DOCUMENT RESUME.'

k '

Eb 242 328 IR 050 690

AUTHOR Wallaee, Danny P.TITLE 4 The .User Friendliness'Of the Library catalog.

Occasional Papers Number 163.INSTITUTION Illinois Univ., Urbana. Graduate School, of Library

and Information Science.PUB DATE Feb 84NOTE 44p.AVAILABLE FRO University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library

0) +

and Information Science, Publications Office, 249xmory Building, 505 E. Armory Street, Champaign, IL

20 ($3.00-per copy).PUB TYPE nformation Analyses (070)

elEDRS PRICE MF01 Plus ostage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS .*Catalogin Classification; Design Requirements;

*Filin4;-I*4 xing; *Information Needs;' Information

Storage; AL ,.ary Catalogs; Literature Reviews;Objectives ..

IDENTIFIERS *Library Users ;kJ ser Cordial Interface; *UserNeeds

ABSTRACTThis paper reviews 1.9th and 20th century

English-language literature dealing with the user friendliness oflibrary catalogs and cataloging. Sections cover literature'on: (1)the need for catalogs and the possibility of substituting subjectbibliographies for the subject catalog; (2) user needs and thedichotomy between designing catalogs based on individual needs andthe ,standardization of cataloging; (3) the basic purposes of catalogsand cataloging; (4) the advantages and disadvantages of variousphysical catalog forms,* including card, book, and microform catalogs;'(5) methods of Arranging catalogs in dictionary or divided format andthe comparative advantages of arphabetical and classified catalogs;(6) the content of catalog records, especially the amount and type ofinformation included; (7) the nature of catalog entries, specificallythe number and type of entry points for each item in the colleCtion;and (8) the arrangement of alphabetical entries, i.e., in truealphabetical or alphabetico-classed format. It is eoncluded that theliterature of the library catalog'shows a concern for the cataloguser.but that the concern has been unsystematic and based on untested'assumptions regarding user needs and wants. A review of-12---oblectivesof a user-oriented system, as enumerated-by-Dehning, Essig, andMaass, and the author's_vita-eontlude the pyblication. (ESR)

s=1

************************************************************************. Reproductions supplied b EDRS are the-best that can be made '

*

from it) original document.********4******************** *****************************************

. University of IllinoisGraduate School of Library and Information Science

ISN:,0276 1769U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION Number 163

Fellruary 1984CENTER (ERIC)11. This document has been reproduced al . ,:011 '1,

received from the person or organization,originatIng it , 0 ." 1.

A %Minor changes have been made to improve II 7 2reproduction quality.

.

.

, r. -to.a . yr

,Points of view or opinions stated in this documeat do not necessarily reprItenlictal NIEposition du policy hs' '.r.

... ..i.,... $,e

. .. ,

The User Friendliness ,.4 t

of the Library Catalog,

,z

by

Danny P. Wallace

471

2A,klor

"PERMISSION Tp REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHASISkEN GRANTED BY

Earl G. Plested

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATH5N CENTER (ERIC)."

'Contents

IntroductionThe Need for CatalogsThe Users of CatalogsThe Purpose of the CatalogThe Physical Form of the CatalogThe Risk Arrangement of the G3The Content of Catalog RecordsThe Nature of Catalog EntriesThe Arrangement of Alphalletical EntriesConclusions and Implicatibus .ReferencesVita =

t .t

.

/ .

.

eY

. t

..

...

, 579

11

1622"25283 0

3 5

42

O 1989 The Board of Trustees of The University of Illinois

4

OCCASIONAL PAPERS deal with any aspect of librarianship and consistof papers which are too long or too detailed for publication in a libraryperiodical or which are of specialized or temporary interest. Manuscriptsfor inclusion in this series are invited and should be sent to: OCCA-SIONAL PAPERS, Graduate SChool of Library and Information Science,Publications OffiCe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Charnpaign, 249

E.---Armory-StreetTChampaigni Illinois -61820,4

Papers in vthis series are issued iiiegularly, and no more often thanmonthly. Subscriptions for 1984may be established for $13.00 per year, Atleast five papers will be issued annually, beginning With number 163 for1984. Individual copies pf current or back numbers may be ordered (pre-paid) for $3.00 each. Sena 'orders to: OCCASIONAIRAPERS,. GraduateSchool of Library and Information Science, Publications Office, Univer-

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 249 Armory Building, 505 E.ory Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820. Make checks payable to

University of. Illinois.

Walter C. Allen, EditorJames S. Dowling, Associate Editor

PUBLICATIONS CO

Hugh C. AtkinsonCharles H. DavisBruce M. ManzerF.W.-Lancaster

ITTEE

Lawrence W.S. AuldTerry L. WeechLinda C. Smith

INTRODUCTION

Recent research in infpimaition 'retrieval has seen an'increased concernwith the development of "user-friendly" systems. Also called user-orientedor user-cordial systems, these have been described as "information retrievalsystems which require no special knowledge to use, so that the full spec-trum of end users can be accommodated."' Unfortkinately user friendli-ness is difficult to define with any precision, and rs a result is used in .avariety of conflicting and confusing ways. There are those who seem tobelieve, for instance, that a computerized system is inherently more userfriendly than a manual system; that a touch-sensitive computer terminal isnecessarily more user friendly than a keyboard terminal; or that a menu-driven retrieval system is inherently more user friendly than a command-

'driven system. The widespread use and abuse of the term may make itAindperhaps the concept it describes, very suspect. It has became a catch phrase,one which any system designer might like to have attached to his or herparticular system.

There have, however, been some efforts made to define and limit the term.One of the most thorough examinations of the concept is that of Dehning,Essig and Maass, who surveyed the.literature 6f user friendliness andsummarized it brenumerating its essential characteristics:

1. The system's behaviour toward the user must be flexible so that theuser is not forced to act in a strictly' prescribed way.

2. A system must be able to distinguish among several users and adapt tothem.

3. The system behaviour and its effects should be transparent to the user.4. The system should always be helpful; it should never force the user-into embarrassing situations.5., Man-niachine interaction should resembleas far as possible, human communication.6. System design has to take into consideration the physical and psychi-

cal needs of the user during his work with the computer.7. System use should require no special skills.8% Special physical andimotorial skills should not be required.9. The common linguistic and communicative skills of the user must be

sufficient for leading simple dialogg.10. The system should behave in a consistent way so that the user can learn

to anticipate it.11. The possible kinds of problem-solving should not be -limited by the

system.12. The human ability of learning by doing should be exploited moder-

ately.27 it,

3

5

r

ThiS list of characteristics can serve as a r am e o r k for evaluating the user.friendliness of any particular type of system, and will be returned to later in

Although the term is most often associated with interactive computersystems, and especially with question-answering systems, the concept ofdesieing information retrieval systems to achieve maximum accommd-dation to the needs of end users has a lengthier history than the term

urr tly in vogue. Concern for the needs of library catalog users have beensignifitant, perhaps dominant, torte in the literature about the library'

catalog. This study is based on English language literatureslealing withlibrary catalogs published from the time of the ascendancy of the cardcatalog in the latemineteenth century up to the advent of online interactivecatalogs in the last quarter of the twentieth century.3

The emphasis of thii study is on rhetoric rather than practice. Some of theproposals that were identified -were probably never actually implemented,and rio attempt has been made here to specifically compare or evaluatethose. approaches that were in fact reflected its practice; User friendlines isnot alWays directly reflected in catalog practice. Thus, this study does notpurport to bea test of the user friendliness' f the various approaches, not-does itliiteriTtOprovidea-comprehensivereview ar evalt,LationOf "studiesticatalog use or catalog users. Explicit concern with user friendliness is cifvery recent origin, and it is not yet possible to, precisely: define ,thosecharacteristics which distinguish a user-friendly system from a usei-:unfriendly system. 'To a considerable exteln, user, friendliness can beConsidered subjective and arbitrary, and the term has been used in wayswhich imply a variety of meanings. It is nonetheless possible to analyzeand categorize the ways in which user friendliness may be seen to have beena consideration in cataloging deeisions. -f,

A general Iconcern for the ,user has long been s and etiquette jin theliterature of catalogs and cataloging, finding hapi its mosuadamaniexpression in Cutter's contention that, "the co enience okhe public isalways to be set before- the ease of the catalo r rt 'Cutter's Rules for abictionaryCatalog is tiberallys -sprinkled with re rences to the needs andwants of users. Other writers have expressed the e idea. Perkins, for

that the object of a catalog "is to.enable the reader to findst possible trouble whether the library has what het "ii should therefore demand of the 'reader as littlelit or sense as pOssible."3 Wilson stated thaethe catalogse, alfays and openly..."6 and Swanson identified "the1 user of the library..." as the focal point of catalog.

this paper. ,

instance, assertedout with the .1wants..." andknowledge, thou"is for people touser and potentresearch.'

4

1 1 1 ,

Concern for the library user may be distinguished according tp ralbroadly defined issues. The first, not frequently addressed but apt) which,all other suggestions* dependent, asks whethera catalog is necessary anduseful at-all. The other areas of concern address the iniAded users oflibrary catalogs; the basic purposes of catalogs; the physical form of thecatalog; the form, content, and number of catalog entries; and the arrange-ment of entries within the catalog.

THE NEED FOR CATALOGS

Most:writings On the catalog have assumed that some sorttlinndividualizedlocal catalog is necessary, However, there have been suggestioni-to thecontrary, an early*, one being that of Pearson, writing in 1915 for the Bo4tonEvening Transcript; "would It not be the most fortunate thing that couldhappen to all the libraries in the world if their catalogues should be utterlyconsumed by fire this very night?"8 Elsewhere, Pearson contended that

-about 90% of a library's users do n t even use (he c.atalog.8 Although there isa note of facetiousness in Pear n's comments, there is also a. slious

undercurrent of concern-for wh therlhe existenceof local catalogs can bejustified on the grounds Of public need. Dana's comments on the catalogincluded the statement, that.,"the ignoranrcannot use it, the learned do notneed it."'

A significant ,article dealing with the necessity for a lihrity catalogappeared in 1968. Grose and Linsitggested that catalogs are made neces-sary not by any, universal principle; instead; they result from decisionsregarding the arrangement of materials within library collections. The

"authors Very' deliberately ,set about to qfiestion the assumption that everylibrary requires aziplog of its own holdings. A primary arrangement bytitle, augmented .by an efficient circulation file, might provide basicknown-item accest, and subject access might be provided through pub-/lished biblibgraphies.Grose and Line cited two arguments against thisprOPosal, "first, that it *quicker tous tailor-made catalog...and second,that browsing becomes impossible i ..ks are not grouped by subjece.'42They concluded that there iso firm evidence to support either argument.It isapparent that the authors' intent was to be provocative. Most of their

, respondents; however, registered outrage that such fundamental assump-tions should be questioned, and none raised ally new issues.13 ' .

.One argument calling for the abolition of at leait a portion of the catalog isthe contention that library users would-be 'better served by publishedsubject bibliographies than by subject catalogs of 'individual collectiOns.

sA

5

Tlr catalog, then, would be usedonly for locatingitems.onEee-iitie--author-had-beerridentlf14.-The thd--a-teietween supporters and detractors

of this approach were well summarised by Swank in a review of theliterature covering the period. 1876 to 1942." As described by Swank, themajor issues of this controversy are the potential completeness of the twqtypes of tools; their. selectivity; the nature of the classification schemesemployed; the amount of analysis provided; currency; comprehensivenessof coverage; cost; the competence of the compiler; the accuracy of the

;entries; the process of compilatiOn; the difficulty of use; the anticipatedamount of use;.and the proLision_p_f_an_effective-service unit-within the

--1-ibrarypointed out, in each of_ these_areas-there are argumentsfor and against both subject catalogs and subject biblioraphies, and"astonishingly little evidence is available to support any of those argu-

__xnents-'1-5-As-rnerrtionecl-eaTti. ine also suggested the possi-bility that subject bibliographies could replace subject cataloging at leastin sore-situations."

SWank does not mention Young's proposal that the 1-LWWilson-Com=-pany's, United Stotes_Catalog could be-i-fsecl asa substitute for all localc:atalogine According to Young, this bibliography could be modIfied sothat "it would give information under author, subject, title, and wouldcontain many cross references...leave enough space in the margins so thateach library could insert its own call numbers..." and provide "flyleaves atthe back of each publication so that local material and foreign books couldbe added."" To,facilitate this, Youn'suggested that the American LibraryAssociation supervise the Wilson Company's activities or that the Libraryof Congress take over the entire project. This somewhat radical set of ideaswas in effect echoed, by a 1968 proposal that Books Print, with theaddition of call numbers, could take the place of a locdrcatalog in branchlibraries.' Neither proposal seems to have.gathered much support fromthe field.

