Wk 12: No Muddiest Points

Wk 12 Readings

Social Issues

Many of the DL social issues identified in this week's readings were also revealed in readings about usability and searchability.  This week's readings present information that show who these two components (usability and social) converge as a common theme in refining digital libraries.

The overarching issues seems to be the difference between an organization, where DLs are specific and not global, and user-centered where DLs are global and are able to capture a wide swath of information for any user.

From a research workshop that identifies crucial social aspects of DLs, to David Rush's observations of Google's book scanning project, and finally a Viewpoints Analysis show that a significant goal for DLs refinement making credible information as accessible and easy to find as possible.

1. Workshop (SOCIAL ASPECTS OF DIGITAL LIBRARIES)

• this study focused on three aspects of "center":  Human, artifact, and systems.
• The core premise of the workshop was that digital libraries represent a set of significant social problems that require human and technological resources to solve. 
• The workshop was summarized as follows: (1) Information Needs: Identifying real information needs and developing digital libraries to meet those needs; and (2) End User Searching And Filtering: Designing digital libraries in which it is possible to find the right information in a glut of information. 

2. The Infinite Library by Wade Rush.

The problem is that with so much accessibility and copyright concern, libraries may actually lose the ability to distribute works of writing.

• Copyright issues could hamper libraries abilities to freely distribute material.  “just as portable and priracy prone as digital music".
• Libraries could flourish or suffer from the results of Google's digitization project.
• Downside of digitizing:  it is sometimes more costly to digitize a book than leave it on the shelf.
• Future of libraries:  Regardless of what happens with Google digitization, libraries should always be "comfortable places for thinking".

Note:  the last bullet shows how the human or social component of traditional libraries and DLs is so important to the survival of both.

          

3. A Viewpoint Analysis of the Digital Library

• Organization viewpoint (LOC is at the center) and many separate digial libraries vs.
• User Viewpoint (User's workspace is at the center).

To accommodate the user, it seems that a shift needs to take place.  "in turning a plethora of digital libraries into a single digital library from the users' viewpoint".

This articlThis is a great example that shows how a system of many separate DLs are not necessarily compatible with users.  The existence of separate DLs is also a concern for usability and searchability, so it seems that a logical goal is to move toward construction of central DLs for increased community gains and usability.

Wk 11 Muddiest Points

Low presense of evaluation in DL research and practice:

If evaluation is not increasing, and perhaps even stagnating, is this a symptom of lack of interest in DLs, or just lack of focus on DLs because they are so variable?  

Wk 11 Readings

DL Usability

I found the readings this week very interesting and telling.  On the surface it seems like the complexity and variability of DLs would create a very difficult platform on which to develop standards of usability, and this peripheral observation is supported in the readings: Designing User Interfaces, Evaluation of Digital Libraries, and Digital Library Design for Usability.

In Designing User Interfaces, Sheiderman and Plaisant introduce us to the nuances and challenges of designing effective user interfaces but they also expound on the importance of good user interfaces that are adaptable to the most challenging situations ("small to mall sized displays") and user needs (large print, brightness control, audio...) and how these interfaces, when designed effectively, can have profound effects on how an entire community engages with information.  This reading reminded me how vast the world of user interfaces is from life-and-death functions (air-traffic control) to basic home usages.   This concept provides some foreshadowing to concerning challenges in evaluating and standardizing DL usability.     

Sheiderman and Plaisant presented three goals for designers of good interfaces:   "1) Influencing academic and industrial researchers; 2) providing tools, techniques , and knowledge for commercial developers; 3) raising the computer consciousness for the general public" (37).  Though logical, the next two readings explain why focus and standardization of DL usability is so difficult.  Saracevic's Evaluation of Digital Libraries is a  summation of the reasons behind the dearth of DL evaluation.  Saracevic explains that "DLs are complex social, institution, and technical systems.  no evaluation can possibly address all of these aspects together" (4), and [...evaluators have chosen their own evaluation criteria as they went along... and results are not consistent] (5).  This is disconcerting but understandable.  Without uniform criteria, usability standards would be difficult to establish.  It sounds like the take-off of DLs in so many different directions has created a situation that is actually getting further out of reach as Saracevic concludes that neither DL evaluations nor importance placed on them are increasing (9).

In Digital Library Design for Usability, Kling and Elliot, by way of examining user needs with regard to specific DL uses, give some prime examples of why establishing usability standards is so difficult.  Although "the time is ripe for DL designers to appreciate the importance of 'design for organizational usablity'", the  myriad cultures and user types described in this reading make it apparent that usability standardization of DLs faces formidable obstacles in the evaluative and standardization process.  Not only do the wide array of user objectives, user types, and levels of seriousness (research vs. other usages) come into play, but funding, awareness, political factors are also issues that surround the topic of DL usability and standardizatin.

Will a central DL theme every be realized?  I was somewhat comforted by readings in the past that expounded upon standardization committees for OA-PMI, however, when it comes to DL usability it seems like DLs are running away from us, each in their own direction.  My concern is that if usability is not standardized, will individual DLs be able to survive.  If evaluation is not increasing, and in fact stagnating, is this a symptom of lack of interest?    

Wk 10: Muddiest Points

Since there are so many challenges to efforts to preserve digital materials (cost, maintenance, labor demands, technology demands), especially for long-term preservation needs, what is the future of digital archiving? i.e. do you think organizations and institutions will begin to abandon the idea of digital preservation due to daunting costs and challenges, or this the future for digital archiving healthy?

Wk 10 Readings

Challenges of Digital Preservation

  I plan to take Digital Preservation next term, and these readings have just answered a nagging questions I have had about how the topic of Digital Preservation could fill an entire term.  It turns out that digital preservation is much more difficult and tenuous than I imagined.

Begin with Technology Watch Report (2004):  in which Brian F. Lavoie takes us through the creation of formal standards for long-term storage of digital data.  Beginning with CCSDS's project for digital data generated from space missions, and ending with the impressive, but still rather tenuous Open Archival Information System (OAIS ) standard.  Note the six OAIS criteria on page 3.  On page 16 of the Technology Watch Report, Lavoie points out that the meaning of OAIS-compliant is "necessarily vague, but that "rigorous interpretation of OAIS compliance will likely emerge...  In further readings, the looming problems of cost and human labor associated with digital preservation are keeping this topic on shaky ground.

In Research Challengs in Digital Archiving and Long-term Preservation, Margaret Hedstrom points out that "digital collections are vast, heterogeneous, and growing at a rate that outpaces our ability to manage and preserve them " (1)   and that "digital objects require constant maintenance and elaborate life-support systems to remain viable" (2). Security against attacks and system failures pose further challenges to manage.  As Lavoie and Hedstrom both point out, "there are no formal economic or business models for digital preservation activities" (2).  On this issue of cost, in order to move forward in the world of digital preservation, Hedstrom explains that  "there is a critical need to develop tools that automatically supply core metadata, extract metadat from resources at ingest, and restructure and manage metadata over time" (3).   On one hand, the field of digital preservation seems almost too daunting; however, the silver lining could be in the obvious need for many jobs in this area as long as organizations can afford to pursue the goal of preservation this type of material.

In Actualized Preservation Threats: Practical Lessons from Chronicling America, Justin Littman gives a great account of some major challenges in digitization projects, as he identifies four preservation threats encountered on the NDNP project digitizing historically significant newspapers.  These four categories are: media failure, hardware failure, software failures, and most of all - operator errors, which stands to reason. As Littman points out, hopefully we can all learn from these studies and work toward creating more stable digitization environments.






   

Wk 9: Muddiest Points

I have no muddiest points this week.