[10402] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Adobe Acrobat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Thu Jul 11 20:29:37 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:34:41 -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, 149 Lines
*-----
From: sreb!jburke@www.atlanta.net (Jburke)
Subject: Grumpy Old Cybrarians and
Hello!
I have been lurking on PACS-L for nearly 2 years now and have come
to appreciate Karen Schneider, Dan Lester and others for their
experience, insight and perspective. I'd like to throw in my pennies'
worth if I may on the Adobe PDF issue.
I am working on a project (still in development) that will make
available via the Web full-text documents addressing educational
technology public policy. These documents will be scanned in (HP Scanjet
4P w/sheetfeeder, if you're interested - we couldn't afford the Fujitsu
3097G library model). I think it's comparable to an e-reserves database.
These documents, averaging 80 pages each, are nearly all text with
occasional line drawings and diagrams. We've debated whether to make
these available in ascii text or other format. My argument was that many
of the users who would want this information (particularly in schools)
may be working off older machines, with slower modems - I wanted to use
the lowest common denominator.
However, one of my colleagues pointed out that using .pdf not only
preserved the "pretty" of those documents that are nicely laid out
(although many are not), it prevented users from altering the documents
- they can read and search, but not "bite out" pieces. In other words,
it helps prevent (or at least slow down) plagiarism and protects the
integrity of the original document. This is important to my suppliers -
even though the documents are for the most part public domain, they
prefer that their hard work be preserved and kept in context since
they've given us permission to scan and post the documents. Maintaining
the intellectual integrity of the original documents is extremely
important to us.
Please, folks, let me know if my understanding is not correct - I
haven't yet shelled out the bucks for Adobe capture (although I probably
will soon). Like I said, this project is still in development. ;-)
Thanks!
Jennifer Burke
Staff Associate and Librarian
SouthEast and Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium
(SEIR-TEC)
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)
Educational Technology Policy Clearinghouse
592 10th St NW Atlanta, GA 30318
404-875-9211
jburke@sreb.org
Visit SREB's new home page at http://www.peach.net/sreb
---
~ OLXWin 1.00b ~ "Ground Zero" for the 1996 Summer Olympics
*-----
From: kgs@bluehighways.com (Karen G. Schneider)
Subject: Re: Grumpy Old Cybrarians and Adobe Acrobat
While I appreciate Dan's seasoned (and reasonable) post on this topic,
there are several points I need to respond to:
1. "People with clunky old XTs are indeed SOL on the web and with many web
resources. So it goes."
Dan, I know of a terminal server in NYC that is busy serving quite a few
libraries with only character-based browsers. They are not SOL--except
with respect to those sites that do not support their information needs.
Will these folks eventually get bumped off the access chain? Probably--but
I see no reason to accelerate the process.
2. "Adobe Acrobat is NOT new or a problem. The reader is available
either attached to, or separate from, a browser. Indeed, .pdf files are
becoming more common ..."
PDF files were NOT common on the 'net five years ago. As for the reader
being attached, which is not always the case, what good does that do if
your platform can't support it?
3. "More common, however, from what I hear from producers, is that
they want to control the "look and feel" of their publication (as well as
the pagination, etc.)"
There are many text-oriented documents in PDF that gain nothing from this
format. There are also many excellent examples of HTML that stay closer to
the author's intent than a PDF equivalent--some produced by commercial
publishers, who have not placed all their eggs in the PDF basket. What I
think is more often goign on is that HTML is more difficult; PDF can be
cranked out pretty quickly. As for page numbers, there are numerous
examples in both free and commercial formats (in both cases, such as the
Federal Register) where the paper page numbers are preserved.
I do have sympathy with the reality that people often are strapped for time
to do the data conversion to HTML, which often must be cleaned even after
the document has been passed through an "automatic" HTML filter, but folks
should know that when they do this, they are limiting who has access to
their documents. And even a crude plain-text alternative is a good second
format in many cases.
4. "I can't solve all patrons' needs. For example, we don't have color
printers for the public. If they don't like it, well, I'm sorry. They'll
have to go elsewhere... The library will never be the answer to all
information needs.."
Our library's mission is oriented toward solving patrons' needs. All
needs? That will never happen, but I would call it a goal. Maybe it's
because I think libraries *are* that "elsewhere" you refer to--we are that
place people go to have their information needs met. And in terms of
document production, I can't make anyone else produce HTML alternatives to
PDF, but I can get political on a small scale where I work. I can decide
not to publish anything exclusively in PDF, and I can address those who
are.
You might even say that the needs libraries are most concerned with are
those that aare hardest to meet. I am always happy to serve the person
with a new Pentium, a direct line to the 'net, and lots of doodads. But
the person who is struggling to bring information to his hand-me-down
government or nonprofit office 286 in order to better serve the people
(admittedly, I haven't seen an XT in a while) needs to have his pluck
matched with our determination.
There are social-justice issues here much larger than black&white vs. color
printing. People pride themselves on contributing antique computers to
churches, small libraries and nonprofits... and here is the outcome: many
little folks are connected on a very simple scale. And these are folks who
really, really need this access.
I initially worried that I was too radical on my initial post, but at
church on Sunday a librarian approached me and after a brief chat said,
"sayyy, I ran into these funny files..." It's ironic, because I think of
PDF as an afterthought technology. As in, we *really* publish in paper but
we'll do this Web thing in a superficial, horseless-carriage kind of way.
PDF's main virtue, as far as I can tell, is to faithfully recreate an old
technology in a digital format. Reminds me of a great speech I heard at
the University of Illinois library-school orientation in 1991, when a
crusty cataloger decried the mindlessness of online catalogs that simply
replicated card catalogs, "down to the hole at the bottom of the card." I
think we can do better than that.
Karen G. Schneider * kgs@bluehighways.com * schneider.karen@epamail.epa.gov
Author, The Internet Access Cookbook (e-mail Neal-Schuman@icm.com)
Director, US EPA Region 2 Library * Cybrarian * Columnist, American Libraries
Visit our library at http://www.epa.gov/Region2/html/library/
These opinions strictly mine!
