back to 1977. I guess I'll never know. Foo. (Ok. I admit that's flame
bait. But wait. Yale isn't known in my area as far as I know. I'd never
have gone to New Haven, but it's taken me more time to type this paragraph,
than it did to do a cursory check of the Yale Library. Image if I'd found
something - which I actually did at another university. My little toes
would be wiggling!). Access. Ah, Access.

Unfortunately, much of my thesis work is precomputer indexed, so I
have the pleasure of using real card catalogs. Go ahead, ask me. Which
is easier to follow the "see also" categories, running around a huge
room of card catalogs, or typing: N, S=new subject? Oh yes. And what
about hard subjects? I had a reference "Report to the Federal Coordinator
of Transportation ..." with no author from 1936. Using RLIN and auw (I think)
I discovered the author as "United States. Federal Coordinator of
Transportation." With that I could look it up in the online catalog. It
actually turned out that though NYU had a bunch of the FCT reports it didn't
have the one I needed. (Actually if anyone is an expert on the Federal
Coordinator of Transportation and wouldn't mind being asked a question -
please contact me). Ok. I admit it. Online catalogs are my friend.

So if you believe museums are about access and preservation,
electronic media has been in my experience excellent for access.
Preservation is harder. Certainly if you choose to preserve something
electronically, you have to plan for the forseeable future to
regularly, periodically move it to new media. As has been well pointed
out by others, it isn' the deteriation of the media it is the changing
technology. It's a cost, just like environment control.

Which preservation technology to choose is much harder when the choice
is to document the artifact and then lose it, or just lose it. Look.
Since most of my current work is in the 1950's I want to have a
popular view as well as a more technical one. One thing I've done is
look at old copies of Newsweek, Fortune, etc. Go ahead.  Ask me. Which
would I prefer using: the physical object or a microfilm.  Microfilm
has to be one of the most culture destroying technologies ever
invented. Worse than mold. Color is lost.  Photographs are lost. Small
text is mostly lost. All those wonderful Scientific American
illustrations are compromised. Blech. Obviously a choice is being made
to document these magazines in microfilm, and I believe important
characteristics are lost in this form of documentation. I guess I'd argue
we are making these choices even as I type and electronic media should be
considered.

Having spent some time in archives, or just handling 1930's books, the
time is nearing (or maybe its here) when these objects will have to be
documented and lost (yep.  I can't tell you my repeated disappointment
at finding what I need having been deaccessed. Not even documented.
Just gone.) I believe that electronic technology holds real promise,
especially since you often get improved access for almost free. My
other guess is with all the digital library experiments in progress,
the resolution of many of these issues will start happening over the
next few years.

Mark.