Hi Beverly and Hi Rienne
My library just switched over to ABLE, I we too experienced a few
*mistakes* BUT over all, I really like the program. It is fairly easy
to use once you figure out how. That brings me to Rienne's offer about a
manual. I would REALLY love to see it, if you don't mind sharing. Off
list is just fine. The manual I got with ABLE really doesn't help very
much and I still have some questions about it's capabilities. All things
considered, the ABLE program is wonderful. It allows me to access my
information directly, change it and save it. I don't need a paper list
anymore, so we save on paper. I can do bindery stuff much faster than
before, and that saves my time and the university's money. It is really
a good program. I definitely recommend it!!
Jill
Jill Brungardt
Periodicals Assistant
Collins Library
Baker University
518 8th St.
Baldwin City, KS 66006
785-594-8427
jbrungardt@bakeru.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Johnson Rienne E
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:25 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] binding software
Beverly -
Reinert has used both of these softwares while I have been doing bindery
for our library.
LARS is very much a early Windows-style program, with a single interface
for each task, adding/deleting titles, making jobs, running reports,
etc. Each title must be permanently added to the collection, and then
removed when it's not used anymore. The LARS program needs to be on a
single machine, so that all title/jobs will be present when you go to
bind. In addition, each time, the job must be transferred via diskette
for our bindery. On the plus side, it is a very simple program, once the
user is accustomed to navigating the different panes.
We transferred from LARS to ABLE last fall, and I personally like it
better. I have two workstations, and I can do binder yat either one.
ABLE is a web-based program, which requires a Java plug-in (attention
computer tech) to run properly. After the plug-in is configured on a
machine, it will run on that machine. It has a single interface for all
tasks, as well as an internet transfer ability, if your binder allows
for it. In addition, monograph titles can be added as item records and
not stay as part of your database. My downside with ABLE is that we had
a messy transition (our library being the first for our binder to
transfer records from LARS to ABLE, with some color and line
configuration problems). We transferred in October, and are still
catching some problems as we bind materials each month.
I would still recommend ABLE, however. I think the single pane interface
is much easier to use, and the accessibility from the different
workstations. In addition, our database resides on our binder's server,
and not our own, which aids in program speed. LARS is quite slow, and
while it's easy to use, updates are few and far between.
My advice, if you have a previous program, is to print out a copy of
your database, note the cover colors, and levels of print for each
title, and make the comparison before sending each item off.
I have a short manual that I've created for ABLE use. If you think it
would be helpful, I'd be happy to send you a copy.
Best of luck!
Rienne
Rienne Johnson
Library Associate - Serials/Processing
Reinert/Alumni Memorial Library
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
"The libraries have become my candy store."
Juliana Kimball
-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Beverly Dowdy
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:06 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] binding software
I would like to hear from those who have experience with LARS, or ABLE,
two bindery software programs. We are being offered these by our
bindery. Any opinions on which is better to use?
Beverly A. Dowdy, MLIS
Serials Librarian
Chambers Library
University of Central Oklahoma
100 North University Drive
Edmond, OK 73034
bdowdy@ucok.edu
405-974-2901 voice
405-974-3874 fax
