[10391] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Grumpy Old Cybrarians
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Wed Jul 10 20:31:27 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:22:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
2 Messages, 202 Lines
*-----
From: bg7601s@acad.drake.edu (Bruce Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Grumpy old cybrarians and Adobe Acrobat
I have liberally <SNIPPED> Karen Schneider's comments (cuts are shown by three
ellipses (...); I don't believe, however, I've cut the gist of her argument:
"Karen G. Schneider" <kgs@bluehighways.com> writes:
> ... I am running into a problem with Web sites and public
> access. The problem is the increasing prevalence of Adobe Acrobat (PDF)
> files as the sole format of files on the Internet, & in some cases, CD-ROMs.
>
> I am not "anti-pdf"; I am not anti-any-format, no, not even shredded and
> flattened tree products. But as a librarian/cybrarian/whatever,I am
> focused on getting information to The People.
>
> Those who tout PDF files tell me how many different readers there are, how
> Netscape 2 has a plug-in for PDF,how NS 3 will read PDF files on the fly,
> etc. ... [however,] in the real world, users come to web sites with
> far less elaborate software and equipment than the PDF promoters assume. ...
> But quite often users [have] computers which are older, using
> some other browser and/or do not have Internet connections. They can
> handle text, some graphic files, and even html files...
> But PDF requires the Acrobat reader. Widely
> available, yes. Widely available for funky old dos boxes? No. Always easy
> to install? According to the frustrated calls from our users, who are
> often out of our physical reach as they struggle with this, no.
<hardware plug>
Obviously, not many of your users are Mac people.
</hardware plug>
> At least with the "analog" patrons we can come up with creative solutions.
> <Story of massive kludge SNIPPED> Sometimes we can explain all
> about Acrobat and that's enough. Other times we have to balance
> this against the need to answer an information request as quickly
> as possible. And it feels very
> strange to be doing all this explaining for something as "simple" as
> reading a document on the 'net.
>
<CD-ROM comments SNIPPED; I'll concentrate on Karen's Internet remarks>
> Finally, what really trips my trigger is that when I ask webweavers and CD
> developers why they are providing documents in PDF, they invariably
> emphasize the "nice formatting," but the vast majority of documents I have
> seen, for our needs, anyway, were very simple text documents with a minimum
> of graphics and images. Maybe it's ease of production--in which case, I
> recommend exporting to plain text, which at least can be read by the people
> who often most need it.
>
> Maybe I'm completely off-course here. Maybe I shouldn't be worried about
> city workers with XT machines,
Well, you wouldn't be alone in not worrying about such people.
Clearly, people like Bob Gates and Marc Andreesen(sp?) could
care less. In fact, their loathing of people who don't have
the "latest and greatest" machines (witness the abomination that is
Windows 95, and the fact that newer versions of Netscape require
13 Meg of available RAM (on a Mac) just to start!) should somehow
be incorporated into their corporate logos.
> or about printing stacks of paper because
> you can't read a file, or about using a whole lot of user education to
> reading a file format on a medium designed to make document-access
> synonymous with document-discovery.
I guess I have to wonder about this statement. http, as a protocol,
was designed to make file transfer easier and more robust; I doubt
that the designers had "document access = document discovery" in mind
as their primary goal.
> (All of this, btw, reminds me of the
> old days, when we taught people how to use archie, ftp, extractors and a
> suite of rustic tools to take a peek at a document they were interested
> in.) Maybe I should be focused long-range on curing every economic ill and
> circumstance that means users do not have equipment equal to that used by
> website designers, and spend less time worrying about the immediate
> information needs of the people we serve.
Well, there are lots of other issues you should be concerned about
as well; I'll try to address a few of them at the end of this screed. One
point of interest: I saw a quote (which I believe) that over 90% of Netscape
users do not realize that the spacebar allows them to "page down" a
document. (I believe this, because many knowledgeable people I know
didn't know it, and I didn't know it until 6+ mos. ago!)
To me, this is the rough functional equivalent of 90% of library OPAC users
not knowing what a "title search" refers to.
> I guess if I thought it was *just* PDF, I would shut up and color. But in
> the Old Days, at least, there was a concept fashionable with some of us
> that information wants to be accessible.
It's still a fashion that's current with some; although you're seeing
some crappy *.gov, *.edu, and *.org pages, many people in these domains
(and some *.com sites! If anybody hasn't, check out:
http://www.bookwire.com ) are clearly committed to making info
available to the *.people.