Ball also addressed the ssue of subject bibliography v. subject catalog,suggesting that the argum t properly revolves around whether the user is 7

- a novce or an elcRert in a given field.z° Ball voiced the popular contentiontha xpertave less need for subjlt cats ging than for subject bibhogra-phies,-but-titat.thelreverse is true for novi es. Since everyone is likely_to beanovice in some field, Ball argued, so e sort of subject cataloging isnecessary. The, provision of catalog Tef rences to subject bibliographiesmight take the place of in-depth subject cataloging and thereby reduce thephysial bulk of the catalog. She still concluded that subject bibliogra-phies could never act as the major source of subject information in a library'without some sort of Augmentation or supplementation. Fruton'', on the

6

8

othe-r hand, suggested that in an academic environment a person workingin a field other than his/her own area of expertise is more likely to consult aperson in that field than to attempt to search the subject catalog, and that."an, elaborate lystem of subject cards can[not] be justified on the groundsthat occasionally we require material outside our area of specialization."21Fruton concluded that indexing and, abstracting sources and subject bibli-ographies are Of much greater value to scientists than are subject catalogs.22

THE USERS OFOCATALOGS

_ it must be capable of meeting theneeds of all users equally while inconveniencing none. "Ideally, books and

" jOurnals should be Arranged, cataloged, -acid -indexediiiilividualuserhut-as-the nun1W-61 users expands; ithecomes increasingly difficult,and then impossible, to classify, catalog, and index for individuals."23Many writers have emphasized the needs and desires of the "average" or"typical" user, but others have suggested that catalog's must necessarilyvary according to the nature of the clientele expected to use them. Theproblem, then, becomes how to devise a unitary tool capable of meetingmulti-dimensional needs. Dana's observation on the problems of the"ignorant" and the "learned" represents the extreme condition of thisproblem." Avxarn-has Accounted for the area between the extremes bypointing out that, "the catalog user is everyman with infiniterequirements."'

Considerable concern has been expressed- regarding ttle-ifeeds Of differentclasses bf users:-Cutter hasized that entries should be devised "that willprobably be first looped under by the class of people who use the library,"implying that entries should Vary from library to library." Doubledaysuggested that the arrangement of entries in the catalog might be depen-dent upon the-nature of its user group,27 a view also expressed by Martel."Morsoh :postulated a need for "special catalogs for special patrons.""Randall suggested that it might be necessary to devise "not one, but manylists of subject headings" to meet the needs of particular classes of users." Acommonly expressed concern h4s been the distinction between the needs-ofscholars or experts and those of the "ordinary" user or novice. Mann, forinstance, emphasized that, "whativill pleasethe advanced student will beunintelligible to. the average man; wHat will furnish information tb theuninitiated will, be useless to the specialist."" Osborn criticized the justifi-cation of bibliographical detail on the basis of 'the needs of scholars:52 acriticism reiterated by Shera 30 years later." Wilson projosed that the.needs of scholars could be best met by consulting scholars in particular

7

F.

fields regarding catalog design 'and problem solving, not by providing an, excressive amount of detail without justification.34 A number of catalog usestudies have emphasizeil the varying approaches of undergraduate stu-dents, graduate students andlaculty members in academic libraries. Mer-ritt's study at the University of California found that typicallyundergraduates and library staff used the subject approach more thanauthor or title approaches while graduate students and facultyusedjauthorand title approaches more than subject.35 Osborn stated that, "the catalogmust be adapted to the needs of varying institutions,48 and this view wassupported by Miller's contention that the local situation makes moredifference in the use of the card catalog than have the differentiations

_accomling to_approach and_type nf pa tron- "37 Possiblythen;--theof adapting catalogs to differing classes of users could be simplified byfo'c9,sing on the needs of differing classes of institutions.__

The apparent need for individualization would seem to be in direct conflictwith the principles of standaidization and shared cataloging data. Youngcited the differences from one library to another as a major catalog problemfrom the user's viewpoint.38 Much of,modern cataloging practice has beendependent upon the dissemination of uniform data from .entralizedsources and the development of codes to ensure that catalogs do resembleone another to an appreciable degree.

As a result of these differences among user needs, some writers have_concluded lbw...a-catalog cannot-be made to meet all neetIV.-BiirthiVior

instance, posed the question, "can a card catalog ever be made self-interpreting?" and went on to suggest that it cannot be. Bishop's recom-mendations were for educatiorr-of-catalog users and the provision oftrained' catalog use assistants.38 This emphasis on user education, ratherthan catalog design has been repeated by others, including Aldrich, VerNooy, Mann, and Krikelas.* One of its strongest expressions was that'ofScheerer, who stated that, we cannot construct a machine to meet all thepotential varieties of human experience.. Rather we must condition the.user to "e operation of the machine...."41 -

One problem, of course, is that of identifying user needs in order to shapethe catalog to fit them. Krikelas has pointed out "that there is no contusiveevidence that would help to establish the appropriate level of knowledgeand familiarity' that such instruction must attempt to reach."42 Numerousstudies have been conducted, which have been adequately summarized byKrikelas43 and Atherton," but no general conclusions or universal princi-ples have resulted. Dunkin has expressed pessimisnfwith regard to theresponse of libraries in the event that any such results were forthcoming.*

8 10

rik number of writers have argued that there are in fact serious descrepancies- bet4een expressions of who library catalogs are intended to serve and the

realities of design. According" to Mishoff, "the issue, it appeaq to anyreader of normal intelligence, is whether or not the card catalog is tocontinue to be a product of the catalogers; by the catalogers and for thecatalogers,"'!-and Ells'yrorth concluded that "catalogs are librarians' andnot users' tools:"47 SiMilar cri ticisms ,have been -voiced by Butcher, Gold:hor, Draper, Ad PearsOn.48 Not all wriiters, however,' have felt, that thecreation of a Catalog primarily for librarians was a bad ideal Fletcher feltthat the presence of "minutely classified books on Or shelves..." and theavailability of skilled reference librarians made the adaptation of the

) catalog to library patrons unnecessary." Similarly,,,Moisch stated that , ifcatalogs could not be made to serve the general public rather than_Ztheskilled worker, the reference librarian, the order clerk, and the cataloger,"_,,it would be best to "close the catalog to the public and provide adequateinformation assistance to fill the needs of every. patron."5°

. _

THE PURPOSE OF THE CATAL.C 3Gk

It might)

be assumed that any design decision made regarding.a library, "

catalog would have as its basis a clear concept of the bask purposes`ofcatalogs and cataloging. Many of the writings examined for thi's study,however, expressed .serious concern over the apparent jack of any suchconcept. According to Frarey, "until cataldg function is defined with someprecision, it is no possible to propose final answers to questions either of

-6_ theory or of met , and answers which are Suggestedpust-be consideredtentative and subject to change."' Frarey is e+ecially critical of theapparent discrepancy between "the habits or catalog users" and the"untested assumptions" which have led to' disagreements as to the purposeof cataloging.50 Vavrek has suggestedIthat arguments as to the shape andnature of the catalog have lost track of fundamental problems related'topurpose,53 a concern also expressed by Grose and Line" and one whichprovided a focus for the University of Chicago's,"Requirements Study forFuture Catalogs."55 Morsch suggested that each individual library shouldformulate a comprehensive statement of "the scope and objectives of thelibrary's catalog, a statement based on a study of use" as a subslitute for a .

universal principle of the purpose of the catalog.56

A 4gnificant controversy regarding the purpose of the catalog and ofcataloging accompanied Osborn's 1941 presentation to the AmericanLibrary Institute on "The Crisis in Cataloging." This, celebrated talk,which later appeared in Library Quarterly° and as a monograph,5asidenti-

9k

)

A' .oi

, e.fled. four "theories" of 'catalogingthe legalistic, e perfectionism, the

bibliographic, and the pragmatic=each of which eedaccbmpani by a- different view of the basic purpdse of lhecatalog. Theme legalistic approach'

assumes that every real or anticipatedfor by an appropriate rule; , so 'that di

taloging needItould be.aeountedlocal cataloger is never ferced

make decisioro that do .nothavesonrie r undation-infr, set of rules. Thisapproach was seen by Osborn as creatingireedless delays in the catalogfngprocess 'and not allowing for useful local adaptationslhe Perfeotionistia) :point of vie,liOs an attempt to create catalog records that will be permahentand thereby elimihatq,the need for rt.,yisions over time Osborn's view is:.that, such permanence neither; pO,skible nor desirable, an opinion supported =by Fremont Rider." The fhibliographic, theory s s CatalOging as abranch of descriptive bibliography, and 'emphasizes the et descfiption

ndall has pointed out, there is anont of physical objects anti.the

s last theory,, the pragmatic,

Yi

of each bOOk asi physical artifact. Asnflict between the catalogas,a

cata)bg-- a SerVice-oriented tool." The.approac es atialoging frbm the A;tandpoint ,of identifying specific needsand goals nd dOing only that which is necesSary1tomeet thenri. This isapparently the theory which Osborn sees as most appropriate. /IC

There were a number,of respo. nsei to antcriticisms of Osborn's paper,. . ,

..,, ,

many.of which seem to have missed or ignored the apparent purpose of his .

'paper and concentrated either on his: mplied'criticism of cataloging rulesor his impplicatiOniconcerning cataloging economy. Comments such asWright's statement. that, "until We hive a dear decision on thepurposes ofcataloging..:cataloging costs will continue high,"6' and l5unkin's observa-tion that, "catalog. Codes, 'catalogers anditatalog department administrators are of value only to the extent that their catalogs help those whoconsult them4" indicate that OsbOrn" aper did at least arouse some

. concern regarding the basic purposes nd f nCtions of library, catalogs and ,

the means for achieving those purposes a d frnctions.i, s

. .

Regardless Of these concerns regardingthe lack of agreement an ptirposes,the literature has hardly been deVOid of statements of the purpose of the 'library Catalog. A great many of these statements were worded in terms of

-user friendliness. The purposes cited in Cutter'S,Rufes have been repeatedand paraphrased extensively; the 'objects" of the catalOgi as described by

/ Cutter, are: ' . . \

I. To enable -a person to find a book of 'Which either1,(A) the author

1,

(B) The title(C) the subject

is known.

6

%.

- o

2. To show what the library has(D) by a given author(E) on a given subject(F) in a given kind of literature.

3. To assist in the chbice of a book(G) as to its edition (bibliographically)(H) as to its character (literary or topical)."

Other.statements include those of Perkins" and of Norris, who stated chat;"the purpose of the catalogue is to give the user a comprehensive view ofeither the entire book stock or, of sections of it; also to make it possible for .him either tq,lind a particular book, or to select one which-will best servehis parpbse or give the information that he requires."65 Other statementshave been made, but rarely has anything been added to Cutter's descriptionof the purposes of the catalog, and many authors have chosen simply to citeCutter as an authority on catalog purpOse: When the first' edition of theAmerican Library Association's catalog rules appeared in 1908, its compil-ers chose to quote Cutter on the "convenience of the user" us the guidingforce behind cataloging," It is interesting to note that none of the succeed-ing national codes contained any explicit statement of purpose or anyexpression -of desire to meet the needs of catalog users. Even the ParisPrinciples, which included a section on the functions of the catalog verysimilar to Cutter's Objects, rarely mentioned the users of catalogs except byimplica don .67

Bishop emphasized that the purpose of the catalog is to function as a"working tool" and "not primarily a record" of accessions or holdiqgs.66Ver Nooy, Mann and Hamilton were among those who advanced the valueof the catalog as a reference tool." One of the most unusual suggestionsregarding the purpose of the catalog was that of Lovr,e, who encouragedthat catalogs be designed so as to lure patrons away from "less attractive"books to books "higher in character" than those originally sought, thusgiving the catalog the roles of readers' advisor and censor."

THE PHYSICAL FORM OF THE CATALOG

Despite any clear and widely accepted statement of the central purpose ofthe library catalog to act as a guide to the development of catalogs and theevaluation of their user friendliness,' writers have been not at all loath tooffer suggestions regarding the forms andipalities that they feel 'makecatalogs most acceptable to their users. Thel*or controversy regarding ,the physical form of the catalog during the period under consideration

. revolved around the Issue of the relative merits of the catalog in card formand the printed hook catalog. Although the card catalog had come intoalmost universal prominence by the early twentieth century, proponents ofthe ,book. catalog were vocal well intoethe third quarter of the century.

_ Osborn, for instance; 'argued in 193i that the book forin was inherentlysuperior to the card catalog,' and four years later Young stated flatly that"the catalog must be in book form"jn order to solve the problems encoun-tered by catalog users," although she provided no evidence to support hercontention. In the same year Rider discusseck the problems of ,the cardcatalog and asserted that, "the public prefers ,book catalogs 'to cardcatalogs. "7S

Probably the best summary of the advantages and disadvantages of variousphysical forks of library catalogs was that provided by Gull, which isreproduced in table 1.74 Although Gull's analysis was inherently limited bythe technology of the time at which it was written -and was soonoutdatedit did provide some attempt to objectiv5ly appraise the valueand potential of the various physical formats then available.' A later butmore limited comparison was provided by Atherton.75'Gull summarizedtheconflict between book catalogs and card catalogs by saying that, "theadvantages of printed catalogs are those desired by scholars, while those ofthe card catalog are those which are of greatest convenience to librarians inadministering their libraries.."" This line of argument was carried.furtherby Kennedy in his statement that, "the great majority of people finda cardcatalogue much more difficult to use than a printed or sheaf catalogue."'

