A Post! On links of archival interest

Posted on March 27, 2011 by admin

Hi all, been a busy week but things are finally easing up and I’m looking at at least 2 hours of free time, hip hip! First off, thanks for visiting, I’m glad that you’re here! Second, we’re off and running with a few trackbacks I’ve been meaning to get to for a while:

Cairns Blog has been active of late. Beth Noveck is a D.C. policy wonk. Reading her recent posts, this is so utterly and completely clear. Other policy wonks, you will appreciate her words, check her out, she’s talking to you! For some context, she posted re. NARA’s open government R&D conference on March 21st, and though I think she’s a little into archives, she’s a lot more into open government. This bird’s eye view of policy is interesting and I offer up her top ten list of doing great things (aka making information open):

    1. Go Open – Government should work in the open. Its contracts, grants, legislation, regulation and policies should be transparent. Openness gives people the information they need to know how their democracy works and to participate.2. Open Gov Includes Open Access – Work created by and at the behest of the taxpayer whether through grants or contracts should be freely available. After the public has paid once, it shouldn’t have to pay again. 

    3. Make Open Gov Productive Not Adversarial – Given the time-consuming nature of responding to information requests today, Government should invest its human and financial capital in providing the data that people really want and will use. …

    4. Be Collaborative – It isn’t enough just to be transparent; officials need to take the next step of actively soliciting engagement from those with the incentives and expertise to help. Legislation and regulatory rulemaking should be open to public as early as possible in the process to afford people an opportunity – not simply to comment — but to submit constructive alternative proposals. Legislation should also mandate that agencies undertake public engagement during implementation.

    5. Love Data – Design policies informed by real-time data. With data, we can measure performance, figure out what’s working, and change what’s not. Publishing the data generated in connection with new policies as well as “crowdsourcing” data gathered by those outside government enables innovation in policymaking. As an added bonus, open data also has the potential to create economic opportunity. …

    6. Be Nimble – Where possible, invite innovations that can be implemented in 90 days or less. Forcing organizations to act more quickly discourages bureaucracy and encourages creative brainstorming and innovation. The need for speed encourages a willingness to reach out to others, including across the public sector.

    7. Do More, Spend Less – Design solutions that do more with less. Instead of cutting a service to save money, ask if there is another way such as a prize or challenge to address people’s problems that both serves their needs and cuts costs. In this era of scientific and technological advances, we have amazing new ways of addressing problems if we can only recognize and implement them. Innovation may ultimately bring the win-win of more cost-effectiveness and greater engagement.

    8. Invest in Platforms – So long as Freedom of Information, declassification and records management processes are entirely manual and data is created in analog instead of digital formats, open government will be very hard. Further, without tools to engage the public in brainstorming, drafting, policy reviews, and the other activities of government, collaboration will elude us. Focus on going forward practices of creating raw data and real engagement.

    9. Invest in People – Changing the culture of government will not happen through statements of policy alone. It is important to ensure that policy empowers people to seek democratic alternatives and pursue open innovation. Consider appointing Chief Innovation Officers, Chief Democracy Officers, Chief Technology Officers.

    10. Design for Democracy – Always ask if the legislation enables active and constructive engagement that uses people’s abilities and enthusiasm for the collective good. It is not enough to simply “throw” Facebook or Twitter at a problem. A process must be designed to complement the tool that ensures meaningful and manageable participation for both officials and the public.

My only critique here is that I need more data to support some of these concepts, which isn’t easy since she’s presenting new, transformative ways to view the integration of technology, data, and public access. (Noveck does include one NOAA case study, but I clipped it for efficacy, and mention it now so that you’ll check out the blog yourself).

I just know that when somebody tells me they have a new and better way of doing something, my interior self can get all curmudgeonly and old and roll its interior eyes … until that person gives me the case study and I see concept in action = brilliant and must be implemented ASAP, why the hell are we wasting time and breath talking? The conversation is over, you’ve convinced me! But I need the case study to get there. Yup, I’m getting old, but I’ll change on a dime when the evidence is clear!

Second up: Archives Hub Blog.  This is an awesome offshoot of Archives Hub, a searchable consortium of over 200 UK archives. What I love about AHB? Real world archivists posting about real archives issues in a real way.

