I normally try to avoid posting about items that have been discussed elsewhere but I believe this merits a Slaw post. I’m sure many of have seen what follows in other forums (it was brought to my attention by a colleague) but this causes you to think a bit differently and more of that is good on a Monday morning. Okay maybe it isn’t completely different but it takes something you know well and does it differently and makes you wonder about the future of publishing and just what an ebook is or more specifically what an ebook might be. . . . [more]

When evaluating print law-related books for purchase, librarians will consider a number of factors: the author’s expertise, the reliability of the publisher, whether the book is heavily foot-noted, and whether it contains good finding tools, such as a detailed table of contents, table of cases or legislation or an index.

Unfortunately, in the Canadian legal publishing market – which is relatively small – the quality of indexes in print law-related books is variable since most publishers put the onus on the author to create their own index (which makes sense, since the author is the subject expert and knows his . . . [more]

Via The Law Librarian Blog, Sarah Glassmeyer has started LISVendor.info, a wiki to collect and share information on the relations, financial and otherwise, between law librarians and legal publishers.

In light of recent developments, this may be a particularly timely resource. Since those events, Harper Collins has launched an attack on libraries in general with its 26-loan limit, and the response has been swift, including a boycott and a draft eBook Users’ Bill of Rights.

The Canadian Association of Research Libraries produced a report on eBooks in academic libraries in 2008 that identified a range . . . [more]

I see from this week’s Ontario Reports that there is an advertisement from LexisNexis Quicklaw for their new free app in the iTunes store for the iPhone (but it also works on the iPad).

LexisNexis should be applauded for being first to the market in Canada with a case law database app.

However, in testing it just now on my iPad I think in most cases I would simply launch a Quicklaw session on my iPad’s web browser.

The app is fairly simple. I find the iPhone “size” too small but there was a feature, as is common for iPhone . . . [more]

In a previous post, I have outlined a draft Request for Proposal structure (RFP) in relation to courts securing services to develop, deploy and manage a web site designed in accordance with the CCCT IntellAction Working Group Guidelines on Court Web Sites.

In this post, please find our draft evaluation criteria in relation to the RFPs. . . . [more]

The guidelines have the following objectives:

• to enable a common understanding and context of what modern web sites offer and how they are powered (Part I)
• to identify and review issues that are specific to court web sites, as opposed to web sites in general (Part II)
• to develop a principled approach to court web site development (Part III)
• to make specific recommendations on the modernization of court web sites based on modern web site context, court web site issues and selected principles (Part IV)

Part V of the guidelines facilitates adoption of the recommendations in Part IV by providing . . . [more]

This post concludes with the last two draft recommendations of the CCCT IntellAction Working Group on Court Web Site Guidelines:

• Site Features – Keep It Simple
• Publication of information – Make It Simple

The previous draft recommendations can be found here:

• Court Web Site: Use a Web Content Management System
• Court Intranets: Use the same Web Content Management System
• Recommended content of court web sites
• Search, Navigation & Taxonomies – Keep It Simple

Grateful for any comments and suggestions that you may have – merci! . . . [more]

Last Saturday, I shared on Slaw the first two recommendations of the CCCT IntellAction Working Group on Court Web Site Guidelines. In this post, I’m sharing our draft recommendations 3 and 4.

(note: in the next few days, I will share our two remaining recommendations, 5 and 6)

As usual – your comments and suggestions are welcome! Please let us know if you think we are in the right direction… . . . [more]

This posts continues to expose on Slaw the draft Court Web Site Guidelines produced by the CCCT IntellAction Working Group on court web sites. In this post, we present recommendations 1 and 2 contained in Part IV of the guidelines, together with related context information. The context information is taken from Part I of the guidelines.

In short, the CCCT IntellAction Working Group on Court Web Sites recommends to courts using the same Web Content Management System (WCMS) to power their public, internet web sites and to power their internal, intranet web site.

A Web Content Management System is . . . [more]

The administrative control of court web sites can be a sensitive issue, because it often cuts across the independence of the Judiciary and resources of the Executive. In consideration of this issue, we felt that our guidelines had to address the issue. The following text is our draft on topic. . . . [more]

Readers of SLAW will undoubtedly be readers of the Financial Post’s Legal Post.

Word comes today that lawyer/journalist/blogger Jim Middlemiss will retire from his blog posts at Legal Post and his Behind the Bar Columns but will instead continue to write a column for Canadian Lawyer magazine, “stick his toes in the corporate waters” and “maybe one day get that Twitter account figured out, assuming I have something relevant to say in 140 characters” (his words).

Drew Hasselback will continue as Legal Post editor.

Congratulations to both Jim and Drew. I find the Legal Post an excellent source for . . . [more]

The Office of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia recently released a policy statement [PDF] regarding public and media access. A few sections of the policy are directed at using computers and other digital devices to transmit information during proceedings:

e. Computers
Members of the public and the media are permitted to use portable computers in Provincial Court provided that they do not disturb the proceedings or interfere with the operation of the court’s own electronic equipment, and that the computers are used solely for the purpose of note-taking.

f. Cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDA’s)