The late 1950s saw the beginning of a considerable resurgence of interest inbook catalogs as new technologies simplified production and thtrebyreduced costs. Jones, for instance, enthusiastically described the tech-niques used for producing a book catalos at thelunior College District Of-St. Louis through photoreproduction,' and Parker commented on theadvantages of computer-produced book catalogs, stating that ''one faCtordetermining the design of catalogs...is the technology available for theircreation..." and that the card catalog "came into being, not so muchbecause of its own inherent'advantages as because of one weikness'of thebook catalogs which had existed forcenturies,;.." that weakness being the"difficulty of cumulating supplements and of integrating then' into thebasic catalog."" Shera criticized the impermanence of the card catalog andthe superiority of the book catalog as a lastinaibliographic record, andGore summarized the advantages of hook catalogs as follows:

1. the display of numerous entries on an open page makes scanning farmore efficient than in a card file;

12

;14

TABLE 1

STREN;THS AND WEAKNESSES OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES TO, CARD CATALOGS

Flexibility .o/ Speed OrSevehes

Nerni of Apia' Arran is Intercolating Currency intl' Use of Witlespred in Subject

kord Form Possible New Entries Completeness Consultation Atrongementt

Card Cards Numerical Excellent Excellent Poo only 'Impractical Slow

catalog Accessions . one entry ado men.

(3%3) Alphabetic.

visibk at sive to dip

Dictionary . a time tribute and

Clatsified maintain I.

Punched Cards t Numerical ,Excellent Excellent , Poorre Impractical Medium

cards 'Accessions quires mechr -.too expen

(fully , Alphabetic '.

ical etching - sive to dip

mecha Dictionary loesothe tribute and

nised) 1 Classifie4 types of maintain cards;

information requires machine

installation

i . at each place

of use,

Manu look Numerical Poser as . Excelknt Fair,but , Impractical

script : Accessions entries be # eventually to make

bi'3k

Alphabetic come more

Dictionary crowded t

entries can.

not be add.colics

.

1",

Classified ed in ceder

Printed look Numerical None Dependent Wry good Excellent Medium

book Accessielu on 'frequency for any one

catalog , , Alphabetic.

of supple. complete

VDictionary

SI, editioruDictionary

l MS, new printing

ts . I cumulations

IMant Loose rnerical Poorer as Excellent Good, if Impractical Medium

script;", leaf mu envies be leaves are to make

the book ' Alphabetic come more rewritten *escasks DO* acnvdid; leaves or retyped

Classified 'muss be to Fame

rewritten or order

retyped'

4

2. the book catalog offers less space than the card catalog;...3. the book catalog can be placed anywhere where a need for it exists;..f4. the book catalog eliminates the great cost (in large systems) of filing

cards in numerous catalogs;5. entries in the book catalog can be directly photocopied by patrons;...and6. the necessary periodic reprinting of a book catalog yields a no-cost

byproduct of continual physical refurbishment.

Gore also echoed Young's proposal of 30 years before by suggesting thatBooks in Print; with call, numbers added, could act as a substitute foralocal catalog in a branch librarf, with the added advantage of providingthe user with a record not only of what the library Owns but of what existsfor purchase."

Detractors of the bOok catalog, however, have been about as numerous asproponents. Homer responded to Young's article by saying "book Catalogswere discarded because they proved to be unsatisfactory, so why go back tothem?"62 Ranganathan, in discu§sing his Fifth Law of Library Science,stated that the card forin is preferable since it can most easily be modified toserve the needs of the library's public," and Tysse provided a list of bookcatalog advantages similar to Gore's, but also pointed out that bookcatalogs are expen*_e Ito produce; become out-of-date before they are evenmade available toffie public; are inflexible; require more consultationthan a card catalog due to the necessity of searching more that onealfhabet; necessitate provision of numerous copies; and are subject towear, mutilation and theft. Tysse dismissed the possibility of using apubliihed list to replace the card catalog, pointing out variances in classifi-cation from one library to another and the p)5tential difficulty to the user ofdistinguishing between those items held by the library and other entries inthe bibliography as insurmountable limitations of such an,approach."Pizer pointed out that the oft-argued advantage of simplified arrangementmight be true for author and title entries in a book ca ta1log but would not betrue for subject cataloginiunless a new approach to the creation of subjectheadings was developed, and Swanson, in discussing the University ofChicago "Requirements Study for Future Catalogs," provided evidencethat the book catalog of.the Center for Research Libraries took longer tosearch than a card catalog."

Possibly the best review of the comparative values of book and ,,cardcatalogs was provided by Brodman and Bolef in 1968. Based on examina-tion of the literature of the library catalog, they concluded that the printedbook catalog movement of the nineteenth century "lost its momentumbecause the masses of people who were just beginning to use libraries didnot want them," and that the public still did not want them in the 1960s'

14

1 6

According to these authors, nineteenth-century library users realized thathaving a personal copy of a library's catalog was of limiteduse, since a tripto the library was still necessary to obtain a desired work, that browsingwas generally more prominent than a search for a particular work, andthatthe printed catalog would be so out-of-date and incomplete as to bevirtually useless." To these problems the authors added the twentieth -century factors of a public accustomed to catalogs in card form, the availa-bility of the telephone as a means of determining both holdings andcirculation status at a distance, and the availability of photocopiers."The'combination of these factors, they contended, has "resulted in a generaltendency for many printed catalogs.to be produced and not-used."" Brod-than and Bolef closed their article by suggesting that thereal problem isthat not enough is known about the purPose and na ture.of the catalog ingeneral to -make valid choices among physical forms possible," .a view-point which had been earlier expressed by Vavrek, who felt that the debateover the card catalog v. the book catalog had caused librarians to becomeoverly concerned with mechanics and printing methods to the exclusion ofthe exploration of deeper and more important issues underlying librarycataloging."

After World War II, libraries began seriously experimenting with the use ofcatalogs in microform, first in the form of photographic microreproduc-tions of Isatalog cardsand later in the form of computer output microfilm(COM) or microfiche. As Dwyer pointed out, "the vast majority of articlesabout microcatalogs focused on applications and economies rather thanon patron responses."" In support of the microform catalog, Butler, Westand Aveney listed the fallowing conclusions of a study of COM catalog usein the Los Angeles County Public Library System:

1. The COM clog is more accep ble to Dacron than either its book or_ -card alternative. __ --

2. The-specialized viewing equipm it used in the test posed no obstaclesto patron Use of the catalog, exc t for patrons wearing bifocals.

3. The most significapt factor in r iding satisfactory patron service ishaving enough viewers available at given site to eliminate waiting.

4. Catalog usage is a dependentvariable,and provision of information inCOM form seems to 'increase catalog usage at least to some degree.

5. There is no significant difference among types of user groups inreaction to the COM catalog, although juvenile users may add a dimen-sion of play to catalog use with the motorized COM viewers.

6. Staff training, proper installation and illumination, and adequate in-formation about the catalog are as important as provision of the COMpublication and the viewers."

. 15

1?

The first, second, third, and fifth of these conclusions can be viewed as anendorsement of the user friendliness,.of the COM catalog.

The disadvantages of the microform catalog from the user's point of viewinclude alterations to the format of the entry which are sometimes madenecessary by the medium, uneven illumination of the reader, focusingproblems, fan noise, angle and size of the screen, and the need for instruc-tion in the use of a new medium."

,

THE BASIC AltitANdEMENT OF THE CATALOG.

The issue of how a library catalog should by arranged can be divided intotwo major subissues: methods of arranging alphabetical catalogs, and thecomparative advantages of alphabetital, classified and alphabetico-clasiified catalogs. Although arrangement of, the catalog is actually anissue independent of the catalog's physical form, most of the literaturedealing with catalog arrangement has assumed a catalog in card form.

The alphabetical catalog can either be a dictionary catalog in whichauthor, title and subject entries appear in one alphabetical sequence; or itcan follow one of a number of divided catalog models. Possibly the earliestand most influential proponent of the dictionary catalog was Cutter,whose Rules for a Dictionary Catalog was published in four editions from'1876 to 1904. Although Cutter himself felt that a classified subject catalogwas more "logical" than any sort of alphabetical catalog, he asserted thatthe alphabetical dictionary catalog was easier to learn and to use andshotild therefore be the, preferred catalog arrangement."

Cutter's views seem to have prevailed until 1905 when Fletcher of AmherstCollegi discussed the problems of a dictionary arrangement and the advan-tages of a divided catalog.9 Fletcher proposed a catalog divided into twosections, one for author entries and one in which title and subject entrieswould be interfiled; an arrangement which has seemingly not been sup-,ported elsewhere in the literature. He justified his stand for thispartictilarapproach to division with the premise that, "the average library patrondoes not readily distinguiSh between subject and title,"98a contention laterrepeated by Altirich99 and others. It is clear that these authors felt that auser-friendly catalog would not require its users to make such distinctionsregarding type of entry.

As Grosser pointed out in her survey of the literature related to the divided-catalog, "Fletcher's article seems to haveeen followed by more than thirty

16

18

years of silence in the library journals on the subject of the dividedcatalog."' Although Grosser's estimateof the time which passed betweenFletcher's comments and the next articles on divided catalogs is somewhatinflated, it is true that it was not until the 1930s that there was muchinterest in or argument about the arrangement of alphabetical catalogs. Infact, Martel felt confident in asserting in 1929 that, "the 4tionary catalogmay be said to have proved its superiority."P Martel's faith in the suprem-acy. of the dictionary catalog, .however, was.definitely premature.

Mishoff appears to have been Fletcher's.first follower in supporting thedivided catalog as superior to the dictionary catalog, althoughTe, likeCutter, contended that a classified catalog was superior to any type of'alphabetical arrangement.' The year Bliss 'asserted that, "adictionary catalog lacks the simplicity and directness of a dictionary," andthat it was easier for the average user to 'distinguish between differentsections of a divided catalog than between differenotypes of entries in adictionary catalog. Like Cutter and, Mishoff, Blistpersonally preferred aclassified catalog, but questionedPits applicabilitPto a mass audience.'

From this slow start came a rapid growth of the literature of the dividedcatalog:Grosser identified 39 articles in her 1958 survey, and her bibliog-raphy is probably incomplete,104 Proponents of the.divided catalog have

:given sevcral reasons for their support, including the contentions that thedivided catalog is less bulky and less complex than the dictionary. catalogand thatdivision alleviates catalog Congestiofi. Detractors have argued thatthe divided catalog produces unnecessary setter, requires duplication ofentries, and aggravates confusion on the part of catalog users as to thedistinctions among author, title and subject approaches to subjectsearching.

Hagedorn asserted that, ,".'the very bulk of the catalog inspires a feeling of.awe, fear and he)plesineis," and that division into separate author, Aideand subject catalogs would alleviate any such negative feelings.'Although Hagedorn recognIked the possibilities OlCombining subject andtitle, author and title, or all namtwntries in order to produce two catalogsrather than three, he concluded that any;advantage in doing,sa was "decid-edly offset 'by the siMplicity, of the three-file system.',''' kagedorn alsoenumerated. the passible reasons for 'retaining a dictionary catalog andconcluded that only one:Wai tenable: avoidance of duplication, which wasvalid "only if economy is placed above service" Lubetzky also supporteda division into three digtin'ct units, although he recpgnized the problems of.separating books by an author from books abouethat author, separatingtitles and subjects' beginning with the same word, and the placement of

corporate and other nonpersonal authors. Lubetzky's arguments in favorof division centered around simplification of filing and the presentation ofthree relatively small.catalogs rather than one very large one, the impliea- '[ion being that'a large dictionary catalog is inherently user unfriendly.'"However, it is apparentthat to a considerable extent Lubetzky was con-cerned with simplifying catatog maintenance rather than enhancing userfriendliness.

Articles that describe division in particular libraries often provide ratio-nales for the decision to ditik. Burch described in some detail the divisionof the catalog at Drake University Library into subject and author/titlecatalogs, with the argument tliat the catalog was thereby made "moreusable foi the public," but proTided no justification for that particularapproach to division:109 Deah citkl "avoidance of congestion and ease ofuse''' as goals underlying the decision to employ a subject and author/titledivision at Harvard University."' Harkins destribeda similar division atCentral Baptist Seminary 20 years, later, and reported on. a rather question-able survey of 21 catalog users, which indicated that, "the users like thedivided catalog better than the dictionary' ,,catalog" but admitted that "arather largeproportion of the interviewees are confused in their approachto the catalOg."iu Specicically, 38% of the users polled indicated that theywould use the author/title catalog when seeking a biography, and'only48% reported that they would use the author/title catalog when searchingfor a corporate author entry.112 Again, no justification was given for thedivision into subject and author/title sections either at Harvard or atCentral Baptist Seminary. Elrod reported a division into subject andauthor/title/person catalogs at-Central Methodist Colleg& and indicatedthat the detision to divide was based on a three-questioasurvey of userpreferences, in response 'to which 93% of the users polled indicated apreference for a separate subject catalog.113 B 1969, Lubetzky had some-what revised his views on catalog division, sufiporting division into sub-ject and name/title catalogs as a means of gaining the maximum benefitfrom division while minimizing its disadvantages."' This approach wasalso supported by Johnson of Harper Hospital in Detroit, who contendedthat, "the.patrodknows that any entry which would requite capitalizationin normal English practice is in the 'name' section" anottilat the subjectuser of the divided catalog would not be faced with the potentially confus-ing presence of title entries.115 Johnson also pointed out that the library'sstaff found the divided arrangement simpler to work with andinterpret

, .than a dictionary arrangement.116

One argument against the divided catalog centers around the requirementthat the user be able to determine whether his/her need involvesan author,

