diglib: Non-member submission from [Faye Chadwell<chadwelf@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

[Mark Watson <mrwatson@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

I am not sure how the issue of exhibit websites came to the table for
digital libraries.  Having a stable site and a good design are imperative,
but I am not sure that most exhibit websites constitute digital
collections.  And I would hate to think that every exhibit site had to be
follow a template that cramped creativity and individuality.

Special Collections might spend significant time creating a website for an
exhibit and that it might involve creating some type of finding aid for the
materials for the first time since the Libraries acquired this
materials.  But so might others spend lots of time developing their
exhibits that highlight library holdings.  In either case, aren't we
talking really about updating the finding aid rather than the exhibit site?

I am not sure that museums, galleries, and other libraries would treat
their exhibits as ongoing projects requiring updating, etc.  unless they
are permanent exhibits.   Where are our permanent exhibits?

Documenting and recording the universe of experience are powerful actions
but we need to be sure that we don't get carried away here.  Does anyone
hold the bibliographies and research guides that subject specialists
produce to this high a standard?  Are they less important somehow in the
scheme of things?  We can barely keep our procedural and policies manuals
updated satisfactorily.

I think one solution is to be sure that folks do provide a date for the
beginning and ending of an exhibit so that future users can see that the
information might be dated--just like they would if they checked out a 1997
bibliography on feminism and science.    Most users aren't so dumb that
they can't figure out dates and know that there might be newer info.