Some cuts from recent posts:

    “David Flanders’ post-lunch plenary provided absolutely my favourite moment of the day: David said ‘Technology will fail if not supported by the users’… and then, with perfect timing, the projector turned off. One of David’s key points was that ‘you are not your users’. You can’t be both expert and user, and you will never know exactly how what users want from your systems, and how they will use them unless you actually ask them! Get users involved in your projects and bids, and you’re likely to be much more successful.

    Alexandra Eveleigh spoke in track B about ‘crowds and communities: user participation in the archives’. I especially liked her distinction between ‘crowds’ and ‘communities’ – crowds are likely to be larger, and quickly dip in and out, while communities are likely to be smaller overall, but dedicate more time and effort. She also pointed out that getting users involved isn’t a new thing – there’s always been a place in archives for those pursuing ’serious leisure’, and bringing their own specialist knowledge and experience. A point Alexandra made that I found particularly interesting was that of being fair to your users – don’t ask them to participate and help you, if you’re not going to listen to their opinions!
    …
    And I now have a new mantra, learned from one of Teresa’s old managers back in the early 90s:
    ‘We may not have a database now, but if we have structured data then one day we will have a database to put it in!’
    I don’t think I’ve ever heard a better definition of the interoperability mindset.” –Bethan on the UK Archives Discovery Forum

    “‘According to a recent report from mobile manufacturer Ericsson, studies show that by 2015, 80% of people accessing the Internet will be doing so from mobile devices.’
    …
    The main issue around using these kinds of tools is going to be the lack of skills and resources. But we may still have a conflict of opinions over whether virtual reality really has a place in ’serious research’. Does it trivialize archives and research? Or does it provide one means to engage younger potential users of archives in a way that is dynamic and entertaining? I think that it is a very positive thing if used appropriately.
    …
    These technologies offer new ways of learning, but they also suggest that our whole approach to learning is changing. As archivists, we need to think about how this might impact upon us and how we can use it to our advantage. Archives are all about society, identity and story. Surely, therefore, these technologies should give us opportunities to show just how much they are a part of our life experiences.” — Jane on the Horizon Report

    “To use another increasingly pervasive term, I want to make the data that we have ‘work harder’. For me, catalogs that are available within repositories are just the beginning of the process. That’s fine if you have researchers who know that they are interested in your particular collections. But we need to think much more broadly about our potential global market: all the people out there who don’t know they are interested in archives – some, even, who don’t really know what archives are. To reach them, we have to think beyond individual repositories and we have to see things from the perspective of the researcher. How can we integrate our descriptions into the ‘global information environment’ in a much more effective way. ” — Jane on resource discovery

I won’t even clip from Jane’s post on Digital Curation, just suggest that you’ll find it really well worth the visit. (Yes, visit already!). Okay, wait, I take that back, here’s one:

    “Chris warned that the most elegant technical solution is no good if it is not sustainable; digital preservation has to be a sustainable economic activity. Today the focus is on the economic and organizational problems. It is not just about money; it requires building upon a value proposition, providing incentives to act and defining roles and responsibilities. 

    Digital preservation represents a derived demand. No one ‘wants’ preservation per se; what they want is access to a resource. It is not easy to sell a derived demand – often it needs to be sold on some other basis. This idea of selling the importance of providing use (over time) rather than trying to sell the idea of preservation was emphasized throughout the Forum.”

I’m going to want to quote the entire post, so I’m putting on the brakes, firmly. My only caveat with digital preservation: I don’t think it’s cheap, especially in the long term, but it certainly provides access to many, many more users.

My only issue with Archives Hub? I’d love more frequent posts, but balancing frequency of posts vs. content? Again, no contest, content trumps words any day of the week.

Last up, Archives Outside, an Australian archivists’ (and all archivists’) haven for news and bits of interest to the genus archivista. In addition to their running blogroll, they’ve set up a great archives of their posts that includes introductory topics (Archives Made Easy) and tips and tricks (Preservation). A lot of informative information and frequently updated!

I’ve just recently come across some glass negatives myself, and their article on rehousing glass plate negatives is just what I was subconsciously hoping to find, made conscious upon discovery. Okay, over and out, have a great week!

Posted in Trackback | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

NARA update

Posted on March 20, 2011 by admin


So I’ve been seeing a lot of National Archives in the news lately and thought I’d start/end the weekend with an update on various happenings in their world.

