Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists. METHODS: Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals. With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness. RESULTS: Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48%) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4%) and conversions (10%) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53% for color, to 74% for grayscale, to 97% for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n=405), 41% were said to be unacceptable, 97% of B&W, 66% of grayscale, 41% of color, and 1% of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67% of rankings (n=215). CONCLUSIONS: PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12%) or B&W (less than 1%). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52%. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.

User satisfaction survey and usage of an electronic desktop document delivery service at an academic medical library.

In June 2000, the Biomedical Library at the University of South Alabama introduced Prospero, an electronic desktop document delivery service. From June 2000 to November 2002, Prospero delivered 28% of interlibrary loan requests and 72% of document delivery requests. In November 2002, the library conducted a user satisfaction survey of the Prospero service. Forty-two surveys were used. Fifteen responses were received from affiliated faculty, staff, and students, who generally expressed satisfaction with the service. Twenty-seven responses were received from unaffiliated users, comprised of medical libraries, individual users, and businesses. Based on the survey results, the library deemed the Prospero service a success. To better support users, the library's Web page was updated to include hardware and software requirements for successful use of the Prospero service, as well as screen shots of the Prospero process.

A trial of three commercial document delivery suppliers with strong holdings in biomedicine.

The University of Vermont's Medical Library evaluated the services of three commercial document delivery suppliers with significant holdings in biomedicine. The purpose of the trial was to determine whether journal articles could be procured in less time than routine interlibrary loan without greatly increasing costs. Each supplier offered a quick delivery method employing modern technology at a standard fee. The need to pay copyright royalties at times and a desire to test the possibility of substituting "access" for "collection" also prompted the trial. Results reported include: mean and median delivery times, percentages of requested titles held, and average price per transaction, including copyright fee. The Medical Library continues to use commercial services to augment interlibrary loan.