- 18

20

a title or a subject search. As Fletcher himself pointed out,' "the averagelibrary patron does hot readily distinguish between subject antkitle."1"Other authors have suggested, that in sorhie cases users may have\ simibarproblems distingugging between author and title or between Author and _

subject. Spalding also jointed out that apparent title searchen actuallybe misguided attempteto fill a need for information regarding a subject.118As mentioned earlier, Harkins's enthusiasm for the divided catalog wassomewhat softened by the difficulty users encountered in deciding whichsection to use.119 (

The viewpoint of the scholar-user was expressed by Hamilton, a listor.

professor at Duke University, who felt that ';the catalogue ought not...to becarved into parts and distributed throughout the library," and that "asingle dictionary catalogue would not defeat or fool the student as easily as,One split up into subjects, author-title, serials, documents, special collec-tions, etc." 2D Lubetzky apparently felt compelled to point out that authorsand titles sometimes legitimately act as subject entries, thereby creating apotential for user confusion.121 McGregor suggested that, "it was largelythe overlapping and grey areas between author, subject and title entriesthat made the integration into a single dictionary file attractive to A eri-

_ _can libraries,'422 and a -detailed study by- Krikelas pointed out tha the"disguising" of subject searches may be much more common tha hasgenerally been assumed and that catalog design should attempt to acc untfor that problem.123

Heinritz took a long look at the issue of whether catalog divisionrelieve congestion at the catalog. Al thoughahere were a number of wawhich such a premise could be tested, there was no extant evidencsupport or refute any relationship between division and congestioMcGregor also criticized' the claims that division reduces congestion anfact suggested that division increases congestion, and that the onlygain 'from division would be in filing time, with a corresponding louser time.125

cans in

to124

In

alin

A further complication of the, divided catalog is the complexity. of thecross-reference structure necessary and the need for duplicate entries.McGregor cited both of these factors in his defense of the dictionarycatalog, and also pointed out that themtal bulk of a divided catalog mustbe greater than that of a dictionary talog in order to accommodateadditional cross-references and di plicate entries, even though individualsections of the catalog might be relatively sma11.126

19'

2i

ti

The type of division discussed thus far, which is based on function, hasbeen termed vertical division.127 There have also been supporters of variousapproaches to horizontal catalog division, which is defined as "a divisioninto Separate -catalogs each of which, within the fields it covers, is acomplete dictionary catalog."23 This approiach is based on the idea thatuser friendliness may require the maintenance of separate catalogs to meetthe needs of different users. Wright specifically suggested a "new balks"

- catalog,' as did Morsch, who additionally suggested the 'Usefulness of a"best books" catalog and "special catalogs for special patrons," whichmight include subject area catalogs containing more detail than the mainlibrary catalog.133 Rosholt described a two catalog systeln in use at aleDetroit' Public Library, consisting of a complete catalog housed in the

,reference department and a catalog located in the circulation departmentintended for the "average reader"-and otiFf.records for circulat-ing books, the popular titles" and not for "older works, learned treatisesandthe like."131 This is somewhat analogous to Bishop's earlier sugges-tion that the maintenance of an official catalog for library staff would helpkeep catalogers from getting in the way of public catalog users, althoughBishop presumably intended that the two catalogs should be identical. 32At any rate, kosholt emphasized thai the plan at the Detroit Public Librarywas not well reeeived, and presumably it was abandoned.

A kind of hOrizontal division which had its roots in economic and adininis-trative needs rather than user needs is the provision of supplements to amain catalog, whether in card, book or micro-form. Usually supplementsof this kind have been made in order to avoid the difficulties of maintain-ing a comprehensive catalog, and the supplements generally consist ofrecords for jtems cataloged during a. given time period. Dwyer cautionedagainst the use of this sort of updating device, urging that, "given thesubstantial problems users have with multiple files, librarians,. shouldconsider microcatalogs to beviable...if and only if they might reasonablyexpect to enter all bibliographic records into a single database. " The mostsignificant of the difficulties pointed out by Dwyer was a tendency for auser' to assume that whatever portion of the catalog he/she was using wasthe catalog in its .entirety.133

Aside from division of the alphabetical catalog, the main theme irt.theliterature relating to catalog arrangement has been comparison of thealphabetical arrangement with a classified approach. Although by theturn of the century the alphabetical catalog had been predominant inAmerican libraries for many years; many British libraries employed classi-fied Catalogs. Classified arrangement had its proponents among Americanlibraries as well. Cutter, for instance, favored a classified arrangement, but

20

° 22

felt that it was too complex for libiry patrons to learn and use. 194 EvenFletcher, the early proponent of thechilided alphabetical catalog, felt that alibrary really needed both an alphabetical catalog and a classified catalog,and proposed that &helflists be made public and modifiell to serve asclassified catalogs.' This suggestion was repeated by Bishop, who statedthat, "practically, then, an author and subject catalog arranged alphabeti-cally, plus a duplication of the shelf-list, gives the most effective clue to thecontents of the library."1" Martel agreed: "In libraries mainly or exclu-sively devoted to reference service a classified catalogis needed,not-to-sai--indispensible" _as well as an alphabe Watson arguedffor a

-Seli-diate alphabetical index to the shelf list in addition to the dictionarycatalog."

McClelland supported the classified catalog as the best approach for the"scientific worker," contending that scientists classify their own collec-tions and are familiar with the classified arrangements of abstraCt journals,that a classified catalog allows 'or easier incorporation of new ideas thandoes an alphabetical catalog, and that in general a classified catalog.is lesscomplex than a dictionary catalog." Mishoff suggested that from a user'sviewpoint a classified catalog is superior to a divided catalog, which is inturn superior to a dictionary catalog."' Rider raisedthe possibility that notonly would a classified catalog with \an alphabtial index be superior toan alphabetical catalog, but that it might be possible to employ a classifiedcatalog and disgense with the classification of books.141

aAs suggested by McClelland, one of the recurring arguments in favor of theclassified catalog is the ability to readily incorporate new subjects."According to Mortimer, "changes in nomenclature require merely anaddition in the alphabetical index to the classified catalogue, while theymight demand changed subject headings on many cards in the dictionarycatalogue."143 With an alphabetical catalog, then, there may be a strongincentive to maintain outdated headings which might not be present witha classified catalog., ,According roeShera and Egan in their book on the classified catalog, "thecomplexities and intricacies involved in the use of the alphabetic arrange'ment may, increase at a rate greater than the rate of physical growth." As aresult the Classified catalog, although less effective than an alphabeticcatalog in a small library, may be more effective in a larger library.'" Userfriendliness, then, may require different approaches in libraries of differentsizes. Shera and Egan also enumerated the comparative advantages anddisadvantages of the two catalog arrangements." Although they statedthat, "the fact that the arguments favoring the classified catalog out-

21

2.3

number those supporting the alphabeti .ngement does not necessarilyargue for the superiority of the formei in 11 situations,"146 it is clear thatthey felt that the user will most often belie t from 'the explicit classificationof the classified catalogas opposed to 'concealed classification" of thealphabetical catalog.137

.

.In his text on the classified vgatalog, Ke' edy stated that, "the classifiedcatalogue answers all the questions whic a dictionary catalogue answersand does cone thing which the dictiona catalogue cannot do; it bringstogether books in the same subject and p its of that subject,"145 and thatthis added feature is a significant advanta e from the point of view of thelibrary user. Kennedy later pointed cut e advarytage of a classified ar-rangement in a bilingual country, an advantage also-mentioned byShera and Egan.15° This advantage lies in e, freedom of the classificationsystem from reliance on any particUlar language.

On the other hand, Butcher felt that a stu y conducted in British librariesin the early 1950s showed that, "the princ ple of the classified catalogue isnot immediately clear to readers..." and at the utilization of a classifiedcatalog sacrificed the "requirements of thg many..." in order to cater to the"special needs of the few."151

"ILTHE CONTENT OF CAI

ALOG RECORDS

Another set of user-related issues rel es to the descriptions of libraryholdings which the catalog provides. e issues inchide the amount andtype of information to be included in catalog entries, the number and typeof entries to beprovided for given varieties of items, the nature of theheadings to be used, and the arrangement of entries within the structure ofthe catalog. According to Cutter, dicu nary catalogs could be divided into"short-title, medium-title and full tit e or bibliographic" categories. Cut-ter stated that his Rules were speci ically designed for medium lengthentries, but expressed confidence th t the rules could. be used as well forshort and full entries, and provided xamples in his text of how this couldbe accomplished.152 In a way, Cut r chose to sidestep the issue of howCut

information should be provi ed regarding library holdings by for-mulating rules mostly for the midd e ground situation and suggesting thatthey could be conveniently modifi d to meet other circumstances. Dewey,on the other hand, recommended hat the anticipated kind of use shouldcontrol the amount of informatio entered. According to Dewey, "a readerseeking a book of a known au or, in the vast.majority of cases, wantssimply the number by which to cell for it, and can find it much quicker in a

22

24

brief title catalog....On the other hand, a reader seeking books on a ktiownsubject needs the full-title, imprint, cross references, and notes to enablehim to choose the book best suited to his wants."'" Bishop also supportedthis approach in his statement that,' "the needs of his readers will netessar-ily'govern the librarian's decision" as to fullness of entry.'"

Statements of support for full bibliographic and other information havebeen plentiful, and have-almost always been accompanied by references tothe needs' of users. The following statements are typical: "L -ibrary cata-logues, especially of free public libraries, should'be framed to give as muchinforthation as circumstances will permit."'" "The best principle is ,to erron the side of fullness. "156 "Abridgement of information almost invariablycuts out-something that readeti use."'" "There-is point to the Omissionof important data that students will thereafter have to find for themselves,over and over again."'" Ver Nooy provided one of the most extensivedefenses of fullness of entry, describing how a biography of Richard R.Bowker could be constructed using only information drawn from catalogentries.159'

Supporters of less detailed catalog entries have more of tenci ted budgetaryconsiderations than meeting the needs of catalog users, although Stuart-Stubbs has said that, "we really give users more information than they

..need."1" The same viewpoint had been expressed: earlier by Wright,,although Wright's arguments were aimed at providing support foreconomically-baseddecisions.rather than expressing primary devotion tothe needs of users.'" A similar opinion was that &Caldwell, who felt that"the.actual amount of bibliographical detaii on each card might be cur-tailed as much, possile, not only for economy but for avoidance ofconfusion 'On the part of the reader."'" According to Dickinson:

puristic cataloging, which mandates "complete" bibliographic data,.further obftiscates the catalog, at least for nonresearch users. Current LCcataloging clutters catalog entries with place of publication, book size, ,

"Includes index" notes, and other information rarely' consulted and.almost never needed by garden-variety patrons;'63

.

Some authors hive chosen to pursue the identification of items of data.which are speCifically user unfriendly. Butler pointed out that themeasurement. of the size .of books in centimeters -dates from Dewey'sdevotion to decimalization and is of limited usefulness to the users oflibraries in a nonmetric country:'" Draper conducted a study of thepracce oie foundin brackets dates not fo nd on the title page, aimed atanswering the question: "Does this cataloging practice have anyrelationship to the real needs and interests of the schOlar-user?"18 He

found that only 1 in 70 of his respOndents knew the correct meaning of thepractice in question, and that only 11 of 45 catalogerS'asked to comment onthe practice expressed its use in terms of meeting user needs.'86 Dunkinasserted that catalog users actually have noneed lot' &illation at all, exceptposSibly in the case of-rare books,' In 'a study conducted by Miller, birth:and death dates of authors, names of editors, and, illUitrators, place ofpublication, publisher's name, and size of book were identified as the feastused items of catalog record information, but it waOqintedout that lack of 1use may be an indicatvr ota row level of patron unClerstanchng rattier thanof low intrinsic valtter81-7.

Another set of suggestions has involved recommendations for data notnormally included in catalog records such as "notes under each importantentry, sufficient to explain it, and.the bearing and comparative importanceof all thf books about it in the library,"'" notes regar,ding the "scope andpurpose of a book and also its style and readability,"' and adescriptioNa system of reproducing tables of contents of books on catalog cards to"make more detailed information concerning the contents available."'"

;

Randall explained the inclusion of unneeded dala and the exclusion ofuseful data as a matter of historical precedent:

as each conception is replaced by a newer one itis likely to leave behindas vestigial remains certain activities 'which are no longer Useful in thenew. picture. Certain information is desirable about when they areconsidered solely as artifacts or things of vale .Other types ofinformation are necessary when these books are con ered as sources of,'knowledge. But some of the information needed in e first case is nolonger necessary in the secobd case.,

Randall, then, links the data to be included in catalog recOrdi to thepurpose of the catalog, which is presumably a function of the needs of itsusers.'

In part the amount and nature of the information provided must depend.On who is expected to use the catalog. Following studies at the Deriver:Public Library and the University of Denver, Fernando Pelialosa

. ,-concluded that the Most important dispnction is between the needs:of thepublic and the needs of librarians, and made the rather radical stiggestionthat two catalogs may berteeded: a public catalog with expanded.cOntentsinformation and very little bibliographical data, and a catalog' primarilyfor the use of library staff emphasizing complete bibliographical,descriPtion.173

Starting with Cutter's Rules, the amount and type of information .:to beprovided in catalOg entries and the manner in which such information

c

c

0

a

should be presented became closely tied to the joint concerns of I/

standardization and the development and revision of cataloging codes. /

The histoty of .codes rot' descriptive .cataloging. has been adequately-detailed by Hendersotir" and Hagler.'" Foe the most part, though;.' writings dealing with cataloging codes haVe been occupied with rules for,entry almost to.the exclusion of rules For description. As Gofman pointedout "ReicriPtive cataloging is thought by many to be ai-ather disagreeableandledidus necessity, even by those who think it is a necessity it.all; andthis no doubt accounts for ,the comparative. lack of theoretical (or, indeed,practical) writings on -the Subject."'" 'e

E NATURE OF CATALOG; ENTRIES.

