Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
User Evaluation of Dublin Core Metadata in Image Collections
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

User Evaluation of Dublin Core Metadata in Image Collections

  • 1,486 views
Published

This is a presentation I gave at the Archival Education and Research Institute at UCLA, July 9, 2009.

This is a presentation I gave at the Archival Education and Research Institute at UCLA, July 9, 2009.

Published in Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,486
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
4

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Here’s the basic plan for this talk: a little introduction, what my methods were, what I found and what they mean.
  • In this study, I wanted to find out what happens when the average user – someone who’s not an archivist, not a subject specialist, not otherwise trained in searching – uses the information in a typical digital image collection. I’m looking at image collections in particular because, in image collections, users are reliant on the metadata we can give them to be able to find and make sense of the objects they are looking at. There’s not really an equivalent to full-text searching, at least not yet, so when you go into a collection online, you have to deal with the kind of information shown here. Problem is, this information is not easy to come up with – so much of archival description is at the collection or folder level, this information isn’t readily harvestable when objects are digitized and it needs to be created by hand.So to compensate, things like Dublin Core have been developed – a simplified descriptive metadata standard. Which is great, in that it reduces the burden on archivists or catalogers, but it is a limited set of information and a specific vocabulary. My big question in this study is whether DC metadata is useful: do users understand the vocabulary? Is the information sufficient?
  • First I’ll talk about my users, and then what I did to them.
  • I worked with 78 subjects total, 72 of them undergrads representing a range of majors – I didn’t want to study just scientists or English majors or whatever. They all did a demographic questionnaire to start with, and here are the results:
  • So these are experienced searchers: confident but not overly so, used to working with both text and multimedia, but their experience is narrow – a whole lot of Google but not much else.
  • The survey was completed by 50 subjects and looked to answer these research questions:
  • Participants did two tasks
  • I also ran two focus groups, with similar research questions to the survey, but with the added goal of finding out why people said what they had to say.
  • They did the same two tasks as the survey participants, plus a card sorting task (putting cards with DC elements on them in order) and I asked them to come up with definitions for the elements.
  • The last bit was search testing in an actual image collection.
  • I used the Claremont Colleges Digital Library because it uses simple Dublin Core for the most part.
  • What did I find? Here I’ll break down the results into two sections: the kinds of information users said they wanted, and what they thought of Dublin Core.

