Maroon Opinions

Paper Exchange Trays in the Reg

I wanted to suggest a green idea. It would be nice if the library kept paper trays by the printers where people could offload their unwanted single sided copies / printouts, with a sign with instructions. I've seen this in other libraries and have been a heavy recycler of this kind of paper -- it makes great paper for class notes, plus we're recycling.

Sounds like a good idea to us!  Cheryl, the Library's sustainability guru, diligently pursued this idea through several meetings. We are pleased to report there are now "re-use" trays on the first floor of the Reg by the printers, and already we have seen scrap paper in them.

Scanning Auto-Detection: Unintended Consequences

The scanners in Regenstein are absolutely deplorable. I can't tell you how much time I have wasted trying to scan books in 8.5x11 format. I need to do a lot of scanning as a Research Assistant, and I am very upset with the quality of the scanning software on the Canon Copiers. Let me describe the problem: the scanner automatically senses whether to scan 8.5x11 or 11x17. If you are scanning a thick book and therefore cannot close the top of the copier completely, the scanner will automatically scan 11x17, and very few people can then print 11X17 scans, not to mention that half the scan is blank gray. I find this computer bug absolutely unacceptable.

Upon reading this, the Office staff grabbed the closest 11x17 document -- the latest issue of the U of C Magazine -- and headed off to the multi-function devices. The scanner is a wily beast indeed: despite our monkeying with different source and image size settings, the machine saw we had an 11x17 document on the glass and insisted on scanning the entire spread.

Chastened, we beat a retreat and called in the experts. The Canon personnel confirmed that there's no way to override the scanner's auto-detect feature. Photocopying uses the machine's native interface, but the scanning software is developed by a third-party vendor and they don't have control of it. Hopefully we will have a solution in the future.

In the meantime, one workaround for this issue: after you finish scanning, take your flash drive downstairs to the USITE computers the MacLab, or any other computer equipped with Adobe Acrobat Pro (not a Library workstation) and use that program to crop the 11x17 pages down to 8.5x11. This will get rid of the gray areas and make printing easier.

More Copier Complaints

I am disappointed in the copiers. Here are my gripes:

1. It was unclear where to swipe my card, because there are all sorts of card readers all over the place. In general, there are far too many user interfaces (keypads, screens, etc.).
2. It was unclear that my copy card would not work and that I would need to buy a new one--with a deposit.
3. I could not print from a workstation on the second floor, because the computer I logged on to only listed a color printing option.

Thank you for your "gripes." I apologize for #1 and #2 -- we admit we often don't know where to swipe our cards either, yet! We hope to have clearer instructions soon. Also, there is a Canon Associate at Circulation who can take the value of your old card and credit your new card, so you don't lose money you've already paid.  In the future we hope some of the circulation staff will be able to do card exchanges, thus allowing us to offer this service in the evenings.

Regarding #3 -- could you let us know the specific name or location of the workstation? We can then pass along to our IT people and Canon to investigate.

Where did the scanners go?

I would like to protest the removal of free scanning from the library. Unlike printing, scanning does not utilize ink or paper and thus is far less expensive. Students should not be handed over the cost for tightened library budgets.

**

I am writing to voice my disappointment with the library's decision to replace the free scanners with a pay service. Free scanning was an economical, convenient, and environmentally friendly alternative to photocopying. Requiring students and faculty to pay for scanning reduces the accessibility of the library's materials, especially reserve items that cannot be checked out for longer periods.

Given that upkeep to the scanners and scanning computers is surely not a major additional expense to the library, one must conclude that the university sees the new pay system as a new stream of revenue. Unfortunately, this additional money will come at the direct expense of those who can least afford it, the university's students.

I am no doubt not alone in my feelings on this issue. I hope that the library will reverse its decision and revert to the old, free scanning system.

**

Bring back the free scanners!

We’ve received several complaints recently about the disappearance of the 3 flatbed scanners that used to be on the first floor of the Reg. The scanners were removed because of the Library’s transition to a new copier vendor (Canon) in early August.

The new pricing model institutes a small charge ($0.02/page) for scanning, while keeping constant the black/white printing cost ($0.10/page), and reducing the color printing cost (from $0.50 to $0.15/page) and the photocopying costs ($0.12 to $0.10/page). By keeping scanning to only 1/5th the price of photocopying, we hope patrons will continue to use this service while at the same time allowing us to meet our minimum revenue obligations under contract.

Several of the complaints have suggested that the Library is trying to make money from students by instituting this change.  We would like to correct this misperception.  The fees collected for scanning, copying, faxing, and printing are designed only to cover the cost of making these services available - not to provide funding for other Library offerings.

For several years Library patrons have requested the ability to scan portions of Library books and other materials. (We remind you that scanners and photocopiers should be used consistent with copyright law. See the University’s Copyright Information Center for more information.) Consequently, when our multi-year copier contract came up for renewal, scanning capability was high on our list of desired features.

Unfortunately, providing equipment to handle our scanning volume isn’t free. Scanning carries a cost – admittedly, a miniscule cost compared with traditional photocopying -- but there is wear and tear on the equipment, and staffing costs associated with machine maintenance.

We already experienced some of the costs when we put out the 3 flatbed scanners last year. Because the scanners were heavily used, they were starting to break down: at the time we removed them, only one scanner was fully operational (one had been removed several weeks ago and a second was leaving large black streaks on scanned images).