Closely related to the questiOnof how much and what kind of informationshoulbe included as part of a catalog record is the question.of how access,to records should be provided;. is, how many entry points should beprovided fot each, item in the collection, and what should be the nature ofthose entries ?' The _author main entry appears to have become firmlyenough entrenched in the titgliih-speking world by the end of thenineteenthonuiry that few ilany, writirkchOse to question the need for anentry for the athlior of each kook in a ,ty's collection. There has beenless agreement with- regard to bile; SubMi and other added entries.

'''With regard to title entries, for instance, Keller encouraged that "everyexcuse for Making a title and be welcomed.."1"and Hagedorn contended-that, "there must, of course, be a *le for every volume in the library, eventoe thoie beginning 'Bulletin of the or. 'Report of the,' to say nothing oftheit foreign equivalents." Contrary to standard practice in many libraries,Hagedorn .lbelieved.- that, !.'it IS.,clearly thee commonplace and not thedistinctiVeiitlet remendiered."0":Sivansores analysis of the Chicago.Requireniehti Siticly.led:to the Conclusion that "access should be provided

only lythe title taken as a ivhoieiihmt by each word of the title takenseparately as an alphabetic trY."179 Kelley, on the other hand, suggestedthatizitalog use is impel aProliferation of title entries, and. proposedsevere curtail ent,of-theCteiiiini of such entries, her justificatidn beingthat too marl. titles begin with the same' word or words and that usersrarely know. ihe eXacilitles of books. In Kelley's scheme, subjectcataloging,,:then; would :take the place of. many title entries:16P Clearly,Swanson: and were addressing the same fundatnental problem,although' the conclitsiOni they reached were diametrically opposed.

So Me authors have encouraged the use of "title page" cataloging, whicheliMitiates the problem of the 'user who attempts "to find Dr. Seuss booksthat are mysteriously cataloged under Theodor Seuss Geisel."181 Thegeneral contention here is that the Use of "real" names rather thanpseudonyms and the use of uniform titles rather than titles taken from thebook in hand offer a disservice to catalog users. With regard to_authors----names, this common complaint appears to have found its resolution in theAngloAiriiiican Cataloguing Rules, although the Library of Congress'spolicy of superimposition delayed the implementation of title-pagecataloging. In addition, AACR2 seems to have confused things somewhatby encouraging the use of authors' names as found in their works while atthe same time encouraging increased use of uniform titles. At-any rate, it is ,

not clear whether the motivation for encouraging title-page cataloging inthe Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules came from adherence to the needsof .users Or an interest in cost saving.

A' number of authors have addressed the issue of the necessity for subjectentries, including Dana, who advocated very thorough subject analysis: "Itis desirable to add to the subject-list by writing as many cards for each bookas the importance of the several subjects therein and the spice the authorgives to them seem to demand:'",188 Highfill,suggested that the apparentdominance of known-item searches over subject searches might be a resultof inadequate subject analysis and that in order "toin-creaseffei---etrievalpotential of the subject catalog, the number of subject access points perdocumettt should be increased."1" A study at the_ersit_y_of_California--in the early I950s subject-the--Compiarve usefulness of thesubject approach to_a catalog search and the author-title approach, withthe possible outcome of elimination of all or part of the library's subjectcataloging.188, The author of the study concluded th'it subject catalogingfor foreign language books and books more than 20 years old could beeliminated without significantly decreasing catalog efficiency,or harmingusers. Although ,the motivation for this study was almost entirely a matterof cost saving, the needs of users were considered a limiting and controllingfactor. Goldhor suggested that there were entire categories of books forwhich catalog entries were of no. benefit to the user, including "mysteries,westerns, science fiction..." and "light loves,.." since "a person who wantsa mystery is not going to look through the catalog but will seleCt one fromthose on the shelf at the time."188

Subject hea ings have been discussed rather extensively by writersinterested in adapting library catalogs to their users. According CoHaykin's text on subject headings: '

26

to the extent that the headings represent the predilection of the catalogerin regard to terminology and are dictated by conformity to a chosenlogical pattern, as against the likely approach of the reader resting onpsyclvaLogical rather than logical grounds, the subject catalog will losein effectiveness and ease of approach.un

Two important-aspects-ef-this discussion---hdVC been the need to keep_subject headings up to date and the level of specificity which should besought in the formulation of subject headings.

The former issue centers on two considerations which are seeminglymutually exclusives the economic need to make as few changes in subjectheadings as possible and the service need to keep subject headings in linewith current usage. For the most part, subject headings have been devisedeither through consideratitin of "the universe of knowledge" and appealsto established classification schemes, or through "literary warrant,"derived from the examination of the works themselves. Randall, however;argued that neither of these approaches is appropriate, and that, "it is the

__Rtron who must decide which term,is to be used." Randall concluded thatit is impractical to develop one universal set of subject headings, and that,"many lists of subject headings are needed, each one attuned, as it were, tothe particular-group-which-is to use it."1" As a result ,-the formulation-ofsubject headings, according to Randall, would be an endless, but infinitelyworthwhile task whose "performance will_produce a tool which is fitted tothe hand of the student who Must use it. "' ' Phelps was c4rcerned that thecontinued' use of outdated subject headings resulting from financiallimitations might lead library users "to suspect that we are as behind thetimes as our subject headings."m It was Phelps's conclusion that thesituation was virtually hopeless and.that the only solution was to abandonalphabetical subject headings in favor of a classified catalog. As was seenearlier, this has been a common argument in support of classified catalogs.

Ellsworth and Kerr suggested that users really do want subject access, butapparently not of the variety usually provided; unfortunately, neitherauthor was able to suggest appropriate alternatives.191 Watson criticized"slavish adherence to all of the stereotypedoften antiquatedheadingsdictated by the Library of CongKess,"m and it was Hamilton's opinionthat; "the catalogue ought to have headings for subjects...that are oneveryone's tongue."'" White criticized the static nature of subject headingsand suggested that the problem of changing subject headings might besolved by the use of dated cross-references to link current headings tosuperseded headings.'"

27

Discussing the form of subject headings, Cutter commented that, "if theeclpublic could ever get as accustom to the inversion of subject-names as

they are to the inversion of personal mes the rulewould undoubtedly bevery convenient; but it might be dif_ cult to teach the rule."'" A study of1300 high school students in Oklahoma provided at least some confirma-tion of the preference of the public for uninverted headings".1" Cutter wasalso responsible for formulating the rule of specific entry, under which asubject 'is presumably entered under the most specific term available,- asopposed to an indirect entry under a broader heading.'" The Oklahomastudy by Marable suggested that high school students prefer specific entryof subjects, but according io Frarey, "the evidence from studies of usepoints to widespread failure to comprehend the principle of specific entryat the same time that it suggests preference on the part of users for it.'"

The level of specificity expressed by subject headings is reflected to someextent by the number of entries under each heading, a consideration whichis obviously dependent upon the size and nature of a given library andwhich is subject to variations, not only from one library to another, butfrom one time to another in a single library. There'are, therefore, expres-sions of disconteni lith excessive detail, as in the statement of one librar-ian that too many enhies under a single main heading in a small library'scatalog might have different subheadingsm and descriptions of subjectheadings which were applied to "hundreds or even thousands" ofentries. The latter point was given support by Krikelas's finding that,"the point at which an entry seems to be meaninglessthe point at which asearcher will not look through a file card-by-cardis when it producesbetween 200 and 300 nearly identical references."20' These problems callinto question the essentially universal use of standardized subject-headinglists and the acceptance of subject cataloging from sources outside the locallibrary.

THE ARRANGEMENT OF ALPHABETICAL ENTRIES

Beyond the issue of what form headings should take and what entriesshould be made lies the question of the ordei in which those entries shouldbe presented to the user of the catalog. In a classified catalog this is more orless obvious in that filing order should be a direct reflection of the classifi-cation scheme employed. Most alphabetical catalogs, however, whetherdictionary or divided, have used not a true alphabetical arrangement butsome sort of alphabetico-classed catalog in which relationships amongrelated items are shown through the filing pattern. The specific manner inwhich such relationships are reflected is a function of the set of filing rules

28

30

in use in a given situation. Cartwright has suggested two basic purposes offiling rules: (1) to minimize the time required to search a file, and (2) tomaximize thsprobability that, if an item isirahe file, it will be found whenit is sought.'

Two major sets of suggestions have been made regarding the alphabetico-classed catalog. The first involves modifications that retain the alpha-betico-classed arrangement. Bishop and Kelley both suggested that withina given subject category entries should be arranged in reverse chronologi-cal order rather than alphabetically, the assumption being- that libraryusers will generally_be most interested in the most recently published workon a givensubject. This is typical of suggestions which preserve the basicalphabetico-classed arrangement but which attempt to alter it to meet userneeds.

The second set of suggestions calls for total abandonment of thealphabetico-classed approach in favor of a straight alphabetical arrange-ment similar to that of "dictionaries and common directories."" Thejustification for this is that an alphabetico-classed arrangement is inher-ently too complex to be readily understandable to most users, and that thelogical structure of the alphabetico-classed catalog is therefore not worththe effort invested in its creation and maintenapce. Quinn termed thealphabetico-classed catalog "a most unsatisfactory and wasteful form..."which "contains the worst features of both [alphabetical and classifiedcatalogs) without any of the advantages of either."" Preston wrote.that,"the necessity of mastering a complex system of filing before using thecatalog will increase rather than lessen the difficulties of the user..."' andthat "it, is quite obvious that such classed arrangements are certain toconfuse,all except those who have made a study of the arrangement of cardsin a library catalog."" Preston compared word-by-word and letter-by-letter alphabetical filing, concluding that word-by-word filing is easier iouse" and proposed an almost- alphabetical scheme to supplant existingalphabetico-classed arrangements. Scheerer's comments are also typical:

In recent years,-judging by reports in the literature, more and morelibraries have gone over to the alphabetic word-by-word filing of thetelephone directory that ignores subject-heading 'forms. There has beenno adverse reaction from users. No matter what system is followed for analphabetic classification the reader has to jump irrelevant headings as hesearches a subject area and picks out those that may be relevant to hispurpose. Beyond this common drawback the strict alphabetic arrana:ment with its orderly precision has the advantage of being intelligible.

This philosophy has been expressed more recently by Voos, who againstated the belief that a strictly alphabetical arrangement "might makethings easier for the user.',2ro

29

31

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The literature of the library catalog clearly shows aconcettfor the users oflibraries as a focus for design of library catalogs. Unfortunately, thisconcern has been mostly unsystematic and has resulted in theimplernenta-don of methodologies and systems that havcOmetimes been of question-able value and almost always based on untest assumptions regarding theneeds and wants of catalog users. At times appeals to the needs of usersseem to have been employed to justify decisions that were in fact motivatedprimarily by economic, administrative or other considerations or by libr-r-ians' personal prejudices. Other suggestions that may have been of merithave not been put to the test. In many instances; different writers havesupported mutually exclusive catalog models on the basis of their userorientation. Some issues, such as the relative merits of card and bookcatalogs and the dictionary catalog v. divided catalog controversy, havebeen argued over the course of more than half a century without resolution.

As Bates has pointed out, "many catalog use studies have been produced,but the cumulative knowledge resulting from them is not great."211 Else-where it has been pointed out that the results of such studies have rarelyTeen heected.212 FUrthermore, many of the studies conducted have been ofquestionable validity, and their results are therefore of rather limited value.As Lancaster has suggested, surveys of user opinion lead to inconclusivetesults,nd potentially more meaningful studies are difficult to conductand to evaluate 218 Grose and Line were very pessimistic about currentcatalog design:

We have then the following situation: we want somehow to cut catalogu-ing costs; we don't know whether we needicatalogues at all; we don'tknow what purpose they serve, or,might serve; if we do need them, wedon't know what entries they should contain, nor how they should bearranged; and if we did know what entries they should contain, we stilldon't know what information the entries should themselves contain, norhow it should be arranged.214

At present, a great many libraries are contemplating or actively planningthe implementation of online interactive library catalogs, a developmentdescribed as the dawn of a new era that, "portends improved patronaccess."212 Goiman has justifiably suggested that;- "technology-is almostthe least of the problems associated with online catalogs..." and has enu-merated four "critical differences between online catalogs and catalogs ofthe past."216 It is interesting to note that two of these four "differences," thepotential availability of the catalog outside the library and access to hold-

' ings of more than one libiary, were cited more than a century. ago as

32

advantages' of printed. book catalogs and later in support of microformcatalogs. It also appears to be true that many decisions regarding onlinecatalog design, including the very fundamental deCision to construct andimplement such systeMs, have seen made on; the basis of untested assump-tions regarding user'. friendliness. It seems to have been commonlyassumed, for instance, that online systems are inherently more userfriendly than existing systems, but it is not certain that this is true. If thecrucial decisions relate to economics, ease of maintenance or other factorsunrelated to user friendliness, the question to be answered is whether suchconsidirations should take precedence over the needs of users. As Hickeyhas pointed out, the Ability of library users to accept chnngemust havesome limit,u7 and unless' a new systeth offers some improvement in u,serfriendliness, the needs for adjustment and releatning mcyroutbalance laygains which do not directly benefit the cataloguser.