As Barbie Keiser succinctly reports, they’ve finally put the breaks on their Electronic Records Archives initiative, moving it to operations and maintenance rather than on-going development, and have pruned down the services and staff of the Archives Library and Information Center. (Side note, you can really find quite a lot on the Internet these days…)

You wouldn’t know it to look at NARA’s website, but the release of the Congressional report, Electronic Government: National Archives and Records Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan (GAO 11-299) and Congress’ proposed 2012 budget is putting the squeeze on. The Archivist of the United States has addressed this point on his blog. And as their new five year plan outlines, change is coming.

Almost every time I see a piece on NARA, it’s about the ERA, and coverage hasn’t been particularly positive. According to the GAO and to the various reporting on the program, it’s been a huge money sucking black hole with budget overruns and an opaque (non-existant?) tracking of program functionality and deliverables. The seed for this project was planted in 2001, and it was to completed in 2008. After budgeting an additional 86 million to finish the project this year, someone on high got the memo and the program subsequently got the ax. According to Federal Computer Week:

    The report is the latest in a series of critical assessments of the 10-year-old program. NARA awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin in 2005 to provide a permanent archive for digitized official records, with initial operating capability achieved in December 2008. The ERA project was originally projected to cost about $500 million, but GAO said recently the cost could rise as high as $1.4 billion.

But! It’s not all doom and gloom with NARA! As my recent post on archives site redesign covered, their new website is absolutely amazing. It even makes the suspension/transfer of these programs seem less necessary, as their web presence feels so much more trustworthy. To add to that, I would like to point to another awesome initiative, the National Archives Experience. Interestingly enough, I found this link through one of those government conspiracy sites–I have to say, that’s one active group of users. (Active archival user groups–another thing to keep track of?)

But back to the point. The NAE Digital Vaults has apparently been around since 2008, and is designed to bring the public into the archives and allow them to interact with original source material in an engaging way. It’s easy, fun, and accessible, and I think it’s a huge success as a learning tool and as a point of entry into info web browsing. You don’t know what you’re going to find, but whatever you do find is going to be rewarding. I think the only thing I couldn’t quite figure out to do, if it’s indeed possible, is print out all of the documents I’ve chosen for ‘My Collection’ at one go. 2008. Wow. Learn something new every day. Comments and thoughts welcome!

Posted in Digits, In the archives, Updates | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

audio update, This American Life

Posted on March 17, 2011 by admin

Hi all! Today, just a quick post for those processing archivists out there who rely on audio to get through your day! As I’ve posted in the past, I’m a complete fan of This American Life and have amassed some opinions about the recent trend of their shows.

Has anyone else noticed the extreme excellence of their two most recent episodes, Oh You Shouldn’t Have and Will They Know Me Back Home? To wit: yes.  These are two brilliantly framed, emotionally resonant, deeply moving shows. I cannot stress the importance of editing, framing, and story selection: every second is focused on reaching out and taking hold of your heart, checking to make sure it’s beating by giving it a strong goose with two gentle fists. Yes, you are alive. Just like the people in these stories. Check them out, you’ll reconnect with TAL and understand why public radio is relevant and why oral history programs are all the rage. (Last note, best reminders of classic TAL: OYSH story 1 and 3, WTKMBH story 2, with extra emphasis on the latter.)

And Nancy Updike? Thank you for your guest hosting! Maybe this is the new change? More guest hosts! Or is it, more Nancy Updike?!

Posted in Updates | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Site design for information goliaths

Posted on March 14, 2011 by admin

Hi all! About a week and a half ago, I put up a post on the relatively recent LC homepage redesign. It was an easy night’s work, but I was also really interested in your thoughts on LC’s new portal. Along those lines, I’m deeply curious to know your thoughts re. the home pages of our other national information goliaths, the Smithsonian and the National Archives. The following thoughts are based on a cursory navigation, but I think they’re valid observations. Comments, of course, welcome!

Thoughts: I agree with the idea of web design simplicity (here’s a great article by Paul Boag), but I’m always wondering if it’s applicable to institutions that have the equivalent of 10-20 mini-institutions worth of information to share. Up to now, the three examples in today’s post have, in my opinion, done a decent job, but with time comes room for improvement, no? More importantly, since the three examples I’ve brought up have all recently undergone redesigns, they’re excellent candidates for the classic comparison/contrast.