Thus when the new equipment arrived, the cost of scanning was set at $0.02/page – a cost necessary to cover our monthly fees with Canon. While this does impose a cost for a previously free service, Canon is replacing all the photocopiers with multi-function devices that copy, print, scan, and fax. So instead of 3 scanners, we will have 10 in the Reg alone – and more elsewhere on campus, since the University’s contract with Canon covers the Library, University Housing, and (printing only) NSIT. Further, the multi-function machines (unlike the flatbed scanners) are more suitable for heavy scanning activity. Finally, since the machines are free-standing, we get back 3 additional PCs on the first floor previously occupied by patrons scanning materials.

A Note of Appreciation

I AM SO HAPPY!!!!!

THANK YOU for discontinuing the printing of receipts with every single item that is checked out.
sigh.
what a relief.
woooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you! We're happy too, for all sorts of reasons.

Copier Woes

The copiers in both Regenstein and Crerar need desperate attention. I know that you don't handle the copiers directly, but I thought that the library administration should know about the condition of the copiers in the library. Here is a copy of the e-mail that I sent to the e-mail address listed for copier service:

The copiers in Regenstein and Crerar libraries are in terrible need of servicing. Because they are used so much, they are either dumping toner, producing copies with poor resolution, crinkling copies, etc. Over the past 2 weeks, I have wasted money and time running from machine to machine, floor to floor in Regenstein trying to make decent copies. From floors 3-6 and Level A, I found only 1 machine (on the 4th Floor) making clean copies. Today, I have had to make calls about the copiers on the 3rd floor of Crerar, and, frankly, I have gotten frustrated and given up copying for the day. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE address this as soon as possible. With this still being only the first month of the quarter, the problems are only going to get worse.

Copico does service machines regularly, and checks them at least daily. And unless they are swamped with other business, the staff is quite prompt about responding to service calls.

This being said, since we are in the last year of our copier contract, there is little incentive for them to upgrade the machines. However, we do hope to install new copiers over the summer.

Copier Updates

Is the library still planning on renegotiating the copico contract to get scan to email capabilities this spring?

I would really appreciate more scanning options, as the ones already in Reg are relatively slow as well as being in high demand.

The Library is indeed still negotiating the copier contract. I believe we're currently reviewing vendors who responded to our Request for Proposal (RFP), and scan capability was part
of that.

It's looking more like summer when the actual machines will be installed, but we are progressing towards the goal.

Microforms, Scanning, and Special Collections

I have a number of suggestions but I am only going to write the three I find most pressing here.

First and foremost: why are we still stuck in the 20th century? It seems rather absurd that a person actually has to print out microfilms and can't simply send them to themselves via email. Moreover, that the microfilms are in no way searchable via electronic means is rather arcane. If we are going to do away with the old papers entirely, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to just digitize them all so that one doesn't have to spend hours looking through two decades of Hyde Park Herald microfilm to find articles about urban renewal or crime, for example. So, would it be possible to not only digitize them but make it so that I don't have to waste trees by printing out the microfilms?

Second, why don't the copy machines allow me to simply scan and email? In the dorms, the copy machines allow scanning and emailing so that I can save paper (and money). This would be a great boon if the Reg were to start doing it and I think many people would appreciate and use it. Please allow this feature.

Third, and this is perhaps the most outlandish but potentially the most beneficial: the University should REALLY invest in digitizing its Special Collections (or at least making it so that it is open at more convenient hours for students). The fact that one literally has to request each and every individual box to explore what contents are in it without really knowing what one may find is quite absurd. Perhaps I am just so accustomed to being able to simply doing a Google search, but that I don't even know what may or may not be contained in an archive is somewhat troubling. Imagine how much information is potentially overlooked simply because one doesn't have the time to look through 150 linear feet of boxes. If these items were even partially digitized, it would allow for better preservation (as far fewer people would need to handle the items) and much easier access. Indeed, more than one person could use the same item and the same time.

[The Office staff takes a deep breath--] Here goes:

3) Digitizing Special Collections materials: We are doing this for specific collections -- for example, see the Archival Photographic Files and the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection.

In recent years we have focused on indexing and organizing our archival materials, and placing the indexes ("finding aids") online. Perhaps this could be seen as the first step towards systematically digitizing everything in the Special Collections Research Center. However, that would be a big project, and take big amounts of money.

2) Scanning: There's an outside vendor (Copico) with whom we contract for photocopying and printing. Their contract expires next May, and the University is negotiating a new contract that will cover both the dorms and the Library. Multi-function devices are explicitly mentioned, so perhaps by next school year the machines will make an appearance.

At present, there is already one microfilm reader/printer on the third floor of the Reg that allows scanning and saving to a USB drive.

1) Searching microfilms: It can definitely be tedious to scroll through hours of microfilm. However, most of the newspapers were filmed before the Web was widespread (microfilm was the "new" technology at the time). We do buy digitized full-text newspaper archives as they become available -- see our listings for the Chicago Tribune, for example. However, unlike archival materials, it's not something we can just do on our own dime due to copyright.

Erratic Card Reader on the A-Level

Please fix the printer on the A-level.  The card-reading machine does not read cards and just spits them back out.

The card reader seems to be having a problem with the motor, and the Copico (the vendor who maintains our copiers and printers) have it scheduled for replacement as soon as they get some new readers.

In the meantime, I've found that firmly inserting my card (give it a push as you insert it) seems to work.

Dusty Microform Machines

I think the microfilm/microfiche machines need to be dusted. The glass for the microfiche on all of the machines is particularly dusty. A little windex, or just a feather duster, would do wonders. Thanks!

The microform reader/printers are maintained by Mac-Gray/Copico, and we've asked them to dust the machines.