Embracing Web 2.0 - Archives and the Next Generation of Web Apps

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

more share options
Embed For WordPress.com

Without related presentations

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this session and hope that I can provide some insight to how archival repositories are “embracing” Web 2.0 with respect to their digital collections. You’ll see from this title slide that I’ve included just a few examples of commercial Web 2.0 applications. I hope to introduce you to a few of these applications plus give you a brief introduction to those archival repositories that are developing their own 2.0 applications.

The previous speakers have discussed Archives 2.0 and here are the points I’m going to focus on during my presentation.

There is a noticeable increase in archival professionals undertaking projects to convert their physical collections of photographs, documents and audio/visual materials to digital format and displaying the surrogates of these primary sources on their websites. They are doing so with the promise of making “information accessible that was perhaps only previously available to a select group of researchers and thus allowing users to search collections rapidly and comprehensively from anywhere at any time. These are just some examples of repositories who are exposing their digital collections to the public.

Simultaneously the web is moving towards collective intelligence and participation. Blogs, wikis, podcasting, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds and collaborative tagging are all Web 2.0 terms that are becoming more familiar to both online users and mainstream society, and social networking websites such as YouTube, Flickr, Facebook and Twitter are showing us environments in which users can easily contribute -- not just view -- content. - 2009 stats from Pew Internet & American Life Project. Just to highlight a few of the stats – over 70% of Gen Y’ers are watching videos online and nearly the same amount have profile on a social network site. This type of activity is not just limited to the younger generation – people in their 30s and 40s are also catching the Web 2.0 wave.

So I was curious to what extent Web 2.0 is/has been integrated into these digitization projects. The real question is how do we remain vital to users in the digital era? When I began reading the archival literature in late 2007, the answer was not so obvious: While the professional literature suggested the importance of embracing new technology to remain vital to users in the digital era, I found that at the time there was little evidence as to what archival repositories were actually doing to fulfill this critical mission.

This research was conducted in Spring of 2008 with the goal of first determining the number of archival repositories hosting digital collection and then trying to determine which archival repositories were using the Web’s next generation of applications to support access, use and interactions associated with their digital collections? My second goal was to select a subset of archival repositories which have implemented web 2.0 applications and conduct one-on-one interviews with archivists or special collections staff primarily responsible for implementation. I wanted to address reasons for implementation, challenges associated with implementation, and success or failure of implementation. By conducting these interviews, I hoped to provide evidence of what archival repositories were doing to remain vital to users in the digital era.

The results for those employing Web 2.0 application was a happy surprise (I had different expectations, as in I thought the percentage would have been lower).

You can see from the graph that bookmarking was the most popular type of web 2.0 application, followed by ratings & reviews, blogs and community sites. Podcasting was the last, and this had to do more with oral histories. I suspect that this number is going to increase as more oral history programs are implemented.

- Just to put things into context, 12 responded to my request, with 8 agreeing to be interviewed There were a total of 10 interview questions, but for this presentation, I wanted to highlight some of the more significant findings. Promoting and sharing content with current and future users stood out as the most common reasons for including a Web 2.0 on a repository website Whether the incentive was for sharing content with current patrons because they requested it, eliciting participation from patrons with help in describing collections, or wanting to use some of the emerging web tools that their current patrons were engaged in and using, the data suggests that respondents are thinking about their patrons/users when considering the use of a Web 2.0 application. One thing that I do want to emphasize is that for the most part, little planning was involved when determining which Web 2.0 application(s) to implement. Forty-three percent (43%) of the respondents indicated that little planning was done, and in fact, they essentially “just implemented it”.

For a majority of the respondents (57%), increased promotion for both their department and the resources held in the repository were unquestionably the most positive aspect. Several cited that they received recognition within their institution and from their peers not only for their efforts and success in implementing new technology, but also support and reinforcement from their peers that it “was the right thing to do”. This also relates directly to the greatest benefits - the two closely interrelated answers of promotion of repository collections and increased use of materials by patrons appeared to be the most significant benefits to the respondents. Several of the respondents were optimistic about the idea of taking content out into the Web environments and tools that people use, and as one respondent mentioned, “it helps cast, what I feel, is the correct tone that we’re progressive and forward thinking even when we collect historic materials.”

Specifically as it relates to “taking away” time from traditional archival duties, was the dominant theme amongst the respondents when speaking to the drawbacks of implementation. A greater part of the respondents acknowledged that extra time was needed to keep the information in these applications current (for example, posting entries to a blog, posting new digital objects to a community website and adding ample metadata for searching digital objects), and that striving to balance these responsibilities with everything else that required their attention was difficult. However, this obstacle did not appear to deter any of the respondents from continuing the use of their particular Web 2.0 application(s) or their plans to implement additional Web 2.0 applications in the future. Overall, the applications were relatively “easy” to set up, although upon further examination, it appears that the level of technical expertise required depends on the type of application being implemented.

