Enhancing and testing repository deposit interfaces


Published on

The JISC DepositMO Project has developed two new repository deposit interfaces, in the process both contributing to and using the new SWORDv2 protocol. These interfaces aimed to reposition deposit in the context of popular authoring and desktop management tools, also to reschedule repository deposit from end-of-creation to an in-progress activity, thereby seeking to change the culture, or modus operandi (the ‘MO’ of DepositMO), of repository deposit. These interfaces have been extensively tested with users. This paper illustrates use of these interfaces and summarises the test results. This presentation was given to the 7th International Conference on Open Repositories (OR12), in Edinburgh, 11 July 2012. A formal paper to accompany this presentation can be found at http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340997/

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Enhancing and testing repository deposit interfaces

  1. 1. Enhancing and testing repositorydeposit interfacesSteve Hitchcock, JISC DepositMO ProjectECS, WAIS, University of SouthamptonOR2012, 7th International Conference on Open Repositories, Edinburgh,11 July 2012http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340997/
  2. 2. In this talk …• Open access IRs under pressure• Adding value for users• Repositioning deposit in the user workflowand applications; new deposit interfaces• SWORDv2• User testing results• Boosting deposit rates for real repositories?
  3. 3. Credits and acknowledgements• PI: Les Carr• Development: Richard Boardman, Dave Tarrant,Tim Brody, Richard Jones, Alex Wade• Testing: departments of archaeology andchemistry, and the e-Prints Soton, EdShare (allSouthampton) and Kultivate repository teams –coordinators of these teams: Graeme Earl, JeremyFrey, Kate Walker, Debra Morris and Marie-Therese Gramstadt, respectively.• Biscuits and sweeping up: Me
  4. 4. IRs under pressure• Recommendations from Report of the Working Group onExpanding Access to Published Research Findings (Finch)i. a clear policy direction should be set towards support forpublication in open access or hybrid journals, funded byAPCs, as the main vehicle for the publication of researchix. the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositoriesshould be developed so that they play a valuable rolecomplementary to formal publishing, particularly inproviding access to research data and to grey literature, andin digital preservation• PeerJ Open Access & Peer-Reviewed. Starting at $99 - forlife@stevehitPeerJ: I still dont see the magic bullet here. If PeerJcan make it by lowering the financial barriers then IRs willbe shot #openaccessCrisis? Whatserials crisis?
  5. 5. DepositMO has been to Edinburghbefore - Repository Fringe, Aug 2011http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZ3n6sJqaU@depositMOGood to see both DepositMO tools got a spontaneous round ofapplause during Dave’s show. So that’s a tick for flashiness #jiscdepo
  6. 6. #depositmoInteractive Multi-Submission DepositWorkflows for Desktop ApplicationsDavid Tarrantdavetaz@ecs.soton.ac.ukElectronics and Computer ScienceOR2010, Madrid, 6-9 July 2010
  7. 7. A borderline paper?“It’s curious, then, that there have been few publishedstudies or user testing of repository interfaces.”Is this statement supportable? SeeRepository usability review, 24-26 January 20121. Designing for metadata2. User deposit interfaces3. New deposit protocolsModus Operandi for Repository Depositsbloghttp://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/tag/repository-usability-review/
  8. 8. EPrints deposit interface (part of)
  9. 9. SWORD deposit interfaceFacebook SWORD clienthttp://blog.stuartlewis.com/2009/06/02/how-does-the-facebook-sword-client-actually-work/
  10. 10. Why SWORD?Simple Web service Offering Repository Deposit• SWORD (2007) single interface, deposit inmultiple repositories. ‘Fire and forget’.• SWORDv2 (2012) items can be created,updated, replaced, or deleted (CRUD).• SWORDv2 endpoints built into currentversions of EPrints (3.3) and DSpace (1.8)
  11. 11. Word Add-in deposit client
  12. 12. Watch Folder – a file manager-based deposit interface
  13. 13. Watch Folder –does this look likeanything you’veseen elsewhere?Microsoft SkyDrive integrated intoWindows Explorer, Apple Finder (April2012)http://mashable.com/2012/04/23/skydrive-update-100gb-storage/A repository is NOT a hard drive - differentparadigm
  14. 14. User tests of of new deposit clients• Controlled test environment: a pair ofWeb-connected laptops runningWindows 7, directed at a demonstratorEPrints repository running theSWORDv2 extensions.• Test users included new as well asexperienced repository users, mostworking in observed pairs.• Results were based on what users did,using repository records and observernotes; what users said, in before- andafter-test questions; task completionand time taken.
  15. 15. Results of user tests• On average, both direct deposit clients tookless time to deposit an item than via thenative repository interface• This time advantage is realised where lessstringent metadata requirements apply orwhere the tool assists with metadatacompletion, as the Word Add-in does withsimple bibliographic information• The Watch Folder does not provide thesimplest means of metadata control, and insome cases additional time was incurred tocomplete this stage• User testingresultshttp://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/tag/user-testing-results/
  16. 16. Lessons of user tests• The wow! factor is harder to sustain in practice,noticeably as a user’s collection size grows and issuesof metadata control and versioning become morecritical. It’s not just about the initial deposit.• There are no simple comparisons to be made betweenthe instant deposit tools (Word Add-in and WatchFolder) and the more structured native repositorydeposit interfaces. Instant deposit may be at theexpense of providing careful metadata now.• Further refinements to the tools might be able toimprove metadata control without losing deposit time.
  17. 17. Where could we offer deposit withmaximum speed and minimal metadata?DataFlow services summary – adding SWORDFromJISC UMF DataFlow Project Introduction to DataStagehttp://vidaas.oucs.ox.ac.uk/docs/David%20Shotton%20-%20overview%20of%20DataFlow.pdf
  18. 18. From DepositMO toDepositMOreFrom an impenetrable acronym– changing the ModusOperandi of repository deposit– to a play on words with aself-explanatory goal – gettingmore stuff into your repository•JISC confirmation: recent• Start: soon, tbc
  19. 19. From DepositMO toDepositMOreDefying psittacine(and classiccomedy sketchwriting)convention… Just restingFrom an impenetrable acronym– changing the ModusOperandi of repository deposit– to a play on words with aself-explanatory goal – gettingmore stuff into your repository•JISC confirmation: recent• Start: soon, tbc
  20. 20. Why DepositMOre?• Over 50% of test users indicated these newdeposit tools would encourage them to submitmore of their own content to the repository.• DepositMO performed usability tests and cannottell us how these tools might impact on depositrates of real repositories.• DepositMOre, was proposed to demonstrateincreased deposit rates using in-tool statisticaltracking.
  21. 21. DepositMOre toolsWatch Folder: extending the user interaction model forintelligent bulk ingest to deal with 100s of documents,involving original user testers from within arts andarchaeology, communities that generate large volumes ofnon textual digital objects.EasyChair Deposit Tool, lists a user’s authored items inEasychair, which hosts over 15,000 conferences. The toolchecks if these items are present in the user’s selectedrepository. Any that have not been deposited can beadded with one click.NewXWord add-in: impact of a content creation tool on depositrates will be less immediate.
  22. 22. Conclusions• DepositMO and DepositMOre aim toshow how different repository deposittools can support users with differentdeposit demands, widening the base ofrepository users.• With the growing emphasis on managingresearch data, especially using datarepositories, the need for choice inrepository deposit – offering tradeoffsbetween time to deposit and degree ofdocumentation – is going to becomemore acute.
  23. 23. Useful contacts• Twitter: @depositmo• Blog http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/• Web downloadshttp://www.eprints.org/depositmo/• Email sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk