Thursday, November 18, 2010
Muddiest Point for 11/23
In Special Collections we have a university-developed software program that helps the non-programmer put finding aids and catalog records online. Called the Archivists' Toolkit, the software allows people who aren't familiar with writing EAD code to enter data in to the existing database. I was wondering if many larger institutions develop these types of applications to make it easier for everyone to contribute to online digital records.
Readings for Week of 11/23
The reading for Social Aspects of Digital Libraries is an interesting study because the panel workshop was put together to identify the social conditions that a digital library serves. The group organized their panel and participants by two variables of social needs regarding digital libraries; information needs, and end-user searching and filtering. Three facets of research study were also introduced: human, artifact, and system-centered. The study called for input from several areas and specialists in research development, so to better improve the relationships between each social aspect of a digital library.
The Infinite Library article isn't accessible in its entirety unless you have a subscription. The webpage is dated 2010, but I think the article is outdated, because at the end it notes that Harvard is one of the participants in Google's Print and Book Search project. I happen to remember from my copyright class that Harvard actually dropped out of the project and are now one of the voices concerning potential adverse library affects caused by the project. Nonetheless, the reader should draw from the article that Google's proposed plan both has potentially positive and negative implications for libraries. On the one hand, it would be great to have a portal from which millions of culturally important documents can be retrieved, but if (and when) it does become unnecessary for the information-seeker to visit the library to find relevant material, the library may face even more scrutiny for obsolescence.
Arms' article on differing viewpoints for a digital library provided a different approach to the study of DLs. It included viewpoint analysis, typically reserved for computer software programming, in the development of DLs. The article looks at the DL from three different viewpoints; the user, the organizational, and the technical. From examining these viewpoints, DL developers can account for structural and social aspects that both relate to the quality and usability of the digital library.
The Infinite Library article isn't accessible in its entirety unless you have a subscription. The webpage is dated 2010, but I think the article is outdated, because at the end it notes that Harvard is one of the participants in Google's Print and Book Search project. I happen to remember from my copyright class that Harvard actually dropped out of the project and are now one of the voices concerning potential adverse library affects caused by the project. Nonetheless, the reader should draw from the article that Google's proposed plan both has potentially positive and negative implications for libraries. On the one hand, it would be great to have a portal from which millions of culturally important documents can be retrieved, but if (and when) it does become unnecessary for the information-seeker to visit the library to find relevant material, the library may face even more scrutiny for obsolescence.
Arms' article on differing viewpoints for a digital library provided a different approach to the study of DLs. It included viewpoint analysis, typically reserved for computer software programming, in the development of DLs. The article looks at the DL from three different viewpoints; the user, the organizational, and the technical. From examining these viewpoints, DL developers can account for structural and social aspects that both relate to the quality and usability of the digital library.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Muddiest Point for 11/16
According to Saracevic, DL usability is not well-defined, nor are there specified criteria for evaluating it. I'm assuming this means there are no standards to follow when constructing DLs for usability, so what kind of sources for usability criteria could a person building a DL look to?
Readings for Interaction and Evaluation, 11/16
Unfortunately, the Arms Chapter 8 link would not open, as it seems it no longer exists at Cornell's site.
The Kling and Elliot article on digital library design defines cultural models for interpreting usability in digital libraries. They focus on two forms of DL usability; interface and organizational. It also discusses five models from which DL computer systems are generated, as incorporated by cultural models. There are also four dimensions of DLs that can be used to test interface usability: learnability; efficiency; memorability; and errors. The dimensions to test organizational usability are accessibility, compatibility, integrability in to work practices, and social-organizational expertise.
Saracevic's evaluation of DLs is based from 80 or so previous studies of DL evaluation. The focus was to isolate (or deconstruct) the studies based on their construct, context, criteria, and methods used for study. The author even goes on to group literature on DLs evaluation in two categories; meta (about literature), and object (on literature).
Scheiderman and Plaisant's chapter on interactive system usability emphasizes the importance of making digital objects appear simplistically, which is actually a very complicated process and takes more care than most people acknowledge. Nelson also goes in to some detail about the future of technology, and how the nature of digital information is transitioning to be mobile, such as in mobile apparatuses and the planting of computer chips under people's skin.
The Kling and Elliot article on digital library design defines cultural models for interpreting usability in digital libraries. They focus on two forms of DL usability; interface and organizational. It also discusses five models from which DL computer systems are generated, as incorporated by cultural models. There are also four dimensions of DLs that can be used to test interface usability: learnability; efficiency; memorability; and errors. The dimensions to test organizational usability are accessibility, compatibility, integrability in to work practices, and social-organizational expertise.
Saracevic's evaluation of DLs is based from 80 or so previous studies of DL evaluation. The focus was to isolate (or deconstruct) the studies based on their construct, context, criteria, and methods used for study. The author even goes on to group literature on DLs evaluation in two categories; meta (about literature), and object (on literature).
Scheiderman and Plaisant's chapter on interactive system usability emphasizes the importance of making digital objects appear simplistically, which is actually a very complicated process and takes more care than most people acknowledge. Nelson also goes in to some detail about the future of technology, and how the nature of digital information is transitioning to be mobile, such as in mobile apparatuses and the planting of computer chips under people's skin.
Muddiest Point from 11/9
Do website managers have to send their data from a closing site to archive.org in order for it to be archived, or is the site responsible for knowing which websites are to be closing so they may receive permission to archive?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Readings for Preservation in Digital Libraries, 11/9
Rieger's article on digitization efforts on a mass scale examines four major digital library efforts: Google Book Search; Microsoft; Open Content Alliance; and the Million Book Project. Dated February 2008, this article is a bit outdated since Microsoft has since abandoned their digitization project just a few months after this article was published. Nonetheless, it is still a great examination of some of the implications of digitizing on such a grand scale as these efforts. It analyzes the frameworks in which such a collection should be established, assesses related preservation issues, and provides recommendations for the development of such initiatives.
Hedstrom's article on archiving and preservation of digital libraries identifies problems associated with preserving digital resources. She calls for new preservation technologies that go beyond the reach of traditional preservation methods of research materials. She notes that because digital collections often grow at a rate that makes it difficult to manage and store them, current conceptual models need reexamination.
Brian Lavoie's Open Archival Information System Reference Model serves as a guideline for those interested in preserving and providing access to digitized documents. He defines the archival information system as “an organization of people and systems that has accepted the responsibility to preserve information and make it available for a Designated Community.” The guideline is designed to be an open public forum for individuals to participate and contribute to the initiative.
I will update with the other readings soon.
Hedstrom's article on archiving and preservation of digital libraries identifies problems associated with preserving digital resources. She calls for new preservation technologies that go beyond the reach of traditional preservation methods of research materials. She notes that because digital collections often grow at a rate that makes it difficult to manage and store them, current conceptual models need reexamination.
Brian Lavoie's Open Archival Information System Reference Model serves as a guideline for those interested in preserving and providing access to digitized documents. He defines the archival information system as “an organization of people and systems that has accepted the responsibility to preserve information and make it available for a Designated Community.” The guideline is designed to be an open public forum for individuals to participate and contribute to the initiative.
I will update with the other readings soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)