When I saw LC’s new homepage, to be honest, I felt the peas were being pushed around on the plate. Just as in their previous design, there are too many different choices to make. While some are given priority over others (using placement, graphic images, typography, etc.), I’m still not sure where to rest my eyes or where I’m supposed to click to find the information that I really want. I count 9 main points of entry, and over 100 collective sublinks on the homepage. I don’t mean to be overly critical, but that’s too much for my human brain to absorb. When I’m on the site, I focus in on the number one thing I absolutely need to find in order to move forward and simply ignore everything else. I don’t have the time or mental energy to sort through all of the available choices. It’s frustrating because I feel like I’m missing a lot of great content–how is it that extra information obscures my options rather than enlightens them? And one last note, in my < 5 minute tour, I didn't see very many changes beyond the top layer--it's still a maze underneath too.

This critique may come off as a bit harsh, and let me be clear, I'm not bashing LC. It is crazy challenging to figure out how to present what amounts to 20 individual reading rooms (essentially 20 individual institutions), digitized materials, researcher info, tourist info, copyright info, publishing info, national library standards, podcasts, blogs, projects, events, etc. etc. etc. But for the sake of this post, I think an honest review is helpful.

The Smithsonian used to do very similar things to me when I visited their site. It was a maze and I duly compiled a set of mouse-finding-cheese memorized pathways to information. Courtesy of the Wayback Machine, here's a shot of what their site looked like in September 2010 (as of today, the most recently available capture). As you can see, they've got their fair number of choices too:

Now, they’ve simplified their site substantially. In addition to some nice splashy images, they’ve combined two top navigation bars and typographically subdivided them into three groups for a collective total of 18 choices. Once you drill down into the hierarchy, you still get presented with the choices issue, but the design isn’t so busy that energy is spent blocking out information in an attempt hunt down Waldo. I still feel there’s too many choices, but it’s a definite improvement:

Last but not least, the National Archives. There is a lot of churning going on re. NARA–they’re certainly getting their share of press of late, and not all of it positive. But their new redesign? Only hosannas. Compared to what they used to give users, it’s 160 degrees amazing, beautiful to look at, and navigate. Unfortunately, I can’t locate a good screen shot of their previous design, but suffice to say I employed the same LC block and focus strategy during visits.

This new design completely refutes the false belief that institutions with massive amounts of information need to be a bear to navigate through. On the new site, researchers know that NARA offers up 5 important things, and, oh yes, some links to other stuff down on the bottom. There’s uniformity and simplicity on every page (each of the 5 important things are reinforced throughout the site), and there’s a real sense of trying to help novice users find what they want. They’ve put up the process behind their redesign, and it’s all fascinating stuff. So much so that I’m looking forward to revisiting the info and absorbing the lessons learned, because the lessons they learned and applied are, in my opinion, critical to helping us do the job our users want us to do.

Note: Fictionalized archivists–caught three glimpses this weekend. First, the man in charge of the Hall of Records in Chinatown. He’s such a jerk that Jack Nicholson is completely absolved (implied) from stealing a page from the land record books. Second, the book Another Kind of Monday. I mention it only because librarians and research play a role; there’s another records jerk, but more than a few helpful librarian saints show up. Finally, you could say the entire conceit of the Adjustment Bureau revolves around records. A few scenes of the reading room and the records are scattered throughout. Take home: record keepers aren’t anywhere near as cool as Harry, or even Richardson. Guess we need to loosen up our ties too (but don’t we already do that?).

Posted in About us, Digits, Updates | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

In the archives: Hungary, Ireland, and Georgia Tech

Posted on March 9, 2011 by admin

Hi gents and ladies!

First, I’ve got a link to the Hungarian national archives situation. From this recent AP article by Pablo Gorondi, the government, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, is looking to open up its Communist era archives up to people who were kept under surveillance. Under the plan, they’ll be allowed to do whatever they want with those documents related to them.  And how does this compare to current practice?

    … laws already provide spied-upon individuals protection while still leaving files intact.
    “All victims have the right to ask the state security archives to classify any files relating to them for 90 years,” Kenedi said.
    “But anyone who cuts out pages from the original files with a razor denies others the right to access their own history.”
    Also, personal information in the files, such as someone’s religion or sexual orientation, is not available even to researchers.

So, this is a move to loosen the screws of the historical scrapbook and allow the winds of fate to swoop down and do as chance would have done. Reaction from archivists, including our own SAA? Thanks to historian Christopher Adam, who has put together this timely resource, we know it’s one of alarm.

