Limiting Lynx to specific URLs -Reply -Reply

[jkuntz at mhv.net]

First, I really appreciate the responses I've been getting to the dilemma 
outlined in earlier messages: i.e. introducing web access in a situation 
where there can be minimal increase in the number of workstations over what 
already exists. Allow me to just give one more piece of background 
information, then offer what may be a compromise that will satisfy the 
library directors I'm working with.
	Many of the libraries currently have PPP accounts through one 
workstation, but for on-demand access over multiple workstations, they 
really need to be using networks, routers and dedicated lines. We already 
have those in place for our automated system (Dynix), but the bandwidth of 
the lines is limited and the vast majority of workstations are dumb 
terminals. Hence the need for Lynx, and the need to multitask the terminals 
to do both Internet access and PAC functions. Dynix's PAC software (the 
character-based version) is structured so that we can not offer options on 
some PACs but not on others, without paying for a second PAC account.
	That idea, i.e. a second PAC account, may offer a potential 
solution. Because then we could devote some workstations just to PAC and 
give other
workstations the option of PAC and LYNX, and it would be within the control 
of each library to adjust what every terminal can deliver, and they could 
change that configuration just by logging the terminals on and off to the 
different accounts!
				Jerry Kuntz
				Ramapo Catskill Library System
				jkuntz at mhv.net
---------------Original Message---------------
Thomas Dowling stated one objection to limiting lynx--that it would:

 Generate a user perception that your library is run by control
    freaks, technophobes and/or net.ignoramuses who Just Don't 
    Get It (try doing Internet BI once that perception sets in)

Michael Schuyler argued eloquently on this point not too long ago in
Computers in Libraries, pointing out that too often we librarians are seen
as standing in the way of access.

If time limits at computers result in fist fights--then have the combatants
removed from the library.  Where are the patron behavior policies?  

It's also possible to dedicate computers to specific tasks, even if they are
"supposed" to be multitasking, and use geographic location,  stanchions
and signs to create methods of allocation and control.  Good old
salespersonship doesn't hurt, either.  "Gosh, we want to give you the
world--but we can give you 30 minutes on this terrific computer!" goes a
long way.  We have drive locks on our a: drives (in part because the
computers are not in our line of vision, due to a wall that really needs to
come down) and do we say "we're doing this because we have caught
people trying to format the c: drive?"  No, we say, "we're worried that
you'll get a virus on your home computer--have a FREE, clean, formatted
diskette!"  The best PR a dime can buy (and ever so environmentally
correct).

Anyway, as Thomas the Dowling put it more or less, you only have so
much time in the day.  How will you spend it?  Finding ways to reduce
or limit access to information?  Or finding ways to connect folks to what
they seek?  Take a look at this month's DLib magazine,
<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june96/06contents.html> --many exciting,
user-oriented  projects, not one related to restricting or denying access. 
Where are *your* priorities?  

Karen G. "I Just Had My Coffee" Schneider
schneider.karen at epamail.epa.gov
opinions mine alone


----------End of Original Message----------

-------------------------------------
E-mail: jkuntz at pop.mhv.net
Date: 06/18/96
Time: 10:37:46

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------