TEM Presentation Text

Thank you all for coming today. I’d like to start by acknowledging the other members of this panel; I think I speak for all of us when I say that we are quite excited about the seemingly endless possibilities social software tools might provide, both in how we manage our collections and how we provide access to them. This is, truly, a dynamic time.

I’d like to start by telling you a bit about myself and where this presentation comes from, and then I’ll move into a discussion about how the evolving expectations and varied experiences of our users present unanticipated promises for our relationship with them. I spend a lot of time thinking about users: I am the reference and instruction archivist at Oregon State University, on the library’s usability team and instruction steering committee, and am currently working with my OSU colleague Erika Castano to formalize our archives instruction program. I am also fortunate enough to be directly involved with the Northwest Digital Archives as the chair of the Usability Design Working Group. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the program, the NWDA provides enhanced access to archival and manuscript materials in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington through a union database of EAD finding aids. In many ways, each individual collection is a part of the larger collection that documents the political, cultural, and natural history of the region; my involvement with this program has allowed me be intimately involved in several rounds of usability testing. This talk is informed by my own testing experiences, as well as the literature on users, their expectations, and how social software is effectively changing our professional playing field.

It is far from earth-shattering, or given our location maybe I should say earth quaking, for me to say that the nature of our work and our user expectations are changing. While being an archivist has never been a boring day job, we are seeing what I think could be a fundamental shift in the way we describe and display our collections, most specifically, in the ways we work with our users.

Tensions over our “role” in the curation process aren’t new. Not to load us all down with archival theory so early in the conference, but I’d like us to take a moment to consider the ruminations of both Jenkinson and Schellenberg. While Jenkinson asked archivists to sit on their hands, stressing the importance of both authenticity and impartiality in the appraisal process, Schellenberg accepted the reality of the mass of modern records, calling for the archivist to work with the records creators and other qualified consultants to select records with secondary value for inclusion into the collection. As I see it, at the heart of this is a debate over our role, our neutrality, our expertise, our place in the process.

And so here we are, in 2008, pondering the retrievability of online finding aids, the elements of EAD encoding, avatars, twitters, collaboration, and ultimately, our place in the process. SLIDE http://horizon.nmc.org/wdata/ximages/hz2008-nuttle-chart.jpg The 2008 Horizon Report, collaboratively produced by the New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, provides great look into the “emerging technologies” we should be watching. I won’t read all 36 pages to you, largely because this image does such a fine job of capturing the essence of these key technologies and the world many of our users navigate. I could spend the rest of my time discussing the report, but instead I will heartily encourage those of you who have not looked at it or the Horizon Project site to do. While we all know that things have changed, and we know that online archives users appear to be more independent, performing their research with very little direct mediation from or contact with the professional archivist—that is, outside of the online resources provided by the archivist—we need to ask ourselves if their expectations are fundamentally different from those in bygone days, those who had a 100% paper-based research experience. And as we descend a bit more into the solid realm of practicality, I’d like to think about how the ideas expressed by Schellenberg, Jenkinson, and the Horizon Report can inform our investigation of the possibilities intrinsic in the dynamic, interactive, and changing relationship between the archivist and user. While this analysis is not exhaustive or all-encompassing, I hope it allows you to start thinking or begin “reimagining” the evolution of our identity. To reconsider how you might interact with your users or how these shifts might affect your relationship or call for professional adaptation. Let’s start with a general discussion of our users: who are they and how did they get here? I’d like us to think specifically about how changes in the demographics of our researchers might affect their search behaviors, meaning that we are likely to see a greater variety in both the types of users, the foci of their research projects, and how they get to our doors. They are coming to our sites with differing levels of understanding of our “special” search environment, bringing with them what Elizabeth Yakel and Deborah Torres call the “Archival Intelligence,” or the differences in the tools the novice and expert users bring, or don’t bring, to our sites. However, in addition to a variety in information-seeking habits, we are also seeing users who are more visual and more technologically savvy, fluent in web navigation and Web 2.0 technologies. However, we also need to ask ourselves how “fluctuating” and varying demographics impact expectations and how these expectations might vary when the user moves between different institutions, disciplines, or projects? In their 2007 article “Creating the Next Generation of Archival Finding Aids,” Elizabeth Yakel, Seth Shaw, and Polly Reynolds asked us to think about our finding aids, imagining what the “next generation” might look like; I’d like us to also consider the next generation of finding aid users—what will they look like? The July 27th New York Times article “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?” focused on the hand-wringing over teens and their shunning of traditional “print” literacy. While it is specifically addressing concern over the demise of book reading, it also illuminates our discussion of users and how they research. Is Google making us stupid? Is the web chipping away our capacity for concentration and contemplation, making it difficult even for adults to read long books? Perhaps… but the article includes some thoughts from an internet savvy Columbia University freshman. He says: “On the Internet, you can hear from a bunch of people…they may not be pedigreed academics… they may be someone in their shed with a conspiracy theory,” but he says that what he is looking for from his online experience is interaction, concluding that the web is about a conversation. And, perhaps unbeknownst to him, this young man has developed a unique set of skills: he knows how to locate accurate information quickly, corroborating his findings on multiple sites and collaborating with other users. So what does this mean in the concrete world of user expectations and user-centric archives? SLIDE with quote: "In times past, the user was an archivist, assisted by a human who knew everything, now the user is the end user and they come with sets of expectations different from a professional." While the student in the Times article might have unique skills, his experiences and expectations for collaboration and interaction are becoming more routine. For users, it means meaningful interdisciplinary, interinstitutional, and international collaboration is relatively easy; anytime/anywhere connectivity is quickly becoming a basic expectation; and "bleeding edge" technological innovation is anticipated. People work on virtual teams, rely on expert networks, and form knowledge communities. And yes, they all look for the search box… not just any search box, but probably the Google search box… the Google search box with the magical algorithm that will penetrate even the thickest binder and most arcane finding aid. To quote Steven Smith: "Google is changing the way people think about information and search for information on-line… They are asking Google the question, as they once did of the librarian.” Usability guru Jakob Nielsen reinforced this notion in 2008, concluding that search engines rule the web. We know that most users are no longer paging through an index of manuscript repositories, contacting those that seem to hold promising collections on the phone or in a letter—nor are they using our web address to navigate to our front page—they are using a search box and dropping in wherever they land. In fact, at this point, nearly 90% of Northwest Digital Archives users come to our site directly from a search engine, likely finding themselves in the middle of a finding aid with little more to go on than the information on the page. Most of these users have seen a lot of web pages, contributed to many different sites, surfed through a lot of page, but, again to quote Steven Smith, "people are increasingly more impatient users of technology; less in awe of it and more likely to provide informed criticism when it is not easy to use." As we see improvements to the speed and access to the Internet, which puts more information, and more power, into the hands of the users, we are likely to see an increase in their demand digital content in a variety of formats as well as for interactive features. In general, users are not passively reading a web page, they are now demanding and discerning users with their own agendas and with heightened expectations—and they may want to add their own content. While they still expect standards and consistency from the professional archivists, a parent in the room, they also want a flexible, dynamic, and interconnected research experience. As Kate Haley Goldman, from the Institute for Learning Innovation, noted in her presentation at the OCLC Digital Forum a couple of weeks ago, these users long for the assurance that there is “an expert" behind the scenes, monitoring the site, vetting the content, easily accessible in case of a research emergency. Ultimately, this challenges both what we recognize as “factual” online content (this would be the content created by a professional) and the predetermined roles of researchers and professional. And I believe at the intersection of technological progression, the expansion our online collections, and the potential increase in accessibility, we will see a shift the “balance of power” between archivist and user. As professionals, can we imagine what the archivist/user relationship might look like if information and knowledge sharing were not constrained by the "old model"—where the archivist is the sole repository of information, the expert, an omniscient information gate-keeper, and communication is a one-way channel? Imagine instead a relationship built less on the traditional hierarchical roles—wise archivist/naive researcher—and on a more on a dynamic web-like experience, one that includes more user input, more spontaneity, and more collaboration. Can we imagine a space with more 2-way communication networks, one where we might link ourselves to the user, the creator to the scholar, or independent, off-site researchers?

