"It is time to dispense with the all-electronic library as a goal," says Kay M. Todd in a Legal Times article.

A great deal of Todd's argument stems from a recent study of students taking a history class online. The study, Todd reports, found sixty-eight percent of the survey-respondents printed out all the readings for the class. Amongst the reasons given are a cadre of standard reasons including readability, easier means for taking notes and better retention of the material. Personally I don't find issues with any of these reasons. Only recently have I become adept at making notes in electronic materials in a way that is terribly useful. A few small (I hope) forests have given their all for the web and electronic based materials I've committed to the printer. Where the disconnect occurs in Todd's article is that an "all-electronic" library doesn't have to be used only on-screen to make it both valuable and potentially superior to its volume-based predecessor.

One vital omission in Todd's argument is the lack of acknowledgment that there is great value in being able to print materials where and when one needs them. Even if the electronic resources get committed to paper the ability for two different attorneys, in different parts of town or different states, working in the same firm to be able to simultaneously access materials, if only to commit them to atoms, has great value. The need to keep multiple copies and have attorneys travel with bound volumes are costly and unfavorable alternatives.

While arguing that many law firm libraries can be reduced in size and supplemented with electronic resources Todd suggests that all-electronic doesn't work when the materials need deeper consideration. "The electronic library is not an effective delivery mechanism where researchers would benefit from the juxtaposition of sections or when they might want to browse," Todd writes.

The argument goes on to suggest that the inability to browse through electronic resources and to look at the table of contents and go to a section are big downsides of electronic resources. More than indictments of electronic research it speaks more to the types of materials being used. There are plenty of electronic resources, in the legal community and elsewhere, that have just these functions. What is necessary is a well-versed librarian who can help the patrons of the library get information in the way they need. Increasingly this is electronically and as there are more digital natives in the ranks of colleges and the workforce the once preference for print will fade. Even the digital immigrant that I am I find I now exclusively use on-screen resources to a much greater extent when once upon a time I printed nearly everything. Rather than dispensing with the goal of an all-electronic library we need to focus on the needs of users in an ever more electronic, connected world and workforce and make it easier for everyone to be successful in the information age.