Thoughts: Archives are happy places, topics for intriguing and thought provoking blog posts, the source material out of which all gold nuggets (or gold flakes) are panned from. But that’s just one side of the coin. Here’s the other side–the side where documented evidence and knowledge has infinite potential and power. I keep on coming back to this idea, but it’s true–if evidence is hidden or destroyed, it’s as if an event never happened. It’s the power of the sting vs. hearsay. And it’s evidence in the first degree that the power of an intact archive is immeasurable, our responsibilities are real. Right now, it sounds as if the Hungarian archives are in good hands, they’ve got highly professional practices in place that both protect personal privacy and preserve documents for posterity. If the truth isn’t available now, there is the promise they one day will be.

So what happens when you break an archives up? Anyone can come up with a research topic–and if the researcher can’t find supporting documentation, she/he moves forward from there. But what happens when documents are missing? Doubt. The idea of moving forward in the face of such preventable doubt is painful. If the Orban government is trying to do right by these formerly surveilled citizens, they’re going about it the wrong way. And what’s particularly painful? Knowing that they’re doing right by them now.

Second, to go along with the international theme, the Irish Archives Resource is now available for searching.

Just a few thoughts: cross-archival collection information in one location! That search box is kind of misleading though, especially when you read their search advice: “To view the entire contents of the online database simply click the ‘Search Archive’ button at the bottom of the screen without entering any search criteria.” (eek!) But that’s just a corner of the eye kind of notice. Bottom line, this is something to build on and a great start!

Third, a peek at the George Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech’s) archives. According to Technique (The South’s Liveliest College Newspaper!), GT’s archive is full of crazy fun stuff:

    Sitting in an ordinary grey box underneath the library is a 324-year old book written by Isaac Newton that introduces for the first time in history his famous theory of gravity: The Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

    The collection was actually begun by Irving Bud Foote, Tech’s first science-fiction scholar and a former LCC professor. Foote donated his personal library, containing first edition works by H.G. Wells, Isaac Asimov and Jules Verne…

    Far from entertainment and fiction, the archives hold immeasurable resources for research on any topic. Locked away in a hermetically sealed room closed to the public is Tech’s rare book collection. The moisture and temperature are strictly controlled to ensure the longevity of prized historical possessions. Among the influential literary works stored there are Rene Descartes’ Philosophica published in 1656, Gottfried Leibniz’s Combinatoria from 1690 and Blaise Pascal’s treatise on his triangle theorem from 1665…

    Conservation is not the only reason to keep these books behind closed doors. Newton’s Principia is valued at approximately $285,000. The most expensive item in the archives is a small collection of nine atlases from 1664, which is collectively valued at a total of $400,000. These atlases actually only contain pictures of bridges, but their age and condition have increased their value almost 1000 times…

    Aside from books, the archives hold old RAT caps, footballs, letters, pins and even a ceremonial British sword. At the bottom of one shelf, sitting plainly in a box, is a vase created in Picasso’s studio. Two Oscars won by a Y. Frank Freeman are in another box in the same room. The 1996 Olympic Torch from the Atlanta games is also located here.

Thoughts: Like I said at the start, lots of crazy fun stuff. Though it’s a shame none of this is really highlighted in their homepage…

Last but not least, did you know current Smithsonian secretary Gerald Wayne Clough was formerly GT’s university President?

Posted in In the archives | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Weekend update + Gmail update

Posted on March 6, 2011 by admin

Hi folks! Though we’re coming to the edge of Monday, both of my feet are still firmly planted in the weekend (hip hip hooray! and yet, sigh, the end is near). As this is a new venture, I’m slowly feeling out the posting schedule.  I have to say, these past few days of R&R have been wonderfully refreshing. So much so, I’m thinking it’s a pretty pattern to officially adopt. I’m getting a huge kick out of writing, but I think slow and steady is a winning strategy, no? With that being said, today’s topic is the ballyhooed story of the lost Gmail emails!

Yes, yes, I know you’ve read this story a million times. Or at least a few different times. For those who haven’t, here’s a brief excerpt from PC Magazine:

    Late Sunday, some Gmail users logged into their accounts to find their e-mails, folders, and other documents gone. Google said later that a software bug caused the deletions. E-mails were not lost, however, and Google was able to find them, though it took longer for some since Google had to retrieve them from offline tapes.
    …
    In January, Hotmail users experienced a similar phenomenon, when about 17,000 users logged on to find all their e-mails and folders deleted. Microsoft’s Mike Schackwitz said at the time there was an error in a script that was supposed to delete dummy accounts that Microsoft uses for testing purposes. Unfortunately, that error also removed real user accounts; they were later restored.

