Good morning, Mssrs. Armstrong & Mitchell!
I hope you have both had a peaceful and restful weekend, and that you are
planning to play nice this week ;) Seriously, tho, we have an excellent
opportunity here - an informal forum with speakers from the used book
industry, the CD-ROM industry and representatives from all three areas
of law librarianship. Now if we can all avoid name-calling and petty
insult, this should prove beneficial to all.
After trudging through the lengthy interchange between the two original
posters, I have a few comments:
1. Search engines
One thing I really hate to hear is a vendor rep cheerfully informing
me that his/her CD-ROM uses a unique search engine designed in-house.
What that tells me is that one more legal publisher has stepped out
of its obvious area of expertise into the murky waters of software
design. AAUGH! More bugs, more not-quite-intuitive commands first
to learn and then to teach to my Luddites*, I mean, attorneys.
*Luddites threw wrenches into machinery (or spanners in the works, if
you speak the King's English). Saboteurs threw shoes (sabot = shoe in
French).
>However, as you know, I said more. I said that the goal of good software
>design is to make a program intuitive. I pointed out that Windows makes it
>much easier for us to do this, because we get to put little pictures, and
>other visual clues, on the screen in front of the user.
But your attorneys have to know how to use Windows in order to reap
these benefits. I am comfortable with computers, having had access
to them since I was in Junior High. I first used a Macintosh in 1985,
so mousing is second nature to me, but many of the attorneys in my
firm are barely computer-literate. Some of them are *afraid* of
computers and get very tense when they have to use a new technology.
For these guys, having to learn a new search engine is a royal pain
in the rear.
If you think I'm kidding, try converting a diehard LEXIS user to
WESTLAW, or vice-versa. Two similar search engines with seemingly
insignificant differences ( w/2 vs. /2 ), but "you'll get my ______
password away from me when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand!"
ARMSTRONG:
>In your latest posting, you said that the "thousands" of articles and
>debates about the relative merits of search engines were not about "enter
>word, start search". Tell us, then, what they *were* about. Do *you* know
>anything about the relative merits of the various search engines? Have *you*
>designed a search engine? Have *you* examined any search engines?
>
>Ignoring your hyperbole about "thousands", there certainly have been articles
>about the merits of various search engines, but such articles would probably
>have appeared in "nerd" magazines, which I don't believe you read.
Fellow librarians, let us rejoice! We are now computer nerds! About
two years ago, an article appeared in Law Library Journal; the subject:
a comparison of the two Westlaw search engines - boolean and natural
language. I apologize for not having more complete information than
that, but it was one I reviewed for a class and I do not have my notes
here at the office. Said article is not the only one to have appeared
in the non-nerd publications I read.
Natural language searching was invented to address the very real problem
of ineffective boolean searching. The simple fact is that the quality
of computerized research varies from one user to the next. And any
librarian who has taken the time to peer over the shoulder of his or
her attorneys to observe their search strategies knows that many people
who think they are great researchers are, in fact, not. Standardized
indexing (available in most book formats) can often be a better finding
tool than your average boolean search.
2. CD-ROM sharing
>>>>Mitchell:
>>>>2) Do you serve a large number of attorneys? (One attorney using a
>>>>CD-ROM "set" occupies the whole set, unless you have networking
>
>>>Armstrong:
>>> One attorney "occupies" the whole CD for a *brief* period of time. Then
Let me give you a real-world example from my own library. I have 22
litigators, no network, one stand-alone 486 with a double-speed CD-ROM
drive. Our CD-ROM products include Shepard's, SW2d - Texas Cases, and
various Matthew Bender titles. Using *any* CD-ROM product locks out
others wanting to use that title OR any *other* CD-ROM title. In the
print world, an attorney Shepardizing 862 F.2d doesn't lock out the one
who needs to research an issue in vol. 3 of the Texas Litigation Guide.
3. Obsolete systems
>>Mitchell: So you're saying that all those libraries still using that system
>>must be obsolete?
