 |
 |
Hi, This is not only a step backwards in terms of information access but it also ignores developments in the technology. For example some sites use dynamic addressing to allocate IP addresses to PCs on start-up (we use a variation of this approach for our Public Access PCs). In this case you can't guarantee that a specific PC will have the same IP address all the time. Other sites may require all off-site Web access to be through a proxy which hides the address of the actual PC. A similar situation could occur with a firewall hiding the details of a local network from external services. The whole idea of limiting access to specific PCs with specific IP addresses is based on a model of the way the internet works that is long out of date for many large organisations. Regards, John Smith, The Templeman Library, University of Kent. On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Lesley Crawshaw wrote: > Hi Louise, > > This is definitely a step backwards, not forwards. We certainly would > not be happy designating 3 machines that users would be able to access > these journals on. In fact we would tend to put such journals on a low > priority list of problems. > > I am also certain that the users of these journals, staff and research > staff in our institution would see it as a retrograde step in not being > able to access material from their desktop, never mind from off-campus. > Students who use our networked workstations would find it very strange > that they were expected to go to certain designated machines in order to > access these titles. We expect our users to be able to access our online > journals from any machine, and so do they. The alternative is confusion > for our staff and users, plus extra workloads, at a time when so many > institutions are struggling with their existing workloads. > > Do such publishers not want their users to be able to access their > journals anymore? It might have been more sensible for the AMA to > restrict access via concurrent users, rather than via 3 designated > computers, not that I am a fan of access by the number of concurrent > users, but it's better than designated machines. Maybe it's another way > of squeezing more money out of libraries so that they purchase an > enhanced institutional license at extra cost, once they find that free > with print is not all it's cracked up to be. > > > Cheers > Lesley > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Lesley Crawshaw, Faculty Information Consultant, > Learning and Information Services, > University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB UK > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > phone: 01707 284662 fax: 01707 284666 > web: http://www.herts.ac.uk/lis/subjects/natsci/ejournal/ > list owner: [log in to unmask] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -----Original Message----- > From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Louise Cole > Sent: 10 March 2003 13:55 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: American Medical Association titles > > > Dear all, > > I see that AMA titles, only available again as free with print from > January 2003, will shortly be moving to Highwire. We thought this was > good until we received a letter asking for '3 designated IP addresses' > rather than our campus-wide class B address. Am I right in thinking > this is a step back? What do others think? > > Louise > > Louise Cole > Electronic Resources Team Leader > Health Sciences Library > University of Leeds > Leeds LS2 9JT > > e-mail [log in to unmask] > tel 0113 343 5502 > fax 0113 343 4381 >