Beverly and Rienne,

I also use ABLE for binding and find it pretty easy to use, but sometimes
have trouble finding what I need in the manual when I have a question.
Rienne, I'd also like to see a copy of the manual you put together, if you
don't mind sharing.  Please answer off list.

Theresa

Theresa M. Tuscano
Periodicals/Government Documents Manager
Myrin Library
Ursinsus College
601 E. Main St.
Collegeville, PA 19426
Phone: (610)409-3000, ext. 2292
mailto: ttuscano@ursinus.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson Rienne E [mailto:RienneJohnson@CREIGHTON.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:25 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