Difference between revisions of "LiveContent 2 0 library concerns"
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 20:15, 18 September 2007
- public libraries vs academic libraries - public libraries have less resources, less staff time to examine new products and test out - at the same time FOSS might most benefit small public libraries, especially rural
- academic libraries are often equipped for more research, and might be better geared towards having the resources for testing and future development
- what kinds of agreements do libraries have with software providers now, if any?
- make the cds very intuitive, well-labeled, good supporting documentation - fedora has a lot of good documentation, +/- of liveCD
- will we only make spins for i386? - probably the architecture of most library terminal machines, unless some use older macs - ppc
- how do we distribute without spamming?
- will libraries trust what we send to them?
- will libraries notice it or have time to look at it?
- less to do with the software and more to do with presentation and documentation
- focus on low income areas, rural?
- will CC put on material that covers all the different licenses? or least restrictive? - attribution only
- different libraries have different budgets which allow for a vast range in hardware and training
- The mailing will have a mail back questionaire asking did they install software and other general questions. - rethink this idea due to spamming/response issues? - think about other ways to gather feedback
- what about adding the CDs to library collections? - might be a good way for people to install or use at home, but doesn't align too well with the applications and content becoming obsolete
- accessibility
