ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries November 1988 / 661 ipated that developments based on the electronic revolution will continue to accelerate in directions that cannot be foreseen today, But these are exciting times with library services at the nucleus of the information explosion. It is in­ cumbent upon library administrators to harness these energetic changes, to remain flexible, and to seize the opportunities presented. Patron-use software in academ ic library collections By Denise M. Beaubien Online Coordinator, Central Science Library University o f Florida E rich Kesse Preservation O fficer University o f Florida B ru ce Em erton * Education R eferen ce Librarian California State Polytechnic University Alice L. P rim ack B I Coordinator, Central Science Library University o f Florida an d Colleen Seale Online C oordinator for Social Sciences and Humanities University o f Florida The University of Florida guidelines for purchasing, cataloging, circulating, and preserving software. ASoftware Study Committee at the University of Flori da Libraries was appointed in the summer of 1986 to study the desirability of purchasing patron­ use computer software and to examine and make recommendations about the Libraries’ role in pro­ viding computerized information to our user com­ munity. This committee developed policy recom­ mendations to guide current and future purchases and services. The following questions, which were given to us as “the charge to the committee” were used as a springboard for our examination: l . Should we purchase software? What kinds? 2 . If so, where should we house it? 3. Should software circulate to the public? * Formerly at the University of Florida L i­ braries. 662 / C&RL News 4. If so, how shall we protect the copyright agreements? 5. Shall we ask for all software to be cataloged and entered into our online catalog? 6. Must we make back-up copies? How? 7. Must we provide microcomputers on which to use the software? 8. What funds should be used to purchase soft- Reference software should be housed near its print counterpart. ware and hardware? As the Committee addressed these questions, we generated a list of issues which appear below. Fol­ lowing each set of issues is the related excerpt from our policy recommendations. The excerpts address many of the issues. The issues and excerpts may prove helpful to other libraries in developing their own software policies. Appended to the article is a bibliography of selected readings compiled during the drafting of the policy and since updated. This policy has been in practice at the University of Florida Libraries since January 1987, but our collection is still small and thus we cannot yet re­ port on the impact of its implementation. General issues 1. Define “software” as it will be used. 2. Define formats to be considered (i.e., disks, CD-ROM, tapes, etc.). 3. Determine what computing facilities are cur­ rently available on campus. 3A. Who can use these facilities (e.g., students, staff, faculty)? 3B. What software formats are available at these facilities? 3C. What services are provided (e.g., tutorials or instruction, programming, etc.) for specific soft­ ware packages? 3D. May software from outside these facilities be used there? 3E. Would these facilities be willing to house and mount software selected and purchased by the library? 4. Consider groups of patrons to target for soft­ ware and services (e.g., groups defined by status, affiliation, etc.). 5. Consider cost recovery. 6. Consider computer literacy of patrons (e.g., online catalog, use of CD-ROM, end-user search- ing). 7. Consider hardware availability, specifica­ tions, etc. 7A. Who will select hardware? 7B . How will hardware purchases be funded? 7C. How will hardware be maintained? 8. Consider staff training for virtually all areas of the library (selectors, acquisitions, catalogers, reference, etc.). Excerpt Machine-readable materials already play a sig­ nificant role in the collection of the University of Florida Libraries. The Libraries have been acquir­ ing machine-readable data files over the last four­ teen years, beginning with the conversion of census data into machine-readable format, and UF has been a leader in collecting and providing access to these materials. We currently maintain a large col­ lection of tapes in the social sciences and business, serving several departments on campus, and ser­ vice has recently been expanded to the sciences. Pa­ trons request use of the tapes through the Libraries, and our Systems Department sends them to the University computing center, where they are made available for the patron to use for a period of three weeks via any terminal which can connect with the computing center. Renewal may be made for a longer period. The Libraries also make extensive use of remote online systems. Library staff routinely search re­ mote databases, both bibliographic and non- bibliographic, for patrons. The bulk of this use is for retrieving bibliographic citations. The L i­ braries charge the patron the direct cost plus a small recovery fee. The NOTIS-based online catalog to the L i­ braries’ collections has been in use at University of Florida since 1983, and is now being implemented in all of Florida’s State University System institu­ tions. With approximately 90% of items