Transcript

  • 1. User Understanding of Dublin Core Metadata in Digital Image Collections
    Kathleen Fear
    July 9, 2009
  • 2. Introduction
    Methodology
    Findings
    Discussion and Conclusions
  • 3. Is the Dublin Core metadata provided in a digital collection perceived to be useful?
  • 4.
    • Introduction
    • 5. Methodology
    • 6. Study population
    • 7. Methods: survey, focus group and search testing
    • 8. Findings
    • 9. Discussion and Conclusions
  • Methodology: Study population
    78 subjects (72 undergraduates; 6 graduate students)
    41 unique majors
    Recruited randomly in the undergraduate library; from SI110; and using Ex-Lab
  • 10. How often do you use Google or another search engine? (n=78)
    “Almost every day” (72)
  • 11. How often do you search for images using Google Images, Flickr or another service? (n=78)
    “A few times a week” (38)
  • 12. In the past year, how often did you use an online library catalog?(n=78)
    “A few times a year” (37)
  • 13. Search Expertise (n=78)
    “It is rarely hard for me to find what I’m looking for” (32)
  • 14. Survey (n=50)
    What information do users
    think is useful?
    How do they express that information?
  • 15. Methodology: Survey
    Task 1: What information is useful?
    “Imagine you are searching for images to put in a PowerPoint for class…what information would be useful when deciding whether an image meets your criteria or not?”
  • 16. Methodology: Survey
    Task 2: Ranking DC elements
  • 17. Focus Groups (n=18)
    What information do users think is useful and why?
    How do they interpret the DC elements?
  • 18. Methodology: Focus group
    Task 1: What information is useful?
    Discussion
    Task 2: Rating DC elements
    Task 3: Card sorting
    Task 4: Definitions
  • 19. Search Testing (n=10)
    Do users behave in ways that align
    with what they say?
    What information do users find useful in an actual collection?
  • 20. Methodology: Search testing
    Environment: Claremont Colleges Digital Library
    Training task: Find a bullfighter and the date associated with the image
    Task: Find 5 images relating to ‘pioneer life’ in California at the end of the 19th century
    Reflection questions and exit interview
  • 21.
    • Introduction
    • 22. Methodology
    • 23. Findings
    • 24. User reported ‘useful’ elements
    • 25. User understanding of Dublin Core elements
    • 26. Discussion and Conclusions
  • Findings: User-reported ‘useful’ information
  • 27. Categories of useful information
    information about the imagegathered by looking at the image itself or a thumbnail
  • 28. Information about the image gathered from the image itself
  • 29. Categories of useful information
    information about the file and using the filegathered by reading textual information accompanying the image or the website as a whole
  • 30. Information about using the image gathered from text
  • 31. Categories of useful information
    information about the image gathered by reading accompanying textual information
  • 32. Information about the image gathered from text
  • 33. Categories of useful information
    information about the image gathered from clues in the search or collection interfaces
  • 34. Information about the image gathered from collection interface
  • 35. Findings: User understanding of Dublin Core elements
  • 36.
  • 37.
  • 38.
  • 39.
  • 40.
  • 41.
  • 42. Χ2=0.3
    p =0.8607
  • 43.
  • Description
    Listed by survey and focus group participants as potentially useful?
    Identified by search testing participants as useful?
    YES
    YES
  • 48. Subject
    Description
    Type
    Format
    Relation
    Source
    Title
    Language
    Coverage
    Rights
    Identifier
    Date
    Contributor
    Creator
    Publisher
    More useful
    Less useful
  • 49. Description
    An account of the resource.
    FG1: The caption underneath the picture, a thorough and in-depth summary.
    FG2: What it looks like, what's going on there.
  • 50. Publisher
    Listed by survey and focus group participants as potentially useful?
    Identified by search testing participants as useful?
    YES
    NO
  • 51. Subject
    Description
    Type
    Format
    Relation
    Source
    Title
    Language
    Coverage
    Rights
    Identifier
    Date
    Contributor
    Creator
    Publisher
    More useful
    Less useful
  • 52. Publisher
    An entity responsible for making the resource available.
    FG1: The rights-holder (the creator or whoever bought the image from the creator).
    FG2: The name of the publisher if it was a professional picture and was in the newspaper, etc.
  • 53. Source
    Listed by survey and focus group participants as potentially useful?
    Identified by search testing participants as useful?
    NO
    NO
  • 54. Subject
    Description
    Type
    Format
    Relation
    Source
    Title
    Language
    Coverage
    Rights
    Identifier
    Date
    Contributor
    Creator
    Publisher
    More useful
    Less useful
  • 55. Source
    A related resource from which the described resource is derived.
    FG1: The website where the image came from.
    FG2: Where the image is from, the website.
  • 56. Dublin Core Vocabulary
    “It's just like really generic words...they're nice words that everyone can just see and understand what's coming next.”
  • 57. Relation
    Listed by survey and focus group participants as potentially useful?
    Identified by search testing participants as useful?
    YES
    NO
  • 58. Subject
    Description
    Type
    Format
    Relation
    Source
    Title
    Language
    Coverage
    Rights
    Identifier
    Date
    Contributor
    Creator
    Publisher
    More useful
    Less useful
  • 59. Relation
    A related resource.
    FG1: Relevance to your search terms.
    FG2: How the image is relevant.
  • 60. But what about context?
    “And relation, like, that would seem like how it relates to my search, but that's nothing to do with it actually.” (U01)
    “… I don't really know what that means, I guess. Like, relation to what?” (U09).
    “I don't really know what relation means, at least in this context” (U07)
    “Relation, is that like related images? Because I was kind of looking for that.” (U05)
  • 61.
  • 62. Conclusions
    Users are not blank slates
    Dublin Core provides useful information
    Dublin Core vocabulary can be misleading or incomprehensible
  • 63. Thank you!
    Questions?
    This work was supported by a Rackham Graduate Student Research Grant.
    Thank you to Beth Yakel and Soo Young Rieh for their advice, feedback and support!
    Kathleen Fear
    School of Information, University of Michigan
    Kathleen.fear@gmail.com
    umich.edu/~kfear