Some thoughts from last Sunday and throughout the week: Is this one of the primary arguments against having Google (or any other tech mega corp) take over the work of archives, and especially public archives? I think it’s absurd to ignore the tools and applications of Web 2.0–clearly, this is where the future is, it’s how we’re going to engage the public. Used properly, it’s an out of the box solution to getting the word out about the gems in our collections.

But! I’m still really torn about where to place certain public/private initiatives like the Google Books scanning project. Theoretically, Google can just as easily scan archival collections as they have library books, right? So can’t they theoretically go into any archives and willy-nilly scan everything in sight and let the public sort it out? That’s certainly one way of doing things. And you know what? My gut reaction is an emphatic no! But I’m trying to pay a little more attention to my logic side these days, and I think that there’s no logical argument against them doing this very thing–for copyright free documents or new collections that donors agree to have scanned. Even still, there’s plenty of arguments over Google Books.

In these two instances, if a worst case ‘lost emails’ situation happens, it doesn’t seem as dire because these documents are meant to be in the public domain with access front, center, and not a problem. I see these types of materials as akin to copyright free books–ownership and value are removed, so Google is providing a public service. If mistakes happen, they happen, but I don’t suspect nefarious dealings. But for documents that do retain their value–a part of me is very wary of trusting a corporate entity, any corporate entity, with stewardship over public documents.

Our bottom lines, our mandates for doing business, can meet in a classic Venn diagram, but we’ve got different priorities. I suppose I’m a little hung up on the ethics of handing over documents that fall in the copyright gap–items that we’re custodians over. Handing these things over seems to imply the baby with the bathwater, so much for custodianship. Losing control of the archives, that’s a whole other topic. For now, very curious to hear your thoughts and comments!

Side note: If you haven’t backed up your Gmail account, check out this article from Tech.Blorge with links to apps, tools, and instructions on how to set up your POP/IMAP settings. Other options, especially if you’re not a Gmail user? Check out this article from the Atlantic Monthly:

    The simplest option is to open a second account on another (free) e-mail service and set up your first account so that a copy of all incoming messages are forwarded to the new address. Similarly convenient is the pay-for-protection route. It can get costly depending on how much storage you need, but paying for a service like BackupMyMail will allow you to sleep soundly knowing that your messages will be waiting for you in the morning.
    If you’d prefer to keep a copy of your inbox on your harddrive or have searchable messages, consider using a desktop IMAP e-mail client like Mozilla’s (free) Thunderbird or Microsoft Outlook. Fetchmail is another popular (free) Unix-based service that, with a few lines of code, will back up your Gmail every night. Lifehacker’s Gina Trapani wrote a step-by-step guide to implementing Fetchmail back in 2007 that is more relevant today than ever before.
Posted in Digits, Personal archives, Projects | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Library of Congress, new homepage!

Posted on March 3, 2011 by admin

Hi there fellow trav’lrs!  Today, just a short post on the new Library of Congress homepage! Ok, ok, it’s actually been up since Jan. 10th, 2011. I’m a little late to the news, but it’s still news if it’s new, right? I’m massively curious, what do you think of it? Comments welcome!

New site:

Old site, courtesy of the Way Back Machine:

Posted in In the archives, In the library | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

WordPress theme, next generation for basic library and archival materials?

Posted on March 2, 2011 by admin

Hi all, sorry for the late post. Yesterday was a combination of cumulative sleep deprivation and The Karate Kid. I agree wholeheartedly, how could I allow myself to be suckered by this film?? Two words, Jackie Chan. I love that guy, he’s a genuine master of his form, and he always seems to play some part of himself as much as any role.

But to the point! Last week, Open Source Living posted a critique on WooThemes’ recently developed Bookclub theme. To summarize, the folks at OSL are huge WordPress fans and noticed that WooThemes has developed what they consider to be the next generation of WP themes. So what’s so special about Bookclub?

To quote:

    BookClub is a “child theme” for the WooThemes Listings framework. The difference between the two is straight forward. Listings contains the code base and handles the core WordPress functions and BookClub plugs into that functionality and arranges the layout and style of the content. Together, this duo makes use of Woo’s new content building features: custom fields, post types and taxonomies.