in the col­ lection in the online catalog, patron reaction has been very positive. Studies and observation have shown that many patrons will wait to use an online terminal rather than use the card catalogs. The on­ line catalog is available all hours the Libraries are open plus some additional hours. Besides terminals in the Libraries, access is available through office terminals throughout campus, and by dialing in from off-campus locations. A few pieces of software exist in the Libraries for reference, computer-assisted-instruction, and as supplements to books. No use or circulation policies or procedures are now in effect for these materials. Outside the Libraries, the University computing center provides many copies of some of the most common software programs. These materials are available for use by students and faculty in labora­ tories in several campus locations. Materials are non-circulating, for use in the laboratories only. Faculty may also use the facilities of a faculty com­ puting center, which provides training courses as well as software and hardware for use. T im in g is E v e r y t h in g R esearch in the arts and humanities demands that you stay on top of what's happening today as well as what hap­ pened yesterday Arts & Humanities Search ® ––the on­ line version of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index ™ ––offers you the most current arts and humanities information avail­ able… anywhere. With Arts & Humanities Search, you can find out what was published two weeks ago––or two years ago––be­ cause it's updated every two weeks and indexes information from 1980 to the present. Arts & Humanities Search indexes 1,300 of the world's leading arts and humanities journals to bring you information on a multitude of subjects from archaeology to TV. Its coverage in­ cludes everything from articles, letters, and editorials to reviews of books, records, and theatrical performances. And a special feature tells you when illustrations of original works are included in the item of interest. Log on to Arts & Humanities Search for complete, timely coverage of the arts and humanities literature. For more infor­ mation, write to the address below or call toll-free 1-800- 523-1857* today. Your timing couldn't be better. *In PA an d o u tsid e th e U.S., c a ll 215-386-0100, ex ten sion 1591. In Europe, c a ll (+44)895-70016. 664 / C&RL News Acquisitions issues 1. Define desired scope of selection. 1A. Will scope meet teaching and research needs? 1B. Will it provide for general-use programs only (e.g., database management systems, spread­ sheets, etc.)? 1C. Will it be restricted to reference applica­ tions? Will it provide for bibliographic and/or non- bibliographic software? 2. Determine if software purchase will be based on availability of hardware. 2A. Location (e.g., in the library; on campus)? 2B. Circulation status (e.g., non-circulating; re­ serve)? 2C. Format (e.g., CD; CD-ROM; CDI; disk; tape in reel, cassette, cartridge)? 3 . Attempt to find out what software is already available for public use on campus. 4. Determine who will select (e.g., subject selec­ tors’ faculty, the Systems department). 5. Locate funding source for purchase of both software and hardware (e.g., general materials fund, a new fund, Systems department account). 6. Determine who will examine and negotiate li­ censes and contracts (e.g., selector, acquisitions de­ partment, Systems department). Excerpt We perceive a need to obtain software to meet teaching and research needs of each program within the University. Types of materials to be pro­ vided can be bibliographic or non-bibliographic. Bibliographic materials may include indexing and abstracting services, gateway software to make on­ line databases accessible to patrons, and end-user systems and services such as Easy-Net. Non- bibliographic materials may include demonstra­ tion software; numeric data; calculative, analysis, and decision aid programs; computer-assisted in­ struction (CAI) and tutorials; and online journals, encyclopedias and directories. We recommend that formats be selected based on accessibility through hardware available on campus for use by library patrons. If the materials will be non-circulating, the hardware must be available in the Libraries. The following formats should be considered for purchase if appropriate hardware is available: laser or optical disks such as CD, CD-ROM, and CDI; floppy or hard disks; and tape, including cassette, cartridge, and reel. New formats should be considered as they become available. Materials may be obtained through purchase or gift. Efforts should be made to have materials now in University departments deposited in the L i­ braries as the central repository for the campus, so that access may be assured. Bibliographers and selectors will review and se­ lect machine-readable formats for purchase by the Acquisitions department in their assigned areas just as they do for other formats, using subject-based funds. To make these purchases viable, funding should be increased as needed. Special funds should be provided for unique or expensive materi­ als. Appropriate and sufficient hardware should be purchased from special funds. Provision must be made for examining and negotiating licenses and contracts with vendors to meet library needs while fulfilling vendor requirements. The Acquisitions department may be the most appropriate to over­ see this requirement. Cataloging issues 1. Consider cataloging software. 