SuPpOrting statements of faidi in 'the power of online catalogs notw4th-standing, some systems that have been implemented appe,ar to be alMostdirect reconstructions of previous catalogs, differing only in jihysicalformat, while others actually provide less data and fewer access points thancard or other nonautomated catalogs. Even the supporters of existingonline systems have expressed certain reservations. A study conducted atOhio State University for instance, indicated. that some users tried theonline catalog but preferred the card catalog and that, -the online catalogdid not serve as a complete replacement for the card catalog for mostusers.

Admittedly, the design of online catalogs is not yet in an advanced state,and studies are underway to determine the needs of users of such systems.Presumably, an online catalog should achieve a level of user friendlinessimpossible in the past, but it is not at all certain, whether the presentinquiries will overcome the limitations of past studies or how the concernfor the interests of users expressed by designers of online systems will beaffected by the kinds of economic and administrative factors that have beeninfluential in the past. It is possible that the transition to anew technologyshould be accompanied by a reevaluation of needs', goals and philosophies,but the procedures and practices .of the past and present 'often exert apressure which is difficult to overcome, and there is a legitimate need tomaintain some sort of continuity with existing catalogs. It does seemadvisable, however, giverrthe substantial resources necessanaor the large-scale implementation of a new technology, to do every thit*. possible toensure the wiseutilization of those resources.

31

33

It is appropriate at this point to return' to the 12 objectives of a user-oriented system enumerated by Dehning, Essig and Maass. Although theywere not cOnsidering library catalogs specifically, their perspectives pro-vide'a useful basis for summarizing the present study and drawing someconclusions regarding existing catalogs:

1. The system's behaviour towards the user must be flexible so that the useris not forced to act in a strictly piescribed way.

2. A system must be able to distinguish among several users and adapt tothern.219

These two objectives imply that there should be no single correct way inwhich to use a system. Library catalogs have attempted to accommodatethe first objective, in a very limited way, to the extent that they haveallowed for approaches by author, title, subject, form, or other characteristics. There have almost always been the assumptions, however, that it isappropriate to make available in a given catalog only a few of the manypossible approaches, and that it is theresponsibility of the user to learnwhich approaches are available. The recognition that different classe ofusers may utilize different basic approaches to catalog use has occas nallyJed to the expansion of aCcess points and catalog capabilities, asearlier in the section on "The Purpose of the Catalog." I as also beenused as an excuse for limiting flexibility. 44

3: Tle system behaviour anditseffects should be nsparent to theusPir.22°

In effect the user should need no direct k wledie of the procesies andmachinery that make up the sYstem.I is is true, then the problems ofcatalogers should be irrelevant to e problems of catalog users exceptwhen failure to resolve them ads to ineffective catalogs. 'It is clear,though; that the ability to use existing catalogs to their fullest extentrequires ronsiderable knowledge of the decisions and-rules that governtheir crealion. The history of user friendliness provides considerable evi-dence of this dilemma.

4. The system should always be helpful; it should never fOrce the user intoembarraising situations: 22'

For this objective to be met in a library catalog, no attempt to search thecatalog should meet with total failure. The least result should be that theuser is redirected to a valid approach or to a source of assistance. Attemptsat meeting this objective have taken the form of cross-refereNces andvarious kinds of guiding devices. In most libraries, however, these toolshave not been adequately utilized. It is also true that the provision ofreference librarians or other person% whose function is to interpret the

32

34

catalog has not always been as effective as it might have been, partlybecause their role in relation to the catalog has not been properly defined:

5. Man-machine interaction shouldresembleas far as possiblehumancommunication. .

6. System design has ttake-into c st Elation the physical and Psychicalneeds of the user during hig work with the computer,

7. System 'use should require no special, skills.8. Special physical and motorial skills shotild not be required.9. The common linguistic and communicative skills of 'the user must be

sufficient for leading simple dialogs.222

These five objectives require a system that asks the user to learn no newskills. The physical skills necessary for the use should be those which theuser already- poisesses, and it should not be necessary to learn a -newlanguage. Concern for these factors has led to the_extensive-debate-_ma

',,ing thephy,siCaLtorralArthel-cata" described-earlier in tkesecticin on"The Basic Arratigeinent of the Catalog." The issue has never beenresolved.. Even the simplest of catalogs requires that the userleam newlanguage skills in order to formulate queries and interpret catalOg records.In effect, the inability or unwillingness of library users to acquire theselanguage skills has probably led to considerable underutilization of librarycatalogs.

19! 'The system should behave in a consistent way so that the user can learn_

to anticipate it-223---

Consistency would seen to be one of the easier objectives to achieve.Presumably the development of codes and subject-headings lists; andvarious cooperative efforts have been attempts to achieve consistency. Suchattempts have not been totally successful. Exceptions to rules are possiblyas numerous as the rules themselves, and, the codes of rules are not easy tointerpret or apply. Subject headings often appear to have been created onan ad hoc basis rather than systematically. Changes in.PractiCe often resultin recordi whose appearance and content vary substantially according totheir age. Cooperative cataloging has had some poWer to remedy- localpeculiarities, but it may also aggravate the problem of inconsistency byminimizing adaptation to local needs, as has been indicated in the earliersection on "The Content of Catalog Records."

11. The possible kinds of problem-solving should not be limited by,thesystem.224

This is closely related to the first two objectives. Library catalogs are usedin order to solve individual problems. Htiman beings'approach problems

33

35

a

in a wide variety of ways, but library catalogs typically are designed with afairly strict set of problem-solving techniques in mind. It has been assumedthat the user's needs will fall into one of a limited number of patterns, andthat each pattern will necessitate a single approach to the catabig. Allproblems requiring work dealing with a given subject, for instance, areassumed to be basically similar, and h is expected that orie'apProach tosubject searching will satisfy all needs. It may actually be the case thatdifferent users-require different kinds of access to the same kind of informa-tion, an idea described earlier in the section on "The Content of CatalogRecords."

12. The human ability of learning by doing should be exploitedmoderately -226

The-key -word inthii ObjeEtiVe is "InOderately." Although any systemshould allow the user to gain expertise as a result of increased experience,an inexperienced user should be able to successfully meet his/her needs.Experience should enhance efficiency, but should not be a prerequisite to

gh it is sometimes assumed that this objective is met bylibrary catalogs, that .assuMption is in need of testing. ,

Given these objectives, it seems unlikely that any of the catalogs availableor proposed during the period under consideration here could ha> beenmade ful user friendly, and it may prove impossible to achieve all of these

. twelve obi dyes in an online catalog. The failure to make catalogs user- friendly,_h wever;rna_ybelargely.a.rnatterof a failure,to appraise the need

for user friendliness rather than of technotbiliittWnitalioirs.Afullruser-friendlycitalog may be an unattainable ideal, but obviously there is aneed to work toward its goals. Draper has accused librarians of what hetermed "bibliothecal solipsisme.'"--"the implicit belief that libraries existfor the sake of the activity .known.as librarianship and the shadowy figuresfrom the Outside who wander about the catalog with a bewildered look arena. Aliens whose main fitnction is to get' n the way of i rians."226 If thelibrary catalog is indeed a tool for the library', user, ,de igners of futurecatalogs would do well to approach the problem of meeting user needs in amore systeinatit andreliablernannefthan that which has-prevailed in thepast. A well-formed set of objectives similar to.that enumerated by Dehn-. ,tng,'Essig and Maass, and a commiturtentiO theit achievement may helpred* the confusion and controversy that have characterised the issue.

i, 1

6' 34

1 REFERENCES1 .

1 .. . .

.

I. Brenner, Iiisa A. et al. "User-Computer Interface Designs for Information Systems:,A Review." tibrary Rekarch 2(Spring 1980-80:63.

2. Defining, Waltr4nd, et al. "The Adaptation of Virtual Man-Computer Interfaces toUser Req u in flogs." In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 110 edited by G.Goos and Harunanis,4:9. 25-29. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1981.

3. somewhat' arbitrary decision to limit the present study to English. languagepublicatio s may have led to the exclusion of some important works. A significafit Germanlanguage s udy of the user friendliness of library catalogs is found in Holler, Uwe. "Benutzer-freundlich it Vou Bibliothekskatalogen." Schriftenreihe der Bibliothekar-LehrinstituteReihe A. xamensarbeiten 30. Berlin: Deutscher Bibliotheksverban Arbeitsstelle fuer das .

Bibliothe ten, 1975. r

4. tter, Charles A. Rules for il Dictionary CaialOg, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Bureau of Education, 1948/ p. 6. .

y5. Perkins, Fred B: San Francisco Cataloging for Public Libraries: San Francisco, Calif.:Murdock &.Co., 1884, par .... . .

6. Wilson, Francis G..I'The Library. Catalog and the Scholar." College 1:. Research . . ..

Libraries-3(June-1942)103,--- ,

7. Swanson, Don R. Requirements Study for Future Catalogs;;Final Report. Chicago:University of Chicago Graduate Library Sthool, 1972, p. 1.3

8. Pearson; Edmund Lester. The Librarian: SikctiOns from the Column of that Name,edited by Jane 11: Durnell and Norman D. Stevens. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow press; 1976, p,427. .

9. Ibid., p. 433. . .,

t

10. Dada, John Cotton. Libraries: Addresses and Essays. White Plaifts, N.Y.: The H.W.Wilson CO., 1916, p.. 58.

11.' Grose, M.W., and Line, M.B. "On the Construction and Care of White Elephants."Library Association RecordiO(Jan. 1968):2-5.

12. Ibid., p. 3. 413. Sowerbutts, iv... Library Association Record 70(March 1968):80 (letter); Dove, .Jck.

Library dissociation Record 70(March 1968);80 (letter); Roberts, -Norman. Library Associa-tion Record 70(March 1968):81 (letter); ana Allardyce, A. Library Asiociatioti Record .

__.70(Marrk 1968):81 lietter),_ . .

14. Swank, Raynard. "Subjed-QTalogi;Classifications; or Bibliographies? A.Review.of .. _ , _Critical Discussions, 1876-1942." Library Quarterly 14(Oct. 1944):316-32.

15. Ibid., p, 332. ; '''16. Grose, and Lift?, "On the Construction and Care of White Elephints," p. 3. 1

17. Young, A. B9,trice. "The Changing Catalog." Library Journal 63(15 Oct. 1938):;762-63. r,, . ' . . . , .

18. Ibid., pp .,63. ''_ - 19. Gore,...catitigl. "A Shortcut toBoolc.Catakies?". Library Journal 93(15 March 1968):1110.13. , ,,,

20. Ball, Katherine. "Economies in Subject Cataloging: Bibliogra es As a Substitutefor SUbjeit Cataloging,."Journal of Cataloging and Classification 8( rch1952):145-47.

21. Titnon, Joseph S. "What Scholars Expect of Library Catalogi g-II." In Problemsand Prospeita of 04' Rr,search Library, edited by Edwin E. Williams, pp. 73-74. New Bruns-wick, N.J.: Scarecrow Pitss, 1955. . , -

.. 22. Ibid., p. 74.. : , . !' ,,

, 23. Kilgour, yrederick G. e"Computerizatiort: The Advent of Humanization in theCollege Library." Library Trends118(July 1969):29. ,:' ' .r :

4. Dana, Libraries: Addresse's and Essays, p. 58... Avram, Henriette D. "Pro ucticiii; Dissemination, and Use of Bibliographic Data and

Summary of the Conference.' -Library. Quarterly47(July 1977): 347. ''.26. Cutter, Rules. for I eDicti nary Catalog, 4th ed., p. 12.

27. Doubleday, W.E. "Dictionary Catalogues versus Classified Catalogues for LendingLibraries-The Dictioiary Catalogiref.Eibrary Association Record 30900:522.

28. Martel, Charles. "Citalogirig:406-1926." In Catalogers' and Ciassifiers"-Yearbook:1(1929)19. . .

29. Morsch, Lticile M.'"Cstaloging and aisiificrition And the Needs for POpular Ser-vice." Library Journal 65(July 1940)362. . , , .

30: Randal), William M. "The Use of Library Catalogs: A Research Project." Catalogers'and Classifiers' Yearbook 2(1931:):30. .

31. Mann, Margaret. Introduction to Cataloging and the Classification Of Books, 2a ed.Chicago:. ALA. 1943. p. 2; '. . . .

32. Osborn, Andrei:, D. "Cataloging Costs and a Changing Conception of Cataloging."Catalogers' and ClasSifiers' Yearbook.5(1936):0. . .

33. Shera, Jesse H. "The Book Catalog and the Scholar: A Re-examination of an Old .

Partnership." In Book Catalogs, edited by Robert E. Kingery and Maurice F, Tauber, p. 4. ...New York:Scarecrow Press, 1963: ..

34. Wilson, "The Library Catalog and the Scholar pScholar'; 203.IP 35. Merritt, LeRoy Charles. The Use of the.Subject Catalog in the University of California

Library. Berkeley: University, of. CalifOrnia Press, 1951. ..