In archives speak, WooThemes has essentially developed a WordPress framework for capturing uniform metadata (author, title, date, etc.), the kind of information we’ve been wrassling with since time immemorial, and they’ve combined it with the kinds of metadata that we’re just starting to wrassle with (digital media data types and digital objects). They do this through the development of what they call custom fields, custom post types, and custom taxonomies. From what I can gather:

Custom taxonomies = uniform metadata (author, title, date, etc.)
Custom fields = digital media data types (text, a/v files, comment boxes, etc.)
Custom post types = digital objects (the object that’s described, in this case, books)

Back to OSL:

    Custom fields arrange data that you want to include in a post; elements such as an author profile, a url, a google map, a date, a range of dates etc. Each field is associated with a data function type (text, video, map, selection box, content upload etc.) and once configured, the custom fields are easily inserted into posts via the WordPress post composition screen.
    Custom post types are an inventive way of coordinating content related to a theme. Whereas in a standard WordPress installation the user has the option to compose content via the “add post” or “add page” options, BookClub post types create new composition menus devoted to your chosen theme. By default, BookClub displays a side menu related to “books”, but it could be any type of data grouping such as paintings, recipes, companies, animals, plants and so on.
    Custom taxonomies tie into the custom post types. They are a combination of tags and categories related to the chosen theme. By default there are three custom taxonomies assigned to the books post type: authors, genres, publishers. These can be altered and more taxonomies can be assigned if necessary. We will see later on how these custom taxonomies are used to organize and filter content on the front end of the theme.


OSL astutely notes that BookClub’s hat trick = creating a framework for uniformly capturing an object type (books), that allows users to attach both metadata (title, author, etc.) and other related digital content (photos, audio clips, etc.) to the source object (book). Once the framework is filled with content, it becomes about ten thousand times more searchable–again, something we’ve known since card catalog days, but still. I, for one, never get tired of that old dog. Now, OSL then goes on to wildly speculate that this can be used by any number of archives.

Though I personally think that’s a little premature, I do think BookClub is great for describing and presenting/packaging certain data objects. Books, CDs, other small, single-item groups that have uniform descriptors, absolutely. What BookClub can’t yet do is handle hierarchical relationships that allow for the categorization of whole groups of intellectual content. It’ll be extraordinarily interesting to see what will become possible if hierarchical content relationships between multiformat objects can be captured.

In the analog world, we’re completely married to our series, sub-series, sub-sub-series, and god help us, our sub-sub-sub-series because we’re dealing with physical objects in physical folders and boxes. What permutations and changes to our conceptualization of archival content organization will be available in a completely digital world? Now I think that’s a genuine next generation idea.

Note #1: A few days ago, I mentioned Open Library’s new ebook lending project. Well, I followed up on my own call to action and opened an account with them after reading librarian.net’s post/critique.

To quote her tango with the search process:

    – Search Open Library for ebooks
    - Find one with a “borrow” icon next to it. OL also offers DAISY format for people who are visually impaired as well as many books that can be read locally.
    - Get redirected to a search on OverDrive’s site saying “nothing available.” Redo search on OverDrive’s site to find this title available.
    - Click WorldCat’s “find in a library” option and type in my zipcode
    - Figure out that book is or is not available from my local library. Start again.
    - When I find a book that is available, click through to my local library catalog & click “add to cart” to return to OverDrive (if book is available, which it sometimes isn’t)
    - Take side trip to download Adobe Digital Editions (much less painful than previous OverDrive software experience)
    - Proceed to “checkout” on OverDrive after entering a library card number that I think will work
    - Download book. Read book.

I have to say, Open Library may look pretty on the front page, but it’s confusing down in those weeds. They have provided users with three start options (browse, search, and borrow), but they don’t clearly delineate the sandbox that you’re playing in once you choose an option. If you’re like me, you probably just want to check out a book from your computer anyway. Well, there are four different ways to get materials, but there is no clear way for a user to filter what they’re seeing because all four ways are presented at the same time, on the same page. In my opinion, the user unfriendliness is a huge turn off.

Recommended two cents: Do a User Survey!, preferably a video usability test capturing users describing what they’re doing (and their confusion). Scientifically determine which borrowing options users really want and weight the entire borrowing system towards that. I’m assuming, again, people just want to check out an ebook–so have two tracks, the ebook track and then the all-but-useless find in your nearest library/worldcat/amazon options. And the in-library option? There are less than ten participating libraries in the entirety of North America to date. Now this is a great option, but please wait to give it equal searching weight until you’ve got a good few hundred, at least! Certainly don’t list that as the first borrowing option! End two cents.