1A. Should software receive full or partial cata­ loging? 1B. Is a cataloged finding-guide sufficient? 1C. Is an uncataloged listing beneficial? 2. Consider additional, non-standard subject headings. 3. Consider inventory and catalog all software on campus. 4. Consider location and cataloging of accompa­ nying documentation. 4A. Should this documentation be maintained together with the software or separately? 4B. Should location of this documentation be noted in catalog or item record? 5. Consider location and cataloging of books with accompanying software. Excerpt We see a need for all machine-readable materi­ als received by the Libraries to be listed and orga­ nized for easy access. We recommend all Library-owned software be cataloged and accessible through the online cata­ log. New materials should be cataloged as they are received. Data tapes should continue to be indexed by the Systems and Reference departments, and then cataloged as time allows. We recommend attempting to identify and in­ ventory machine-readable data files which are available for use by patrons throughout campus. We recommend that documentation or other materials which will be shelved separately from the software which they accompany should be noted in the online catalog and in the documentation and software packaging. Access issues l . Consider holding locations (e.g., Systems de­ partment, reserve room, software library, most ap­ propriate library, subject shelving locations, etc.). 1A. Is a designated control area within each holding location required? 1B. Where will software be housed which can­ not be used on-site? 1C. Should reference-use software be kept in the Reference department? November 1988 / 665 2. Determine hardware needs in each holding lo­ cation for reference use and browsing. 3. Consider issues of security, space, noise (e.g., need for enclosed area). 4. Develop appropriate circulation policies (e.g., loan periods, etc.). 5. Consider copyright protection statements and issues. 6. Determine level of reference service(s) to be provided for software. 6A. Should level of service be the same as for tra­ ditional formats? 6B. Should service include special aspects such as suggesting specific software packages, helping pa­ trons locate and understand documentation, ex­ plaining policies and procedures? 6C. To what extent must staff help with hard­ ware and peripherals if housed in the library? 6D . Are there other, independent sources of help on campus (e.g., a computing center)? (See Gen­ eral issues, 3C). Excerpt The Libraries need to assume the role of provid­ ing access to machine-readable materials to stu­ dents and faculty. In order to facilitate this access, we recommend that materials be placed in the location where they will be used, for example: Main Reference, Main Periodicals, or branch libraries. Materials should be kept within a designated controlled area in each location, e.g., reserve area. Formats which cannot be used on-site, such as reel tapes, should be kept in the Systems department. Each location must house sufficient equipment to support reference and browsing functions. Space needs to be defined, and we suggest enclosed areas for reasons of security, supervision, and noise. We recommend that reference software should be housed near similar print counterparts. We foresee that certain computerized indexes such as ERIC and PSY CHINFO may in time require a dedicated terminal due to frequency of use. Such indexes may soon no longer be available in a printed format but only on CD or other machine- readable formats. As these materials supplant printed equivalents, space problems may be re­ lieved. Circulation policies for software should be much like that for other library materials, dependent on content, format, and anticipated use as well as hardware requirements and restrictions. Software may be used in the library if hardware is available, or checked out for use elsewhere. Circulation should be subject to contractual arrangements as well as existing library policies. Some combination of the following procedures should be used to protect copyright and the Li­ braries’ liability, with staff training provided in these procedures. a. negotiation of licenses and contracts with ven­ dors to meet library needs while fulfilling vendor requirements; b. signs at all places where software is obtained or used, stating use and copy restrictions, much as photocopy machines are now marked; c. labels on software packages stating restric­ tions; d. disclaimer to be read and signed by the patron Software circulation should be handled much like reserves. before use of software; e. patron must leave ID while using software in the library; f. patron must show ID in addition to library card when checking out software; and g. warning and enforcement by staff of legiti­ mate use. Reference staff should provide reference assist­ ance with materials in machine-readable format, just as they do for other formats. Reference assist­ ance should include, but not be limited to, suggest­ ing available software to patrons, helping patrons find and understand the documentation accompa­ nying the software, showing patrons how to turn on the computer and insert the disk, and explaining procedures and regulations for use of software. Ap­ propriate bibliographic instruction presentations and guides will need to be developed. Preservation and protection issues 1. Define the following terminology as used: ar­ chival version, patron-use version. 