Please note, however, that the unfettered notion that "information wants to be
accessible" has never been current in society at large; to cite an
example of a worthy commercial venture, bookstores have always shown
that information wants to be accessible to those who pay for it.
>Now there is a sort of noblesse
> oblige rampant on the 'net, in my grumpy old mind at least, where folks
> coming in with old equipment, character-based (or simply non-NS) browsers,
> slow modems, and little or no access to user education are simply trampled
> over as site designers indulge in onanistic, bandwidth-sucking,
> browser-specific, hoi-polloi-be-damned webpages that are most definitely
> not focused on getting information to the people. I'm not talking about
> specific sites; I'm talking about an attitude. Today it's PDF, frames and
> 75k graphics with no text equivalents; tomorrow it'll be something else.
> Gimme that old-time religion; it was good enough for me!
Ah, yes, the wonderful old days of Mosaic 1.0.3, wherein all the graphics
were .gifs, all the tags were functional, and any info you could find
seemed above average.
I must confess, however, that I read something a little darker in Karen's
plaint. It goes back to buying into the "information technology = more
information to the people" equation in the first place. The underlying
assumption of this equation is that people will be "empowered" if we
give them boxes that allow them to surf the 'Net and download stuff.
The unhappy reality that collides with this equation, is that the people
who manufacture computers, software, and most Internet sites, could care less
about "empowering" people. They wanna make money; that's what that
".com" at the end of their domain means. And, in order to make money,
they encourage 1) immediate obsolescence of both hardware and software
(unlike the "planned obsolescence" we heard about in economics, this
is so unplanned, it's a given; the present product cycle is
several stages "behind the times" by the time it's released to
the public) and 2) very glitzy web pages, since selling stuff is what
the growth in the Internet is about these days; and we all have
heard that "sizzle sells."
But I want to stress that this is not another "curse the growing darkness
of the commercial Internet" diatribe. We all know that, in order to carry
its own weight, and become ingrained enough in the American culture to
withstand attacks from the 400-pound gorilla of the federal gov't
(not to mention the potentially mischievous 50 state monkeys!), the
Internet will have to be a growing commercial venture.
Given that, however, we can hardly be surprised when certain
Internet denizens aren't interested in the wishes of Ranganathan's
adherents. "Save the time of the reader," and "every reader
his/her book" (replace "book" with "information", if you wish)
do not appear as guiding principles in any advertising manual.
The librarian still stands alone in support of these principles;
I'm assuming, of course, we are sincere about adhering to these
principles (in deed as well as word, regardless of format,
through hail, sleet and snow and gloom of pixellated light).
In the case of .pdf files, that means that we have to figure out
strategies for users to access this stuff; if we have to "kludge
it out" sometimes, that's fine, but we also need to be diligent
in our quest for even better ways to get what is needed to "the
reader." If we are this diligent, a nice side-benefit would
also accrue: we (and our users) would quickly realize how ludicrous
the question of, "Is there a future for libraries and
librarians?" really is.
--
Bruce Gilbert bg7601s@acad.drake.edu
Systems Librarian - Drake University http://www.drake.edu/lib.html
" "Live Music Is Better" bumper stickers should be issued."
-- Neil Young, "Union Man"
*-----
From: Linda Rouse <lrouse@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Grumpy old cybrarians and Adobe Acrobat
Dear Karen
Thank you thank you - at last someone has spoken up for those of us who
think Adobe and frames and the rest of the paraphernalia sucks - to be
crude!
This is simply a hear hear not so i've sent it personally rather than to
the list but I am glad that you've said so eloquently what I';m sure many
of us feel.
>Now there is a sort of noblesse
>oblige rampant on the 'net, in my grumpy old mind at least, where folks
>coming in with old equipment, character-based (or simply non-NS) browsers,
>slow modems, and little or no access to user education are simply trampled
>over as site designers indulge in onanistic, bandwidth-sucking,
>browser-specific, hoi-polloi-be-damned webpages that are most definitely
>not focused on getting information to the people. I'm not talking about
>specific sites; I'm talking about an attitude. Today it's PDF, frames and
>75k graphics with no text equivalents; tomorrow it'll be something else.
Beautiful!
Best regards
Linda
=================
Linda Rouse Ph 02 499 2666 or 1800 226 776
Internet Services Manager Fax: 02 498 7669
Housley Communications P/L Internet: lrouse@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Sydney NSW 2072 Australia
http://www.moreinfo.com.au/housley/
