Two hundred and forty three people registered for the Joint Meeting. Eighty-seven evaluations submitted. Scale: 1-5 with 1=poor and 5=excellent.

Program

Exhibits

1. What did you hope to get from this conference?


In general, most people came to network with colleagues and hoped to gain new ideas, learn more about new technology to keep current with trends, new developments and have professional intellectual stimulation.

Specifically, many people came to learn more about electronic resources-related issues.

Some wanted to learn about the development of Intranet, consumer health resources and services and NLM updates. People also wanted to take this opportunity to meet exhibitors and learn about new products/applications. Two people indicated they wanted to learn more about the NCNMLG group and any issues related to the group.

2. Did you get what you wanted?


48-yes

2-mostly

5-somewhat/partially

3-not really

1-not sure what she wanted

3. If not, why not?


"People do not seem interested in meeting new colleagues, only in becoming reacquainted with old ones."

"I wanted more technical staff, specific information on choosing an automated catalog, or rather should I switch Web catalogs"

"Contributed papers were scheduled concurrently"

"No time to attend all sessions"

"Complexity of the issues"

"Friday was a day when nothing new was presented."

"Focus is on libraries much larger than mine-not relevant to "one-person-library."

4. What was the most useful or interesting part of the conference?


Most votes went to the Symposium on "E-Resources". Contributed papers also received many favorable votes. Networking with colleagues was often mentioned. Several people mentioned that hearing non-librarian speakers was the most interesting part of the meeting.

5. What was the least useful or interesting part of the conference?


About 20% of evaluations indicated both Plenary Address-Yahoo! Session and Lipstick Librarian session were the least useful or interesting part of the meeting. They commented the Yahoo talk was "too basic, irrelevant, unprepared and no content." Some commented on the speaker of the "Lipstick Librarian" session as a "very weak keynote speaker" and "the presentation was not really meaty." Some didn't like the exhibits because "there were not enough", "too crowded and noisy."

6. How could this conference have been improved?


There were so many comments about a need to "enlarge font on the name tags". This is the same comment received last year. Apparently, it hadn't been improved this year. Some recommended "carefully choosing the speakers and having the meeting during the weekdays only". A few indicated "a list of attendees and email room were needed". Some would rather "have conference table/theater seating than round tables to improve the movement of people between the session.".More exhibits and larger space for posters and exhibits were desired. More time for contributed paper was suggested as well. People wanted a better price for hotel and services. "Need time keeper especially for panel discussion and need more time to network."

7. What topics, speakers and CEs would you like to see at future conferences?


Suggested Speakers:

Donald Lindberg, Laura Larssen; Laurie King; inviting clinicians as speakers

Topics:

Alternative medicine

Evidence-based medicine

E-resources

Grant writing/proposal writing

Food poisoning

Intranet

Meta Search engines

Finances for middle managers

Web design/development/trends

Evaluation of resources: what works and what do not

Showing library's value to hospital management

Benchmarking

Basic JavaScript

Authentication

What non-traditional thing librarians do as a part of their traditional library jobs?

How to set up and manage a consortia

Adult learning style and teaching the adult learners

Legal issues-copyright, licensing

OPAC for small libraries

Providing consumer health services, consumer health resources

Business development, negotiating licensing

CE:

Electronic resources management; Web-based instruction; PowerPoint presentation; Excel for budgets & schedules & reports

8. In what cities (in AZ, CA, and NV) would you like to have future joint meetings?


Las Vegas received the most votes (17 votes) followed by Monterey/Carmel (15 votes), Santa Barbara (14 votes), San Francisco (13 votes), Reno (10 votes) and Sacramento (9 votes). Many other cities received fewer than 5 votes.

Below are some general comments on conference site preference:

"Near to airport and expense of hotel is more important than where"

"Cheaper rooms than in San Jose, but nice place, though"

"Anything near a mainstream airport. Don't want to pay premium to fly in to some little place"

9. Other comments.