Search results

Universal access to libraries is a credo of librarianship. Students in library school learn the credo and most hold it fervently throughout their careers. However, as new technologies permit extended access to library collections and services, librarians must re‐examine this fundamental belief in light of new groups of remote users. This paper will discuss some implications of providing extended easy access to library resources.

A barrage of criticism has been leveled recently at those librarians championing the importance of bibliographical instruction and the reference interview. Some critics claim reference librarians, unable to restrain their “yen to teach,” insist on telling patrons which sources to use and which to avoid instead of providing them with requested materials. According to this view, instruction has replaced service, despite the evidence showing patrons prefer “user‐friendly CD‐ROMs such as Infotrac” to more traditional print reference services. In fact, claims one writer, the entire concept of the reference interview (or at least its present permutation) is a myth. Patron queries may need clarification, but no drawn‐out, analyzed interaction with patrons is mandatory for providing effective reference. Instead of posing counter‐questions, which may illustrate ineptitude as much as perspicacity, librarians should redirect their efforts toward mastering substantive knowledge.

Librarians find themselves today in a lively period of the evolution of user interfaces to online information. The average college or university library user is confronted with a variety of interfaces in one trip to the reference room: from the straight text, terminal‐based interface of the online catalog to a variety of flashy interfaces to CD‐ROM databases. Most of the newer interfaces incorporate graphics, color, and mouse‐supported searching to make initiation for the novice user easier and searching more productive. As a result of exposure to these new interfaces, users come to expect this degree of ease of use and attractiveness. In their minds, there is no conceptual difference—and perhaps there should not be—between the CD‐ROM version of PsycLit and the online catalog. OPACs that provide less functionality are not living up to either the potential of the available technology or the expectations of their users.