>
>Armstrong:
>Likewise, it's up to the library, government agency or law firm to judge
whether
>the system they are using is obsolete.
>>> Nonetheless, because CD-Rom drives have slower access times than hard
>>>drives, I would not dispute that some number of users simultaneously
>>>trying to search a database on the same CD-Rom disk could slow things down
>>>a bit. (. . . we're talking about seconds compared to milliseconds)
>
>>Mitchell: Sometimes, lots and lots of seconds, sort of like accessing
>>Internet graphics with a 286.
>
>Armstrong:
>
>Because you made the analogy, one assumes you have actually *tried* to
>access Internet graphics with a 286; this weakens your arguments more than
>anything I can say.
Careful, Mr. Armstrong. You may not realize how many people you may
have offended with that remark. I know of several unfortunate souls
who must operate with outdated technology. They *know* it is not
able to meet their needs, but they don't sign the checks. A fellow
librarian here in Houston is actually using a 286 to access the
Internet (with a Shell account & lynx) because her law firm won't
buy her a new system. If we had our druthers, we would all be
using P150's, 17" monitors, 2GB hard drives and 6X CD-ROM readers.
In other sections of your message, you refer to the "insignificant"
cost of adding hard drive space to existing stand-alones. But it
is not always as simple as you suggest. For older machines, you
usually have to upgrade the BIOS (if you can) and spend a fair
amount of time tinkering with the new setup to get it work properly.
As for Mr. Mitchell's question about West's products, the simple
fact is that not all CD-ROM products can be easily and cheaply
downloaded to the hard drive. If you are going to take up the
challenge and defend CD-ROM technology, then please do not limit
your responses to your own products. I have no need for the
materials you sell, so it doesn't really matter whether I can
download them to my hard drive for less than $100.
4. System reliability
>>>>Mitchell:
>>>>4) Do your attorneys typically work at the last minute or at night?
>>>>(Computers "know" when a system crash would be a disaster, so that's
>>>>when they crash. Expect a desperate attorney to call you at home to
>>>>ask, "How do I get *your* darn system to work? Then you try accessing
>>>>technical support some evening or weekend. Lots of luck.)
>
>>>Armstrong:
>>> How absurd.
Gentlemen, insulting the other side works best in the political
arena. In civilized debate, it is preferable to keep the dialog
a few levels above that of mud-slinging. I think the point Mr.
Mitchell was trying to make was one we all suspect: computers
pick the most inconvenient times to break down. In reality,
computers crash occasionally for no reason whatsoever. If it's
not in the middle of a crisis, you fix it and move on. Nothing
remarkable or memorable. If it happens when you are on a tight
deadline, everybody's blood pressure skyrockets. In addition,
problems are more likely to arise when the system is being pushed
to the limit. So, the net effect is that computers seem to
"know" when a general protection fault will wreak the most havoc.
5. In defense of computerized research tools
That said, I am glad we have CD-ROM and don't intend to cancel
the services we have, even though they are far from perfect.
CDs offer numerous advantages over print format - they require
less space than print materials; updates are easy to "file;"
it's harder to lose individual volumes of the set; etc. Like
most things in life (including print materials), there are
pros and there are cons. When I decide to buy a new title for
the library, I appreciate having the option to buy the CD
instead of, or in addition to, the books.
And so I will continue to poke & prod my attorneys to broaden
their horizons & try new technologies. And I will soothe
ruffled feathers when the CDs and/or computers don't behave
properly (which includes taking irate calls at 10:00 pm!) And
I will expect the human mind to devise even better and more
technologically advanced research tools in the future. When
we debate the relative merits of existing tools, we establish
the criteria by which we will evaluate future systems.
Dina Dempsey, Law Librarian
Clements, O'Neill, Pierce & Nickens (713) 654-7600
1000 Lousiana, Suite 1800 (fax) 654-7690
Houston TX 77002-5009 dina@neosoft.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:09 PST