Faye

At 11:53 AM 7/28/2003 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
>... from talking with Normandy, I gathered that one of
>the problems facing Special Collections is the need to
>curate exhibits over time.  In other words, it would be
>unusual for Special Collections to mount something that
>amounts to a static exhibit because its "exhibits" are
>almost always featuring collections.  This poses a problem
>from the standpoint of access to the sub-sites.  My initial
>thinking is that Special Collections ought to keep and
>maintain its sub-site pages, irrespective of whether they
>also function as exhibits.
>
>Mark
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-diglib@lists.uoregon.edu
>[mailto:owner-diglib@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Normandy Helmer
>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:35 AM
>To: David McCallum; Diglib; Juanita Benedicto; Cara List
>Cc: Ted Smith; ayogi@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU; tamarav@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU;
>mmohr@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU; llong@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU;
>hyatt@law.uoregon.edu; Andrew R. Bonamici; Kellie Ann Garsed-Donnelly;
>Andrew R. Bonamici
>Subject: diglib: RE: thinking through maintenance of digital resources
>and building communication methods
>
>
>Many thanks to all who are helping us think about these issues. It is big
>stuff that won't be resolved overnight and it does require broad
>participation. Any procedures and policies that do emerge will have to
>continue to evolve as our needs and abilities change.
>
>First, let me emphasize that I DON'T want to see a strict regulatory agency
>established in any of these areas, as our culture doesn't support that and
>we don't have the resources for it either.
>
>I would like to see a system of mentoring and monitoring that keeps all our
>Web-based stuff accessible and appealing, while accommodating developing
>skills as well as innovative ideas. I think we need that for design, for
>routine upkeep, and for long-term maintenance of content, function and
>discoverability (which includes metadata in appropriate formats as well as
>functioning links). The goal is to be proactive in establishing viability,
>instead of trying to clean up established messes.
>
>We're good at delegating responsibility but not authority, and any systems
>we develop need to take that as a given. Also, limits to the time
commitment
>we can reasonably expect from over-expended people. Failure to comply will
>eventually have to go up the chain of command for resolution. Generally,
>we'll get compliance through consultation, informed innovation, and
>consensus. That's how we built a great library catalog.
>
>For graphic design I think we need at least two people who are trained
>graphic designers, preferably not from the same unit, reviewing proposed
>designs. And a list of designers who can help put together good looking
>pages. Having parameters written up front will help avoid extensive design
>efforts that simply won't fly.
>
>I'm NOT suggesting we codify aesthetics. We could even bring in people from
>elsewhere on campus sometimes, to ensure that we welcome evolving ideas in
>design principles. Tastes are personal and they change, so it's impossible
>to achieve design that delights everyone for all time but we ought to be
>able to find some kind of community standard. And the standard will depend
>on the audience for a given sub-site--great design for freshmen will not
>look much like great design for senior faculty doing research in historical
>sources.
>
>For technical design (i.e. interactive stuff), we desperately need to make
>sure everything gets documented so we can maintain functionality when the
>creator moves away from the site.
>
>Cara's point about a "press" identify is a good one--the spine of the book
>shows the publisher but every page does not. So maybe the home page of a
>sub-site needs to reference the "skeleton" graphic id, but not every page.
>That would work for digital projects too. (By "skeleton" I mean a little
>consistent graphic that is visually coherent with Libweb design and also
>provides navigation back to the home planet from the sub-site. If there's a
>better term that we can all relate to, please let me know.}
>
>My point about sunsetting is that if we are NOT going to maintain a
>resource, exhibit or otherwise, it should either be removed or the home
page
>should clearly state the date that we stopped altering it (as we did for
the
>card catalog). The Blues exhibits has a prominent and complete date, but
the
>Track exhibit just says "month of April."  Exhibits are a little easier to
>set dates for because they generally have less need to evolve than the
>sub-sites that are core finding aids for uncat collections, or for digital
>sites that are expected to continue to grow. However, the public doesn't
>care what server holds the material, they are going to blame the Library as
>a whole whenever information is out of date or pages aren't functioning as
>expected.
>
>Normandy
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cara List [mailto:clist@uoregon.edu]
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:34 AM
>To: Normandy Helmer; Juanita Benedicto; Cara List; Diglib
>Cc: Kellie Ann Garsed-Donnelly; Andrew R. Bonamici; Tedsmith@Darkwing.
>Uoregon. Edu; clist@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU; hyatt@law.uoregon.edu;
>llong@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU; mmohr@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU;
>tamarav@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU; ayogi@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU
>Subject: Re: thinking through maintenance of digital resources and
>building communication methods
>
>
>I've read through Normandy's email once, and would like to review her
>thoughts further with the exhibits committee, but I'm going to add a few
>thoughts to the conversation off the top of my head.  My thoughts concern
>web exhibits only-- I am not referencing other sub-sites where
>considerations may be quite different.
>
>I agree that standards and protocols for exhibits should be established,
>and the exhibits committee will be working on this-- hopefully in
>cooperation with Juanita and the WAG group.  One thing that I have started
>to ask exhibit designers to do is to create exhibits within a single folder
>with internal page links that are designed to be sustainable even when the
>folder is moved.  This is a fairly easy step to take.
>
>I hesitate to insist that all pages within an exhibit should have a
>"skeleton" that identifies them through a "graphic identity" as a part of
>the UO Libraries site.  I think that exhibits should be considered more
>like the publications of a particular press-- identified as a product of
>that press, but not necessarily bound together by a particular look.
>
>The idea of assigning a guardian is a good one in most cases, however, web
>exhibits are again more like monographic publications than, lets say,
>subject guides, and my feeling is that exhibits should be built by the
>original creator to be as sustainable as is _reasonable_.  If the original
>author wishes to maintain a relationship with the exhibit and make sure
>that external links and such continue to function-- that is terrific, but
>if that author should leave the UO, should we "assign" a new guardian to
>actively monitor the site?  My feeling is that we should encourage exhibit
>designers to limit their external links to stable sites, but that we should
>not edit the content in the future.  We could write some kind of caveat on
>the main exhibit archives page stating that the exhibits are products of a
>particular event-- the actual exhibit-- and that external links are not
>maintained.  On the other hand I do like the idea of having a general
>exhibits "guardian" who would be a contact person for any visitors who
>found broken links that could be easily repaired ie. the guardian might be
>contacted by a visitor who says www.xyz.com  has moved and is now
>www.pdq.com.  I'm a bit loath to start burdening the committee with the
>need to actively maintain exhibits created in the past (of the future) by
>a  group of individuals who may well be outside of the library staff.
>
>Regarding this point:
>2. Standards for acceptable design parameters. We do want to encourage
>creativity and design that really responds to the content of a given
>sub-site; we also want design that is functionally accessible for
>middle-aged librarians as well as Gen Z-ers. We want design that will not
>embarrass us in six months, either from sheer ugliness or from lack of
>sustainable functionality.
>
>I absolutely agree about creating standards that go as far as possible to
>ensure sustainability, but I do not want to insist on the king of design
>standards that will limit exhibit designers in their expression re. style
>or content.  Sheer ugliness would be unfortunate, but surely that is a
>matter of individual preference and should not be determined by committee.
>
>I certainly do not want to sound negative about these concerns-- I just
>want to make sure that we do not limit our exhibitors, nor that we burden
>ourselves too heavily with excessive responsibilities for what may in the
>future be a large archive of past exhibits.  I am sure that I do not want
>to include a "sunset" clause for exhibits in the same way that I do not
>believe that we should weed our monographic collection of old books.
>
>--Cara
>
>At 05:04 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, Normandy Helmer wrote:
> >There have been discussions going on in various places related to
sub-sites
> >and exhibits. Aspects of these discussion concern Library Web pages (thus
> >WAG), maintenance of valued digital resources (thus DigLib) and Web
> >resources related to Library exhibits (thus the Exhibits Committee). We
>have
> >expertise and concerns and ideas coming from many quarters but we haven't
> >brought everyone to the same table to leverage our resources and set good
> >policy so we can move forward.
> >
> >I'm sending this to DigLib and asking that Cara and Juanita forward it to
> >their constituents so we can have all the parties involved talking
together
> >at the same time. We can add people to the DigLib list so they can
> >participate directly in the discussions, as well as viewing the archive.
> >
> >Issue 1: Graphic design of sub-sites and their graphic relation to the
> >Libweb standards.
> >
> >Discussion on this has generally leaned in the direction that exhibits
and
> >sub-sites can appropriately have designs that do not conform to the
Libweb
> >graphic standards nor use the Libweb templates. The rational is that,
like
> >an exhibit within a museum, the most effective presentation provides you
> >with a visual space that is consistent within the exhibit gallery, no
>matter
> >what the rest of the museum looks like. Additionally, the Libweb design
was
> >tailored for text-based presentation with a little ornament, which is not
>an
> >effective way to present other kinds of materials.
> >
> >However, the Library wants all its Web-based resources to function
> >effectively and display good design principles, and give some indication
> >that there is a relationship between the sub-site and the Library. As we
> >have Web-based materials on multiple servers (such as Boundless, the
> >ContentDM server), this doesn't fall neatly into any one jurisdiction. To
> >the public, it's all one big Web site, and we need to have some common
> >ground under our feet that will also support creative design.
> >
> >I'd like to see us develop:
> >
> >1. A mandatory "skeleton" that appears on every page and connects the
page
> >to the Library. I say "skeleton" meaning a minimal graphic entity that
> >doesn't substantially alter the design of the sub-site but does brand it
as
> >Library content and provide a link to a central location.
