Minutes of the first SUS Task Force on Staff Workstations (TFSW) conference call, held Monday, April 1, 1996 at 10 a.m.

Kathie Goldfarb called the meeting to order. Members introduced themselves, naming their current position titles and briefly listing previous types of library professional experience.

• Kathie Goldfarb (FSU),
• Bob Jones (UNF),
• Elaine Henjum (FCLA),
• Beth Allerton (UF),
• Mary Deane (FIU), and
• Alva T. Stone (FSU-Law)
• John Hein (UNF) was not available

First order of business was to seek a volunteer to serve as Chair. Ms Stone was nominated, and she agreed to take on this duty. There was some concern about the small representation from Public Services on the task force, Bob Jones being the only member from this area. But one other member had spent 30 years in Reference, and another currently works one day a week in public services. It was also decided that opinions and input from P.S. staff would be actively sought. We also want to involve the FCLA liaisons and any staff who are currently developing TSW's. The task force will establish a discussion list, to be maintained by Kathie Goldfarb, and invite any interested SUS library staff to join the list. Actual voting that needs to be done by TFSW members will take place off the list.

Elaine Henjum reported that FCLA has been putting documentation for the OPAC on its home page; it is still under review. The problem with mounting the staff-mode documentation is that much of it is "proprietary." However, we may be able to control access to it, by use of passwords, etc. Even so, we may not want all staff to see written instructions for all kinds of NOTIS operations, outside of their area of responsibility. Some security devices or safeguards will also be needed to keep outside "hackers" from access.

Alva Stone proposed that she analyze the TFSW "charge" and review the model "equipment upgrade proposal" in the Feb. 1996 ARL SPEC Kit (#213, entitled _Technical Services Workstations_), and write up a first draft of a starting point for task force's preliminary point, i.e., naming the desired outcomes or functionalities for the optimum staff workstations. Then, other members will make suggestions toward the revision of that first section. It was mentioned that UF had completed a "needs assessment" for TS or staff workstations, and so we asked Beth Allerton to compare the content of that document with the text of the TFSW report, as it develops.

Bob Jones wondered if we should survey the SUS libraries to find out what their current operating systems are, and why. Most libraries have IBM-compatibles, but at least one uses Macs; some may have Windows, while others have DOS-based systems; etc. One university library has converted to Windows95, but at least two others have a campus or library decision not to do so, because of incompatibilities with other essential programs. Mary Deane pointed out that all of the high-tech cataloging tools coming from LC (the Cataloger's Desktop, Classification Plus, etc.) use FolioViews software which is not available for Macs, and that the OCLC Passport-for-Windows does not work under Windows95 or Windows NT. These factors might seem to imply that we have little choice in the equipment/software configurations that we need to recommend, for the "optimum" workstation. Alva was concerned about the possible perception of the TFSW trying to regulate or standardize the components of all SUS libraries' workstations, taking away "autonomy" of individual libraries. Mary Deane said we could avoid this if we concentrate on the minimum standards of functionality, rather than naming any specific hardware requirements. Beth Allerton argued that we ought to provide information about various combinations of hardware, indicating the pros & cons of the options--sort of like a Consumer Reports review--and actually rank them, with the reasons why. Bob Jones liked this idea, too. Alva suggested that this kind of detailed, specific information might go in an appendix, but this can be decided later.

Bob proposed that we aim to get our final report done on or before July 1, because we expect some allocations for *staff* equipment upgrades to be spent in FY 96/97, so it would help to have the recommendations in hand. General agreement was heard. Not much time until our preliminary report is due -- April 30, 1996 ! Kathie said that she would get an announcement about how to subscribe to the TFSW list onto the FCLLIST by Wednesday, April 3. Alva said that she would post a rough draft of the first part ("desired outcomes / functionalities") by the end of the week, Friday April 5.

Alva requested that task force members keep her informed of any vacation plans they make for April, May and June. It is already known that Beth will be on vacation June 9-15, and Alva will be on vacation June 1-10.

The conference call was ended at about 11:10 a.m. Future deliberations will occur by e-mail, as much as possible.