[Videolib] Interfiling Videos and DVDs with book collection

deg farrelly (deg.farrelly@asu.edu)
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:19:22 -0700

Bry's comment that print materials have their own call numbers suggests that
perhaps media materials are not so handled. He does point out one of the
key arguments for separate shelving, that is managing the contents of
shelves of different sized materials.

Does the collection contain laserdiscs? Interfiling 12" discs with 7"
VHS/DVD cases and books means that all shelves will need to be a minimum of
12+" high and deep.

OK... So you don't have 12" discs.. Even so, videos, being a standard size
can be shelved more efficiently in terms of overall space, if shelved
together.

As for * some * collocation, if interfiling, why stop with the non-fiction?

Most feature films are fiction, yes? Might not someone looking for
"Fahrenheit 411", "Primary Colors", or "Beauty and the Beast" (either
Cocteau or Disney) also be interested in the books they're based on?

Academic libraries classify fiction in literature. The same can be done
with film -

I am not saying that we shouldn't accommodate browsing. There are real
benefits. But I would not go so far as to say that people * prefer *
browsing.

Nor do I think that libraries hinder finding information by forcing users to
think in terms of media before subject. As others have pointed out, many
users come to the library with that filter already in place. Looking for a
video, looking for a book. To go back to one of my original points... We do
that to some extent already by separating journals. Yet certainly no one
would argue that browsing journals is an appropriate way to find information
in them.

One example of a library arrangement system that supports both organization
and browsing is the ANSCR classification system for recordings. (Grouped by
genre, then composer/performer. So... Operas: Mozart, Rossini, Verdi /
Rock Music: Beatles, Nirvana, Whitesnake/ Spoken Word....

But I had to argue vehemently to get an academic library to use that system.

To paraphrase Henry Voos from Rutgers University Library School (1970's)

No information fits neatly in one area anymore...Almost all information can
be classified in at least 2 different categories. Information moves from
theoretical to practical to historic.

And

"Never memorize what you can look up"

And to go back to the example of the hippos....

HOW did the patron get to the shelf where the videos on hippos are shelved
alongside the books? Did it go like this?

Reference Librarian: "May I help you?"
Patron: "Where are your books on hippos?"
Reference Librarian: "All our materials on hippos are on the 2nd floor,
east, third range of shelves, fourth shelf from the
top"

-- 
 deg

> Bry writes: > Great point, Deg! I guess my response to that is that these other materials > have their own Dewey/LCC call numbers, or that they (for the most part) are > physically unable to reside comfortably on the same shelves as the regular > sized books and/or videos. You make this point below as well; I would still > argue that some media collocation is better than none. > <snip>

> Bry writes: > Naturally the catalog and our own work allow searchers to find everything > (*ahem* no easy jokes here, please!), but why shouldn't we try to facilitate > browsing as well? Many people prefer finding their information through > browsing techniques, even on (in?) a media as dense and disorganized as the > Internet, let alone the place that they can go where everything is > preconceptually ordered for browsing. Currently, we actually hinder a > library browser from finding this additional avenue of information by > forcing her/him to think in terms of media before subject . . .

> > Bry writes: > True enough, but that is where the reference librarian comes in, regardless > of interfiling.