> >
> >2. Standards for acceptable design parameters. We do want to encourage
> >creativity and design that really responds to the content of a given
> >sub-site; we also want design that is functionally accessible for
> >middle-aged librarians as well as Gen Z-ers. We want design that will not
> >embarrass us in six months, either from sheer ugliness or from lack of
> >sustainable functionality.
> >
> >3. Review process to facilitate developing and implementing a good
design.
> >That way anyone asked to develop a design for a sub-site will have
> >guidelines and some assurance that the design process won't be derailed
in
> >midstream.
> >
> >Issue 2: Maintenance and preservation of sub-sites
> >
> >By sub-sites I mean sets of pages developed for one purpose, usually to
> >present a finding aid for a particular collection
> ><http://libweb.uoregon.edu/speccoll/mss/burgess/index.html>; an exhibit
> ><http://libweb.uoregon.edu/exhibits/archive/track_and_field/>; or a
digital
> >collection <http://e-asia.uoregon.edu/>. These often have audiences
beyond
> >the campus community that most of Libweb is really aimed at.
> >
> >The Spec Coll site has dozens of sub-sites that were developed over the
> >years (often by a student employee), that met no standards, were unknown
to
> >people elsewhere in the department, and were never maintained but stayed
> >visible to the public. Getting those into adequate condition has been a
> >nightmare so I am keenly aware of the burden of maintenance these sites
can
> >create. Maintenance of Web sites, even small ones, is a time-consuming
> >proposition that requires a routine time commitment as well as the tools
to
> >keep the code as good as the content. Exhibits are another example of
> >sub-sites that were OK when developed but usually didn't have anyone
> >dedicated to keeping them maintained. While the Exhibits Committee can
now
> >help establish new sub-sites, they won't necessarily have the subject
> >expertise or the technical expertise and time to maintain old exhibits.
> >
> >One aspect of maintaining sub-sites is the routine update of content and
> >code; another is communication with people managing other related sites.
> >When pages get moved around links into the sub-site get broken, and right
> >now we're counting on the public to report link problems to us instead of
> >developing a pro-active communication system between sub-site managers.
>When
> >a cataloged site gets rearranged, catalogers have to fix the links in the
> >bib record too.
> >
> >Another aspect is the long-term preservation of the resource represented
by
> >the sub-site. Our thought on that has generally been: We put a lot of
> >resources into it; let's maintain it to get our money's worth. However,
do
> >we preserve sub-sites through a snapshot of the original site or through
> >maintenance of the evolved site? How much do we care about documenting
the
> >evolution of a given sub-site?
> >
> >We don't have a department charged with managing content or code of Web
> >pages for us, and we don't have staff whose positions are dedicated to
that
> >purpose. So we've used a distributed model, which sort of works given our
> >resource limitations, but can leave people with big Web maintenance
burdens
> >and no support group to make life easier. Juanita can help, but she can't
>do
> >all the Web work for us any more than I can do all the digital library
work
> >by myself.
> >
> >I'd like to see us develop:
> >
> >1. Policy on how we preserve and maintain sub-sites, what resources we
> >allocate, and how we assign responsibility.
> >
> >2. An appointed guardian for each sub-site who will be responsible for
the
> >actual maintenance work. If that person is reassigned or can't continue
to
> >maintain the site, then a new guardian is chosen. The guardian's contact
> >info goes on the home page of the sub-site. The guardian has the computer
> >tools, the subject expertise, and the time available to fulfill the
> >maintenance requirements.
> >
> >3. Communication system within the guardians (to include everybody who
> >manages a lot of Web pages) to facilitate that sites continue to interact
> >effectively despite reorganization and substantial maintenance activity,
>and
> >that knowledge of cool tricks is shared along with unsolved problems.
> >
> >4. Review process to ensure that every sub-site site either gets an
active
> >guardian or has an enforced sunset date. We can keep an archive copy but
it
> >won't be on-line. In the case of exhibits the Exhibits Committee will be
> >vetting new exhibit sites that relate to physical exhibits, but we don't
> >have a similar process for sub-sites that don't fit that mold.
> >
> >==============================================
> >
> >I think these are big issues that cross many boundaries and affect many
> >people and constituencies within the Library. But they all come down to
how
> >we ensure a professional and coherent Web presence to our public, and we
> >really need to start addressing them in an inclusive forum.
> >
> >I'm trying to start this forum by presenting some of my ideas about ways
to
> >address these issues, but MY ideas may be stupid or may not meet the
needs
> >of other people or other groups. Please share this message with other
>people
> >that you know will want to be involved in these discussions, please
> >contribute additional issues to be discussed or ideas to be considered,
and
> >post them to the DigLib list so we can all think about what you have to
>say.
> >
> >Normandy
>
>
>Please notice that my email address has changed!
>My new address is clist@uoregon.edu
>
>Cara List
>Art and Architecture Librarian
>Architecture and Allied Arts Library
>5249 University of Oregon
>Eugene, OR 97403-5249
>
>541-346-2200
>clist@uoregon.edu

Faye A. Chadwell
Head of Collection Development and Acquisitions
1299 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1299
phone: 541-346-1819
fax: 541-346-3485
email: chadwelf@darkwing.uoregon.edu
http://libweb/colldev/cda.html