36. claborri, Andrew D. The Crisis in Cataloging. Chicago: American Library Institute,1441; pp,-17-I8. . - '.. ... .

37. Mille; Robert A. "On re Useof the Cird Catalog." Library Quarterly 12(July 1942): .

636.

. 38. Young, "The Changing Catalog," V. 762.39. Bishop, W,.W.."The Amount of Help.to be Given to. Readeis.7 ALA Bulletin 2(Sept.

1908):330. . ,40. Aldrich, Ella V. "The Public Catalog for Whom? Experiences of a Readers' Adviser in

a University Library." Catalogers' and Classifiers' Yearbook 8(1940)58-61; Ver Nooy, Win-ifred. "The Consumer and the Catalog." In The Aequiiition and Cataloging of Books, editedby William M. Randall:7M). 31040. Chicago: Univensity of Chicago Press, 1940; Mann...Introduction to Cataloging; and. Krirelas; James. "The Effect of Arrangement .oh the Success-ful Use of Library Catalogs!' Ph.D. ;Liss, University of Dlinnis, 1967. .

'2'41. Scheerer, G.eorge. "The Subject Citalog Examined.", Library Quarterly (July1951):196.. ,.

42. Krikelas, The Elk; of Arrangement on:thq SUccessful Use, p: 12.43 .,L.',_- "Calilog Use Studies, and Their Implications." In A nees in

.,-

__._'_ 44;: Atherton, Pauline. "Catalog Users' Access Froin the Researcher's,V point: Pastand Presentliesearch WhiclitaiikrAffecrtibrirreattilogDesign e_Qatalog:Proceedings of the 1971r'6nd 1979 Library and Information Technology ssociation Insti-tutes, edited by D. Kaye Gapen and Bonnie Juergeris, pp. 105-22. Phoenix, Atiz'Oryx Press,

,. : . 45. -Dunkin, Paul S. Cataloging USA . Chicago, ALA, 1969; p. 142 .7 :i.::;.: .... . -

.. 46. Mishoff, Willard 0. "The Catalog from a Reader's Viewpoint;!..Likr40/,FrOnatsr.:., 57( 15, Dec: '1932):1035. *4, . -' 47. Ellswir 'a, Ralph E. /The trative Implications for Univertity Eibiaries'W .'.:. . ..,, . . .

thelNew Catalatng Code." allege arch Libraries 3(March 1942y154,:,.... : ; . : ...48. Butcher, S.J. "Cataloguing in 'icipal Libraries." In CatalogsimgPrirseipteSand

Practice: An Inquiry, edited by Mary Piggott, p. 93. London, England: LibritYAisqeiitiOri,:-....1954;;Golilhor;,Herben. "The Worries of a PublkLibrary Administratpir"Libritry ResaiAriek'.,:'er TeOstikal..Services, 3(Spring 1959): I le; Drafier, Hal. "Libraraian.ys,'..SCholif4LJsby::?z,Library .Journal Oa May 19640910; and Pearson, The Librarian, p'..t4A4, . .. ...: .,.. ,

49. Fletcher; William I. "Ile Future of the Catalog."Library Jovrnal,30(March 1945):L44. .:50. Moiscli, Lucile 111,,,' The Challenge of Ca talogi ng." Library 1 ou Mal67(15 Jari..1942):' :.

60. &

Librariataip, pp. 195-220.

51. Frani, Carlyle J. "Developments in Subject Cataloging." Libra6 Trends2(Occ.,1953):221.::

52. Ibid, P.:220. .... 55. Vayrek, Bernard. 'The Book Catalog: One Step Backward?". Wilson 4ibrailBulletin*

.40(Nov. 1965):269-70...., ,, .

. "54, Grose,. and ;Lit*, .-"On the Coristructibif and. Care 'Of White pil 2.55: Swanson; Requirements Study for Future Catalogs: Final Reijort, p. 1.66. Monch, "The Challenge of Catalogirig." p. 57. '. .; , .-.i57. Osborn, Andrew, D. ",The Crisis in Cataloging." Library Quaitefly 11(Oct..1941):

393-411. : - ... 6 .

58. '.,!..,--L_ The Crisis in Cataloging. Chicago: American Library Institute, 1941.59.; -Rider, Fremont. "Alternatives for the Present Dictionary. Card Catalog." In The

Acquisiticin and Ca tg of Books, edited by William M. Randall, p. 138. Chicago:University of Chico s, 1940.

so. Randall, lc . "The Technical Processes and Library Service." fit The Acqui-sition and Cataloging o ,Books, edited by William M. Randall, pp: 243.,ChiOgrk Universityof Chicago PresS,1940.:.. i' ..

-...,_. ...." 6.86(J ,,,61, Wright! Wyllis E.4'Citalaging Crisis." Library Journal 66(15 mec,1.941):1 c62. Dunkin,'Paul Shaner. "Crisis in Teapot." Library Journal 67(1 March ;1942):198.63...Cutter, Charles A. Rules fora DiCtionary Catalogue, 1st ed Washingtob,'D.C.4.1.S..

Bureau of Education, 1876,. p,,:,10. . 's ...

64. Perkins, San Francisco.Catakciiitig 14 ,Pub. Oc Libraries, p. 6. ..'A 65. Heath, Dorothy M. -A -timer of catatIctiec ing. London, England: Association) of

Assistant Librarians, 1952, p. 5. '.:... .. . ; ..-, ... .

fk-, 66. ALA. division of Cataloging and Classification. Catalog Rules: AcithOtancr Title,ii..ti..,1.4 EAtries, AmeriCan Edition. Chicago:''Amerttan Libriry Assoc5ation Publishing Board,Asoquir

.,,p,ix.k' '` 67. Chaplin, 'A.H.and.Anderson, Dorothy; e* Zitteritational Conferenceon Cataloging..

Principlesi Paris, 9th-fith October,. 1961, Report.Loilt190:England: International Fedela-don of Library .Associations, 1963. .. -... .,

68. Bishop, William Warner. The Backs of Books and Other Essays in Librarianship.Freeport,, N.Y.: Books for. Libraries Press:1968,p. 132. ..,,

i

69. Ver Nooy, "The Consumer and the Catalog," pp. 310-30; Mann, Introduction to 'Cataloging and the Classification of Books: and Hamilton, William B. "What SchOlarsExpect of Library Cataloguing-I." In Problems and` Prospects of the Research Librar)edited by Edwin E. Williams, pp. 65-70. New Brunswick, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1954.. ., ', .

70. Lpte,..JOhn Maths. "Personal Contact Through the catalog." Library,.../pUilial34Uune 19091:26a.

41.

71. OsbortC'Andrew D. "114. Use of the Card Catalog." Catalogers' and'Ola4ifiiii'1

411; YivirboOk 4(1934) :76-82. 4 1 i i1

72. Young, "The Changing Catalog," p. 763.73. Rider, Fremont. "The Possibility of Disearding the Card Catalog." Library Quay.

terly 8(July 1938):334. .

74. Gull, C.D. "Substitutes for the Card Catalog." Library Trends 2(Oct. 1953)122. .

75. Atherton, "Catalog Users' Access from-the Researcher's Viewpoint," p..114. , .76. Gull, "Substitutes for the Card Catalog," p. 319. .1.,

, 77. Kennedy, R.F. Preliminary Notes for an Essay on Cataloguing for the Classif dCatalogue, rev. ed. Johannesb,urg, South Africa: R.F. Kennedy, 1956, p. 2.

78. Jones, Robert C. "A ComPtictr.did Catalog: Being a Printed Book Catalog by Pikst /..

, graphic Process." Special LitAkties,,5.4(Dec. 1963):635-06. . ,. :...zi ,..

.. 79. Parker; Ralph H...."Booli Catalogs." Library &Nunes ir. Technical Servicei 8(Fll,

"4964)14.4.'.,.80. 5lietai-"The Book Catalog and the Scholar," p. 6. e 0

81. Glire.7"A Shortcut to Book Catalogs," p. 1110.82. Horner, - Alice. "The Changing Catalog." Library Journal 64(1 Jan. 1939):4-5 (letter)..83. Ranganathan, S.R. The Fite Laws of Library Science. London, England: Blunt *Id

Sons,,957, pp. 393-97.

Iv

4' . , . . .,

MainBookCatalogi, edited by Robert E. arid urice F. Tauber, pp. 57-59, New York;

.......:7CI

84: Tysse, Agnes N. "Card dna! Versus Printed Book Catalogs and the C.,*iisg User," ,

Scarecrow Press, 1963. ^ '.,

85. Pizer; Irwin K "Another Look at Printed Book Catatelts.tSpecialLibraries55(Fe.,1964):119`(letter). -.

86: Swanson, Requirements Study for Future Catalogs: Final Report. p.. 20:87. Brodman, Estelle, and Bola, Doris. "Printed analogs:. Retrospect andPrOspeCt.";,

Special Libraries 59(Dec. 1968)185. - .-

89. Ibid., pp. 786-87. ' .. ., , .-, . 1

,

88. Ibid. , : . 7::'s s's, 4 1

90. Ibid., p. 787. . .

91. Ibid., p. 788.'92. Vavrek, "The:Book Catalog: One StepRackWard?" pp. 269-70.93. Dwyer, James R. "Public Response to anAcadeinic Library Microcataiog." In The

Card CatalogrCurrent Issues, edited by Cynthia C. Ryans, p. 155..Metuchen ,, N.J.: ScarecrowPzesii, 1981. ''. . n :.

-,94. Butler, Brett, et al. Library and Patron Response to the COM Catalog: Use an:404W....

ation; rev. ed. Los Altos, Calif.: Information AcceisCorp., 1979, pp. 10-11. &'- - .f. -,:-.95: Saffady, William. Computer-Output Microfilm: Its Library Applications. Chicago:

ALA,..M711,,pp. 125-27.96:. Ginter, Charles A. "Library Catalogues," In Public Libraries in the United States of

Ameriea,'..pt, 1, Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Graduate School of LibraryScience,-.187e.'*, . k,

W . Iletiber; ."The future of.the,Catalisg;" pp. 141-44. '.98rIbid.;j:i 111-/ . - ; .. . :. -

99., Iddrich,' ''The' Pnblie:Ciiiaiog forSirhom?":10% Grosser, Dorothy: ''The Divided Catalog: A Stimmary o1 the Literature." Library

Resources 6 Technical SernCes.2(Fall: 1958):2311252.9011 Martel, "Cataloging: 1875x1926,`' p. 99.102. ,Mishoff, The Utah* .Frotiva Reader's Viewpoint," pp. 1035-38.

: 103. ;Bliss, Henry Evelyn. The Oigoninition of Knowledge in Libra ties and the Subject-Approach to Books. New York:' H,W.-Wilson Co., 1933; pp. 166-68. ", .

.."

104. Grosser, ''The Divided Caialcig,". pp: 240-52.105. Hagedorn, Rolf K. "ToWar... d Catalog Reform."form." Library Journal 64(15 March l931);

. ,

1 .223. - . -106. Ibid., p. 224:107. Ibid.108. Lubetzky, Seymour. Crisis to the'Caiii4," Catalogers' and Clissificr,t' ieariook_

*r

8(1940):51-52., - .. .

109. Btirch, Vella Jane. The Divided Catalog: Dukeliniversity Library Catalog faces the'-. . . ,

Futine." College dr Research Littraiee:*June194): 219-23. ,, - : : " .-110..1:lean; Hazel.'`'Shall We Divide C'aiilogVertically?" eiSiadogees' and Clasiifi0!. t'. ,

YearbOok 8(1940):43.111. Harkini, Nadine. "The Divided Catalog: A Study of the Catalog of Central Bilidir,.,'...

Seminary." Library Resources 6 Technical Services 6(Surruifer 1962):269. :::'':;112. Ibid.

,-:.':. 1:13, Elrod J. Mcliee.::'The Divided Catalog." Library joitrnat 87(1, May 1962): 1128-30.--.... . 414. Lubetzky, SeiittOur:frinciples of Cataloging. Los Angeles:.upiversity of California -" '.

'Institute of Library Research, 1969, p.81. . ,

115. Johnson, Barbara Coe. Library ResoUrces de> Technical Services I5(Spring 1971):247-48 (letter). .

116. Ibid., pt -240.:'.'..-?:: 4. '.''. .

.,.......10! Fleicher,,,";The future of the Catalog," p. 141: .,

,, 418. Spaldinii;C.,$irmner. The Use of Catalog Entries at the Library of Congress.' ,.:,.'--,journal of Cataloging and Classification 6(Fall 1950);07,, .

' 119. .Harktni;"Tise, Divided Catalog," p. 269. .7. ''.. .

12R Hamilton, "What Scholars Expect of Library:cat4fOgying,"t p. 69.. ..

38

0

,

I.

it

o

sp

q

..

11: .Lobetzky, Principles of Cataloging; pp. 80-81.. .122, McGregor, lamer-Wilson. "In Defense bf the Dictionary,Catalcig." Library Resources.ar Tehnical Services 15(Winter 1911):31. ..

, ... la Krikelas: Janes. ",Searehing the Library Catalog -A Study of Users' Access." LibraryResearch 2(Fall 1980/81):218. .,.,

124. .Heiriritz, Fred. "Does Dividing the Catalog Relieve,Congestion?" Library Resourceso Technical Seivices fi(Sumtner 1964):310 -16. . .. .