2. Consider duplication issues. 2A. Should original or copy be used by the pa­ tron? 2B. Where should archival version be stored? 2C. Will multiple originals need to be purchased if duplication for archival purposes is not allowed? 3. Consider protection issues. 3A. What problems are associated with detec­ tors, book drops, shelving units, climate control, etc.? 3B. What special handling is required? 3C. Will disk and documentation be shelved to­ gether or separately? (See Cataloging issues, 4A and 5). 3D. Should special packaging be used for soft­ ware? 4. Assign responsibility for maintenance of soft­ ware. 666 / C &RL News Excerpt Single copies for public use, or otherwise as pro­ vided by the agreement, should be made by the Systems department if allowed within the parame­ ters of the contract with the vendor. If multiple copies are needed but not permitted by the license or contract, multiple originals should be pur­ chased. When possible, an archival copy (i.e., the origi­ nal) should be kept in the Systems department. Circulation of software in all units should be handled much like reserves, with special consider­ ation of content, format, and anticipated use. Disks and documentation will be stored separately, with disks in special packaging. Procedures to pro­ tect copyright and liability as outlined above should be followed in all circulation areas. Loan period will be determined by the appropriate selec­ tor working with circulation staff. Each circula­ tion unit should develop procedures for handling software that will coordinate with existing policy. Protective packaging should be provided and special precautions taken to ensure preservation of circulating materials. Software must never go through a sensitizer machine, and must not be re­ turned in a book drop. The Systems department should maintain hard­ ware, act as liaison in selection and purchase of hardware and software, make or maintain archi­ val copies of software as appropriate, and provide staff training as needed. Suggested implementation We suggest that our recommendations be imple­ mented in this order: 1. guidelines for hardware purchase be devel­ oped by the Systems department; 2 . selection and purchase of hardware and soft­ ware, giving priority to reference materials; 3. initial training of staff; 4. bibliographic instruction and end-user in­ struction; and 5. continuing education and ongoing training. Staff members need to receive initial and ongo­ ing training as appropriate. They will be expected to work with machine-readable formats just as they do with other formats. Specific areas we rec­ ommend to be included in the training are: 1. introductory discussion of this relatively new format; 2. enhancement of collections by inclusion of software; 3. detailed training in locating information help­ ful in selecting and evaluating software; 4. consideration of security and preservation of software; 5. copyright enforcement; 6. special use regulations; and 7. hands-on training as needed in the basics, for example, caring for and inserting disks, turning on computers, etc. We recommend publicizing these new formats and the new services they make possible. The uni­ versity community could be informed through li­ brary publications, the university newspaper, and other media; bibliographic instruction efforts; se­ lector/faculty discussions; and by library staff who make suggestions on software to patrons just as they do for other formats. Conclusions The University of Florida Libraries Software Study Committee sees machine-readable formats as an integral part of library collections. It is the role of academic libraries to continue to support teaching and research needs by providing materials in any format. Microforms have been incorporated successfully into libraries; software should be viewed in a similar manner. If libraries do not pro­ vide these materials and appropriate assistance, they may become exclusively an archive of printed materials rather than a resource for all forms of current information. Libraries have a unique ca­ pability to organize and supply information. No other area on campus has the expertise to take up the role that libraries would relinquish if new for­ mats, accompanying hardware, and instruction are not provided. Designing and implementing patron-use software policies is a step toward pro­ viding more complete access to information. Selected bibliography ACRL Task Force on Libraries and Computer Centers. “Libraries and Computer Centers: A Progress Report, May 30, 1987.” C ollege ir R e­ s ea r c h L ib r a r ie s N ew s 48 (September 1987): 442-47. Avallone, Susan. “Public Access to Microcom­ puters.” L ibrary Journal 110 (May 1985): 105-6. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . “The Trial by Error Phase.” L ibrary Journal 110 (May 1985): 96-97. Brennan, Patricia B.M ., and Joel S. Silverberg. “Will My Disks Go Floo If I Take Them Through?” C ollege & R esearch L ibraries News 46 (September 1985): 423-24. Chiang, Katherine B. “Computer Accessible Material in the Academic Library: Avoiding the Kludge.” In Energies fo r Transition, Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference of the Associa­ tion of College and Research Libraries, Baltimore, Maryland, April 9-12, 1986, edited by Danuta A. Nitecki, 67-69. Chicago: American Library Asso­ ciation, 1986. Curtis, Howard, ed. Public Access M icrocom ­ puters in A cadem ic L ibraries: The Mann L ibrary M odel at Cornell University. Chicago: American Library Association, 1987. Demas, Samuel. “Microcomputer Software Col­ lections.” S p ecial L ib r a r ie s 76 (W inter 1985): 17-23. Dewey, Patrick R. P u blic Access M icrocom ­ puters: A H an d book f o r Librarians. White Plains, November 1988 / 667 N .Y.: Knowledge Industry Publications, In c., 1984. Freeman, Steve. “Apple Corps at St. Louis.” L i­ brary Journal 110 (May 1985): 110-12. Hannigan, Jane Anne. “The Evaluation of Mi­ crocomputer Software.” Library Trends 33 (Win­ ter 1985): 110-12. Intner, Sheila. “Problems and Solutions in De­ scriptive Cataloging of Microcomputer Software.” Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 5 (Spring 1985): 49-56. Jaffe, Lee David. “The Role of the Academic L i­ brary in Campus Microcomputer Services.” Small Computers in Libraries 6 (June 1986): 27-29. Lytle, Susan S., and Hal W. Hall. “Software, Libraries, and the Copyright Law .” Library Jou r­ nal 110 (July 1985): 33-39. M icrocom pu ter Softw are Policies in A RL L i­ braries. Systems and Procedure Exchange Center, SPEC Kit no. 123. Washington, D .C .: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research L i­ braries, 1986. M icrocomputers in ARL Libraries. Systems and Procedure Exchange Center, SPEC Kit no. 104, Washington, D .C .: Office of Management Stud­ ies, Association of Research Libraries, 1984. Mitchem, Terri. “The Bowker National Micro­ computer Usage Study, 1984.” In The B ow ker An­ nual o f Library and B ook Trade Inform ation, 29th ed. New York, N .Y.: R .R . Bowker Company, 1984. Piele, Linda J ., Judith Pryor, and Harold Tuck- ett. “Teaching Microcomputer Literacy: New Roles for Academic Librarians.” C ollege ò- R e­ search Libraries 60 (July 1986): 374-78. Piele, Linda J. “Selecting Software for Micro­ computer Centers.” Wilson Library Bulletin 60 (June 1986): 23-26. “Role of Computers in Sci-Tech Libraries.” Sci­ ence and Technology Libraries, vol. 6 no. 4 (Sum­ mer 1986). [entire issue] Rosenstein, Linda. “Checklist for Micro Center Policies.” Small Computers in Libraries 6 (Novem­ ber 1986): 4-5. Schack, Markham B. “Public Domain Software is a Natural for Your Library.” Small Computers in Libraries 7 (April 1987): 28-32. “Selecting Microcomputer Software and Sys­ tems.” RASD Update 7 (April/June 1986): 13-14. Smisek, Thomas. “Circulating Software: A Practical Approach.” Library Journal 110 (May 1985): 108-109. Snelson, Pamela. “Library Instruction and the Computer.” Small Computers in Libraries 5 (Sep­ tember 1985): 11-12. _ _ _ _ _ _ . “Microcomputer Centers in Academic Libraries, Part I . ” Small Computers in Libraries 5 (June 1985): 6-9; Part II, 5 (July/August 1985): 7-9. Talab, Rosemary. “Back-ups: A Controversial but Necessary Part of Software Collections.” Small Computers in Libraries 7 (March 1987): 36-39. Turner, Judith Axler. “Scholars Weigh Library’s Role in Collecting Computerized Research D ata.” The Chronicle o f Higher Education 32 (July 16, 1986): 34. Uppgard, Jeannine. “Public Access Microcom­ puters in Academic Libraries: Part I . ” Small C om ­ puters in Libraries 7 (January 1987): 28-32; Part II, 7 (February 1987): 10-11. Letters Closing a library To the Editor: Rebecca Sturm, in “When Closing a Library is Progress” (C&R L News, September 1988), seems to be asking: Does a library facility a library make? I would answer no. It is the librarian who makes the difference! Sturm mentions that the Library Referral Center consisted of a “small….book collec­ tion.…some subscriptions….staffing by student em­ ployees for 20 hours per week.” Contrast that with the far more successful and innovative efforts in small, scattered office loca­ tions in Vermont (see C &R L News, April 1987, pp. 181-83) which offered a referen ce librarian, a facsimile machine, telephone, and a small collec­ tion. This description fits well with my own experi­ ence at a small regional vocational/technical col­ lege in Indiana. It is the reference work I do, the teaching of library skills (in classrooms and in the library), the work with faculty that has brought a poorly used collection to new life as an active library—one that serves its patrons well. And it is the knowledge of information sources outside the library that the professional has which further in­ creases student and faculty access to desired infor­ mation. Perhaps the Library Referral Center was never actually a library?—D onna G agnier-C hisholm , In d ia n a V o c a tio n a l T e c h n ic a l C o lle g e , F o r t W ayne, Indiana. The Gourman Report To the Editor: The EBSS Bibliographic Instruction for Educa­ tion Committee has produced a useful addition to the literature with their “Teaching Library and In­ formation Retrieval Skills to Academic Adminis­ trators and Support Staff” in the April 1988 issue. However, in scanning the section on Reference Tools, I note that under Academic Rankings they