So, the results of this exploratory study suggested that archival professionals are embracing Web 2.0 to promote their digital content and redefine their relationship with their patrons. The promotion of their digital materials was a consistent theme arising from the interviews. While there was not much conclusive evidence on whether the end users of these applications see them as being positive or negative, based on anecdotal feedback, the respondents felt that patrons found them to be useful. Time is of a concern to these respondents, who acknowledge that they grapple with balancing the more traditional archival duties such as managing and processing newly acquired and existing collections with maintaining and staying current with these web applications. However, it was my impression that none of the interview respondents were deterred by this future and seemed ready to address it head on. Most recognized that their users will have different expectations when it comes to interacting with the archives (these users not going to write a letter requesting materials anymore as two respondents pointed out), and they are proactively taking steps to meet those expectations.

So what are some key lessons that can be learned from this research and the research that both Angela and Jessica presented? Invest in Web 2.0 applications that work for you – if it’s to get your stuff out to as many users as possible, perhaps experimenting with the latest Web 2.0 technology will work for you. Or perhaps if you want something a bit more long term, invest in applications that have proven to be more stable over time and have an active user base such as flickr or create your own web 2.0 application. One thing I want to emphasize is to have a plan, however, I would recommend not spend an inordinate time on this. Web 2.0 like many other technologies is fleeting, and users easily influence what is “hot” and what isn’t, so if you spend too much time thinking about which app to implement, etc. then that opportunity may pass.

I wanted to finish up my presentation Examples of how web 2.0 is being used – flickr You’ll notice flickr commons

More uses – “homegrown”. You’ll see from the slides that this includes ratings & reviews from the Naropa Poetic Audio Archives, bookmarking from Rensselaer Archives Special Collections, and user reviews and feedback from the University of Albany Digital Collections.

UNT Libraries' Portal to Texas History on YouTube

1 Favorite

Jen at Jen, favorited this 2 months ago

Embracing Web 2.0 - Archives and the Next Generation of Web Apps - Presentation Transcript

EMBRACING WEB 2.0 Mary Samouelian Archivist, Electronic Records Unit NC State Archives August 13, 2009
ARCHIVES 2.0
- Proposing new services and new ways of providing services
- Open to new ideas, flexible, user-centered technology, technology-friendly, and willing to take new risks
- New way of doing things, to diverse kinds of people, to new out reach opportunities
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pigatto/332193181/
WHY RESEARCH WEB 2.0?
- Movement towards digitization of collections.
Simultaneously the web is moving towards collective intelligence and participation.* *Source: http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2009/19-Similarities-and-Differences-in-Online-Social-Network-Use.aspx Additionally, as of December 2008, 11% of online American adults said they used a service like Twitter Gen Y (18-32) Gen X (33-44) Watch a video online 72 57 Have a profile on a social network site 67 36 Read blogs 43 34 Visit virtual worlds 2 3 Share pictures ? 27 Download podcasts 25 21
Are we missing the “Web 2.0” wave? Photograph courtesy Duke University Archives
Or is the real question how do we remain vital to our users in the digital era? http://www.flickr.com/photos/techbirmingham/76169852/
RESEARCH
- Phase 1– content analysis of archival repository websites
- Phase 2 – one-on-one interviews with key professional staff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/catspyjamasnz/
RESULTS
- Of the 213 repositories, 85 (40%) hosted a digital collection.
- Of the 85, 38 (45%) employed a Web 2.0 application.
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS Impetus for Including Web 2.0 Application on Repository Website Reasons Number of Respondents Percentage of Total Respondents Promotion of collections 4 57% Trying out new technology 3 43% Participation from patrons 2 29% Sharing our content with potential new users 2 29% Direction from leadership 1 14% Staying current with our users 1 14%
Pros of Implementation Positive Reasons Number of Respondents Percentage of Total Respondents Increased promotion for department and resources 4 57% Meeting needs of patrons 2 29% Potential increase in number/types of users 2 29% It was easy to implement 2 29%
Cons of Implementation Negative Reasons Number of Respondents Percentage of Total Respondents Time 5 71% Lack of consistency with descriptive standards 2 29% Lack of control over content 1 14% Lack of technical expertise 1 14% Creation of sophisticated metadata 1 14%
… you really have to stay current and project an image of currency in terms of technology . … the future researchers that are going to use our collections –they expect us to be on the web , easily accessible, interactive, multi-media – they’re just not simply going to use our collections if they’re not easy. … millennials make it clear that convenience is really important to them , so they’re going to want to see things digitized with key word searches in multiple formats of the same record – I think that now you have to make this a main thing that you do – there is so much competition for information out there .
REALITY CHECK
- Have a plan for implementation
- Know your audience. If you build it, will users come?
- Do you want to capture user input and for what purpose? If so, how are you going to capture user information and ingest it as part of your repository?
USE OF FLICKR
HOMEGROWN WEB 2.0
VIDEO
PODCASTS
Thank You! Questions?