. 125. McGregor, "In Defense Of. the DiCtionary Catalog," p. 30. .

. 126, Ibid.,. p. 29., : P. ... 127. Dean, "gull WeDiiide Our Catalog Vertically?" p. 43; and Lubetzky, Principles of ,

Catiloging, p. 76, , .

. , . 128. Wright, Wyllis E. *,'Horizontal Division of the Catalog." Catalogers' and Classifiers'Yearbook 8(1940):55. , , - .

129: Ibid., pp. 56-57. '- "1'130: Monch, "Gataloging,and Classification and the Needs for Popular Service."

pp. 562-63. ' : .

.131. Rosholt, Ruth. "A Selective Catalog: Plans'for Making the Large Catalog Usable.".'. ALA Bulktin' 16(May 1922):258. ,. . , ...

132. Bishop, William Warner. Practical Handbook of Modern Library' Cataloging. Bal-timore:. Md.: Williams and Wilkins, 1914, p. 36.Ak133. Dwye4 "Public Response's° an Academic Library biicrocatilog," p. 166.'134. cutter, "Library Catalogues," pp. 531-32.

135. Fletcher, "The Fkiture of the Catalog." p. 142.136. Bishop, Practical Handbook' of Modern Library Cataloging, p. 44. , . .137. Martel, "Cataloging: 1876-,1926," p. 99.

., 138.. Watson, Eugene P. "The Reference Librarian Looks at the Catalog." Wilson LibraryBulletin 26(Nov. 1951) :270. ,

139. -McClelland, E.H. "Thenassified CatalOgue as a Tool for Rnearch."Cataiogers'and V.Classifiers' Yearbook 1(1929):104-12. , ..

140. Mishoff, "The 'Catalog From a Reader's Viewpoint," p..1037.141. Rider; "Alternatives for the Present Dictionary Card Catalog," p. 151.142. Mcdelland,, "The Classified Catalog as a Tool for Research," p..-110. .....

143: MOrtiiner, R.S. "Cataloguing:in University Libraries." In Cataloguing Principles.and Practice:An Inquiry, edited by Mary Piggott, p, 118. London, England: Library Associa-

e .tion, 1954: . . .' . 144. Shera, Jesse la, and Egan, Margaret E.' The Classified Cataloi: 'ncitiks andPrat:lees. Chicago:. ALA, 1956, p.I I.. '. . .i';,::,

145. Ibid.. pp. 1640:- *.-e... '':i Y'--146. Ibid., p. 21 : '' . c ',

-7\,.. .?147. Ibid.. p. 15. . . .'l'48.!Yenttedy, Preliminary Noteslor an Essay on Cataloguirii far the Classified Cata-

4414; f 9. ,1

149: Kennedy, IkeginAd Frank. Classified Cataloguing: A Practical oUide. Cape Town,. SotidiAhicaf A.A. Iiiekema, 1966, p. 3. . ..

150:Shera: and .4tit. ti;,..rtie Classified Catalog, p: 18. *151. Butcher, "CaltalOwering in Municipal Libraries," P. 95.

a 152. Cutter, Rukiloe 8. Printed. Qictionary,,CatalOg. ° 0

- 15'. Dewey, Melvil. "A Decinntgassificatiati and Subject Index." In Public Libraries inthe United States of America, Part I, 1876 kepott (Monograph No. 4). Urbana-Champaign:University Of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, 1876, p, 623-48.

15t. Bishop, Practical Handbook of Modern Library Cataloging. p. 37.155. Perkins, San,Francisco Public Library Cataloging, p.'33.150 Bishop, PratiCal Handbook of Modern Library Cataloging, p. 37.l51. Mudge, Isadore Gilbert: "Prpsent Day, Economies in. Cataloging:* Cataloger? and

Clau(tkrs' Yearbook 411934)10. ..c. . 1 n

: 158,:;;Swank, Raynabd ,C. "The Colt of Keeping Books." In Problems'and Prospects of the. Research Library, edited by Edwin E. Williams, p. 49. Nevi. Bsonswick, N.J.: Scarecrow. Riess,Ir. .4;

i§:;:'

41

154. Ver Nooy; Th160. Assotat3onoI

1975, p. 41. .

161. Wright, 'WyllisLibraries 15(Apiril,1954).; -

162. Caldwell, Margulerite Benni! "Cataloging Needs of the ModernPublic." Catalogers'and Classifiers Yearbo6 3(193(4:120.

163. Dickinson, Liz.'log: Current Issues, edi1981.

164. Butler, Pierce.and Classification 9(Marc

165. Draper, "Librari166. Ibid.; pp. 1909410167. Dunkin, "Crisis i168. Miller. "On the

ley:Grace O.:,:''1:-.:160Vkilv1::San FM

64(1 Septl'i".'...'1717Miiikia: Ellis. "I-1957):467 (letter).

172. Randall; "The T173. Penalosa,' Fernand

. Research Libraries 17(Nov.;*- 174. Henderson, ICathry# Luther. "Treated With a Degree of Uniformity and Common

,Sense: Descriptive 'Cataloging in the United States, 1876-1975." Library Trends 25(July. ;1976):227-71.

175. Nagle, Ronald. " nges in -cataloging Oxfektules for Description:" Library

Consumer and the taii.log," pp. 310-30.h Libraries. Th of Card Catalogs. Washington, D.C.:

,

. "How Little; pataloging Can be. Effective?" College .it Resnrch

Catalogs, Computers and Communication." In The Card Cata-.Cynthia 'C. Ryans,' p. 105. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecow Press,,

function of the Library." journalpftataloging1953)-10. ' 0.4

vs. Scholar-User,61). 1907. . . ' ::Teapot," p. 199.

of the Card Catalog." p. 637.. 4

ucd,Cataloging for Public Libraries, pp. 33-34.e Library Catalog for Whom? Reflections of a Reader's Advisor."

939):643.ins Usefulnessof card Catalogs." Special Libraries 48(Dec.

nical Processes and Library Service," p. 5."The Card Catalog: A,Failure in Communication." College &

1956):483-85.

Trends 25(Jan. I176. gorman,

22(Sumkner 1971):

):603-23. .?..1:chael. " Standard Bibliographi Description." Catalogiiaardbihdex

. 177. Keller, William H. 'A Public 'Catalog for the Public."WiLsort Library Bulletin'14(Dec. 1939):301. 1

. -4,'4. s. 4-

eme\n-: 7 ' 178. Higedp0; "Toward eatalok-Refonn,". pp. 223-24.," 179. Swazis'?* 'Requir t Study for Future Catalogs', p. 16.

MC Ke14ili::."The Library Catalog for Whom?" p. 643.' 181. Dickinson, "Of Catalpgs, Computers and Communication," p.I05. ,

182. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2d ed. Chicago: ALA, 1978.183. Dana, John Cotton. A Library Primer. Chiaigoi Bureau, 1900, pp, 96-97.

.184. Highfill, William Cazl. "The Relationship:oelad Depth to Subject Catalog:,Retrieval. Effectiveness." Ph.i.) diss University of Illinois, p. 233,- .

185. MOO.'" it, The Use of tle Subject Catalog in the. University of California Library.186. Goldhor, "The'Worris of a Public Library Administrator," p. 119. - . .

187. tlaY.kili Daxid .Judsorl. Subject Headings: A Practical Guide. Washington, 131,C.USGPO;'.1951;;Is. 7. I .

188. fiiiiidill, "Th6' tlwpf Library Catalogs," p. 30. 4 `: ; .

. 189. Ibid., p. 31. . :...7 1

. 190. Phelphs, Ralph H. "Subject Headings Again." feibrary Journal 66(1.iiiiieii9:il ):47I\ ..(letter).. . .

-:.. 191. Ellsworth, The Administrative Implicaticin. s for University Libitiries.of the New. ...

:- Research Libraries 4(Martit 194 ):134-4I.Cataloging Code"; and-Kerr, WIlis. "The Professor Looks at the Card Cilak*":College &

192. Watson, The Reference Librarian Looks-al the Catalog," p.: 276-/-4'...m. Hamilton, "What Scholars Expect of Lifitaiititaloging," p. 68. .

,4

.,,..194. jc4ur B. "On ch,inging Subject *01166." Library Resources ilr TechnicalServices 16(Fall 1972):466-69. .

. 1

,

-1.;.4'. . s.

1.

. ..

:."..,..

!;:-"i.. e\ 40 , °

, -..,::.:-

.; ..\ .42. .

e I

195. Cutter, Rules for a Dictioiuiry.Cald14,, 4th p. 73. .

196. Marable, Marl Hays. "ReaderReaetiOn to Subject Headings in the Card Catalog: AStatistical Study." Master's theSis,. UnfVerairy of Illinois, 1943.

197. Cutter, Rules for a DictionOry..Catalog, 4th ed., 1948, p. 74.198. Frarey, "DeVeloRtitents in Subject Cataloging," p. 226, (As qpoted from FrareY.; C.J,

"Studies of Use of the Subject Catalog: Summary and Evaluation." In TheSUbject Analysis ofLibrafy,Maarictis,'edited by M.F. Tauber, pp. 147-66. NewYork: Colitinbta;pniiersitySchool 011ibrazy Service, 1953) .

199. Taylor, Jed H. "Classification and Subject-Headings in the Shall College4..ii6tvirY 'Resources 6' Technical Services 5(Wintrr: 1961):87-90.

200. Bishop, "Two Unresolved Problems in Library Work," pp. 94-95:201. Krikelas, "Searching the Library Catalog," p. 222. -,202. Cartwright, Kelley L.-Mechanization and Library Filing Rulei." In, Advances in,

Librarianship, edited by Melvin J. Voigt, P. 65. New 'York: Academic Presi, 1970.203. Bishop, "Two Unresolved Problems in Library Work,"p. 95; and Kelley,""The Li-

brary Catalog for Whom?" p. 642.204. Mishoff, "Tice Catalog From a Reader's Viewpoint," p. 1036.205. Quinn, J. Henry. "Dictionary Catalogues versus Classified Ca taloguesfor Public Li-

raries-The Classified Catalogue." Library 'Association Record 3(1901):520.206. Preston, Genie Johanna. "Problems Involved in an Alphabetical Arrangement of a

Library Catalog." Master's theiis, University. of Illinois, 1936, p. 1.207. p. 21.208. Ibid.. p. 3i..209. Scheerer, George. "Card Catalog Arrangement." Library Resoutres Technical,Ser-

vices 3(Spring 1959):144.210. Voos,Henry. "Revision of the Current Library of Congress Card Format." Library

Resources* Technical Services I l(Spring 1967):171.211. Bates, Marcia J. "Factors Affeccting Subject Catalog Search Success." JASIS 28(May

1977):161.212. Atherton, "Catalog Users' Access From the Researcher's Viewpoint," pp. 10849.213. Lancaster, Ft Wilfrid. TheMeasurement and Evaluation of Library Services. Wash-

ington, D.C.: Inforinadon Resources Press, 1977, p. 20.214. Close, and Line, "On the Construction and Care of White Elephants," p. 5.215: Ferguson, Douglas, et al.4The CLR Public Online Catalog Study: An Overview."

Informaticm Technology and Libraries 1(June 1982):88. -

216. Gorman, Michael. "Thinking the Thinkable: A Synergetic Profession." AmericanLibraria 13(Aug. 1982):473.

217. Hickey, Doralyn J. "The. Search for Uniformity in Cataloging: Centralization andStandarization." Library Trends 25(Jan. 1977):579:

218. Pease, Sue, and Gouke, Mary Noel. "Patterns of Use in an Online Catalog and a CardCatalog." College 6' Research Libraries 43(July 1982):289.

219. Dehning, et al., "The Adaptation of Virtual Man - Computer Interfaces," p. 25.220. 26.221. Ibid.222. Ibid., pp. 27-28:223; Ibid., p. 28.

t'. 224. Ibid., p. 29.225. Ibid.226. Draper, "Librarian vs. Scholar-User," p. 1910.

41

43

VITA

Danny P. Wallace is a doctoral student, Graduate School of Library andInformation Science (GSLIS), the University of Illinois at Urbana-

' Champaign. His specialties in the field of Library Science include biblio-metries and the design of user-friendly information systems. He received.his M.A.L.S. from the School of Library and Informational Science, Unc-versity of Missouri-Columbia (1977) and a B.S.Ed. with majors in speech/dramatic artsand English from Southwest Missouri State University (1973).

Mr. Wallace has been an Assistant Director and Researth 'Associate at theGSLIS, Library Research Center, University of Illinois since August 1983.He has been an instructor at the School of. Library Science, University ofIowa, Iowa City (August 1980-AUgust 1981; June 1983-August 1983).While at the University of Iowa he was adjunct lecttirer, School of Library.Science (SepteMber 1979 to May.,1980), and reference librarian (Oitober1977-August 1980). He was also a graduate teaching assistant at the-schoolof 'Library and Infotmational Science, University of Missouri-Columbia j(1976-77).

14r. Wallace's previous publications include The 1982 Indezof Quality ofIllinois Public Library Service; Performance Measures.in Illinois SpecialLibraries; 1981 Survey of Illinois Special Libraries; 190-82 Illinois PublicLibrary Statistics: Analyses; and "1983 Survey 6neiti Preview: Salaries ofIllinois Special Librarians and Information Center Managers" (The Infor-mant 47[May 1983]:14-17).

42 0 ,

.44*

1.