Last note: I do recognize that this application is in ongoing development. If any of you are familiar with OL’s history, please post clarifying statements. I still think the potential is huge and the front page looks so beautiful–I would love to see it meet user (my) expectations and really take off.

Posted in Digits, In the library, Trackback, Updates | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Original source material gathered to create art + Kafka

Posted on February 28, 2011 by admin

Good evening ladies and fellas! Today, a few fun items to showcase. The first, SP Weather Station, an idea that I love. SP Weather Station is a collective gathering weather data in Long Island City, Queens (from their tower on the Flux Factory roof) for artists to use:

    Weather interpreters [12 artists or artist groups] are invited to contribute an edition (in a minimum size of 30) in response to one month of SPWS station data (indoor/outdoor temp, barometric pressure, humidity, rainfall, etc) in whatever format they choose.

Thoughts: Why the hell do I love this idea so damn much?!?! First, every single piece by contributing artists is fresh, new, exciting, ultra contemporary art. SP Weather Station has taken an idea that’s been kicking around–gathering original source material (an idea somewhat familiar to archival institutions, no?)–and using that as the diving board for limitless creative interpretation. It takes the fact of existence, the fact of fact, and turns it into a pinwheeling, free form (and at the same time deliminated) object d’art. It’s an object from an object.

In this context, we can see archival objects as simply ideas that became married to objects. That marriage somehow imparts a sense of source, origins, truth, as if there’s only one truth (one object = one truth)–which is not true! Or not necessarily true! Or good lord, I certainly hope it’s not necessarily true! I see this project as taking the encapsulated source truth that has been trapped in object and fact (archival records) and freeing it to be an idea again–one of many possibilities.

Item the deus: Have you been keeping up with the crazy regarding the Kafka archives? If no, or if you need a refresher, this NY Times article lays it all out, and with photos of Kafka, Eva Hoffe, Max Brod, and some manuscript samples. Well, according to Reuters:

    The long-awaited inventory, obtained by Reuters, details contents of safes in Tel Aviv and Zurich. It was submitted on Thursday to a family court in Tel Aviv.

More to follow, I’m sure. Thoughts: I will first reference my above comments on archival objects. Truth is priceless, and certain truths encapsulated in objects are worth tooth and nail. Second, I hope Kafka is getting a kick out of this last story. Life is a joke. Sometimes the joke is funny. Sometimes the joke isn’t funny at all.

Note #1: In yesterday’s post, I invited y’all to contribute examples of archives/archivists in fictional mediums. Today, I wondered why this is even interesting to me. Do policemen, CEOs, electricians, cooks, etc. compile lists of characters who share their professions? I know, I know, the compiling is in part due to the fact that such representations are relatively rare. Each instance that does exist acquires greater weight–positive and negative. And even though everyone believes they know what an archive is, we love to believe they don’t really know (see? I can’t even admit to it in this sentence!). That all being said, I freely admit I continue to be intrigued by the idea of our professional fictions. And will gladly list them!

Note #2: In Friday’s post, I shared my thoughts on the current state of affairs over at This American Life. Can I just say that I feel vindicated by this week’s show, DIY, a bread and buttered stab you in the eye piece that originally aired in February 2005. Still fresh, relevant, a roller coaster story about Americans living lives.

Posted in About us, Projects | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Archival fictions

Posted on February 28, 2011 by admin

Hi all, today a quick post on archives/archivists in fiction. Archives Next has just posted a contest for the best re-writes of the Harlequin romance, Protected by the Prince.

Rules to judge by:

    * archival principles and practices
    * the dry and sarcastic wit that is a must for all archives professionals
    * possibly also passion—the kind of passion I’m sure I (AN blogger Kate Theimer) will read about between Tamsin and what’s his name.

An informed AN commentator kindly points to a second contest at Smart Bitches Trashy Books. Upon closer inspection, SBTB references PbtP, but their contest is really about identifying lavender cover copy prose.

A second commentator provides a Google books text search via bit.ly URLs:

Thoughts: Archives are mainstream, for real?! Romances aside, my curiosity is piqued–where else have archives and archivists come up in creative fictions? Books, music, film, tv, etc. I know libraries and librarians have compiled quite the list. Post in comments section, reviews and critiques welcome! We may even start a second page keeping track, as this is valuable info people! (As the Social Network, which should have raked it in tonight, has amply shown).

Posted in About us, Trackback | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment