ProQuest - Windows

[Gary E.Masters]

Dan:


Thanks for the information.  This extra information may help.  

I was in a library meeing the other day and strarted to quote your line
"Good, Fast, and Cheap.." and was really surprised that it was finished for
me by people who don't usually pay much attention to computers at all.
They call them all "terminals."  I had forwarded one of your messages and
they had remembered.  It must be something they think is very true, as do I.  

I have a list of all the reasons that the Windows version is not favored.
I am a one person shop and don't get time to get really involved with every
program.  I rely on the Public Services for evaluations.  

Here is the laundry list (I sent it to UMI - now Bell and Howell) but don't
expect much in return. 

Gary,

You asked me to send you email detailing why I find the Windows version of
ProQuest "clunky."

1.  It takes two commands, not one, to select a database disk, and the wait
is much longer.

2.  Searching by topic tree and publication title/date are no longer
available.  We won't miss the topic tree too much, but it was very
convenient to be able to search directly by journal title and issue date
and get a table of contents.  An extended search specifying the appropriate
fields will eventually accomplish the same thing, but the convenience is gone.

3.  It is possible to display all bib records in a scrollable window by
striking Text and then Display, but this is very far from intuitive and
there is no prompt on screen to help you (in DOS, it says "Press F7 to
display full records").  Also, we have again substituted two commands to do
what one command used to do, and again the wait is longer.

4.  When the window appears, it is often in the wrong position for
scrolling and must be moved (i.e. the scroll bar is off screen).  Scrolling
is extremely slow.  It is not possible to scroll from record to record.
Moving from record to record using the > and < buttons is also extremely
slow, and confusing because the record number changes long before the
record changes.

5.  There is no way to tell from the record display window whether or not
an article is available in full-image on disk.  I also can't find a command
that calls up the image directly from that window if it is available.  As
far as I can tell, you have to close the display window, go back and select
the image from the short-version list, and display it from there.

6.  The print button is not in the display window but in the main window.
This will confuse users.  In many online products, you must use the print
command in the window you want to print - if you use the print command in
the back window, you print the back window.  Also, the print menu is
complicated and confusing, and it defaults selections that the user would
probably not choose.
It takes forever for the system to respond to a print command, at least
when the response is that the printer is unable to print (for lack of
copicard, etc.), which in DOS comes back quite quickly.

7.  The intuitive way for users to display records is to select them and
display them one at a time, closing the window every time they want to see
the next record.  This is very time-consuming.  The intuitive way to
display records in the DOS version is also the quick and effective way.

8.  You need a mouse for the Windows version.  Table space in the ProQuest
area is at a premium, and mice are subject to a host of ills as we have
noted on the other machines (sticking, disconnecting, having their balls
removed, etc.).

9.  And what's the compensating advantage?  What will the Windows version
do that the DOS version doesn't do better?  Even if it weren't for the
complicated layouts, the long response delays, the lack of on-screen
prompts, the missing features, and the multiple and non-intuitive commands
required to use the features that are left, it is a new setup, not the
setup that our patrons have used before and are familiar and comfortable
with.  That in itself is a drawback, for which there should be some
compensating advantage.  What's the compensating advantage?  Surely we're
not opting for what's new just because it's new.


Well, you did ask.

John M.



At 04:20 PM 9/14/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>At 12:46 PM 9/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>We have moved torunning ProQuest (the full image version) in Windows for
>>better memory management and because we want to be ready for the Y2K event.
>>  However, the Head of Public Services can not stand the windows version.  I
>>imagine he would toss me out the window (real) if I did not provide the DOS
>>version.
>
>Saw you got your answer.....but you might start getting him/her ready for 
>the demise of the DOS version.  I don't expect it to be around much 
>longer.  Better yet, get him/her ready for the web versiion, which kicks 
>butt on either CDROM one....plus is much easier for YOU to deal with.
>
>cheers
>
>dan
>
>--
>Good, Fast, and Cheap: Which two of the three would you like?
>Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, ID 83716 USA 208-383-0165
>dan at 84.com   http://www.84.com/  http://www.postcard.org/
>
>
>