UT After spending the last 10 minutes speaking in sweeping generalities, what do we actually know that users want? How is this reflected in what we heard from NWDA users in the testing we’ve done? We’ve done 5 rounds of testing on the NWDA site. The first round of testing was conducted in 2004 and was a broad analysis of the site in its infancy. The second round of testing took place in the fall and winter of 2006/2007 and looked at how undergraduate students interacted with several NWDA pages. The third and fourth rounds tested display-oriented issues and began my own investigation into potential impacts of minimal level processing on reference services and user satisfaction. Finally, the fifth round of testing, which just finished, looked at search functionality from the users’ perspective. While these tests have given us a wealth of data, they have also given us a rich supply of anecdotal observation and feedback from users. So what did we hear, what did we learn, and what are we doing? SLIDE with NWDA front page Design: All in all, users were pleased with the aesthetic design of the NWDA, complimenting the colors, the simplicity, and the general layout. Visual appeal is not inconsequential: in this case looks really do matter. While "content" is essential, visual appeal may determine whether or not a user stays on a site long enough to actually see the resources or services we offer. According to a Canadian researcher project, users form their first impressions of a site in as little as 50 milliseconds (that’s 1/20th of a second), making nearly instantaneous judgments on perceived credibility, usability, and ultimately the quality of the site and the information it contains. Users want to see a page constructed on accepted and current design principles and trends, as well as one that reflects flexibility and adaptability in design and descriptive practices (Duff & Stoyanova). Ease: But many users simply want to reach a site quickly, complete their task, and leave. This means they want us to make their research experience quick and easy, their access to information instant, effective, and convenient (Craig, 1998). According to Nielsen, “even though users are remarkably good at repeated tasks on their favorite sites, they're stumped by the smallest usability problems when they visit new sites for the first time.” He goes on to note that “First-time visitors to a site don't have the conceptual model needed to correctly interpret menu options and navigate to the appropriate place … To help new users find their way, sites must provide much more handholding and much more simplified content.” In other words, they want us to orient them, teach them, and comfort them. They want us to answer questions such as “Where am I?” “What do I do?” “What can I do?” with tutorials, bread crumbs, and collection context. At the same time, I was happy to see that those I tested learned quickly: by the 2nd visit to a finding aid, there was an increased sense of understanding about the structure and use, making our consistency in presentation and structure vitally important. Interaction: The desire for explanation, orientation, and standardization is not confined to a quest for an online tutorial or “help” page, users also want to interact. They wanted to replicate the reference desk experience, both that found in the in-person connection with an archivist and with their fellow researchers or scholars. This wasn’t necessarily manifested in a desire to comment directly on the collections or materials themselves, more in their call for a space to form a community, establish social networks, interact with the data, the archivist, each other. However, at the same time the dynamic omnipresent connectivity and impatience is also driving a push for instant feedback and communication: they want to give us their opinion and ask us questions-- now. Reading: One of the most troubling things I heard and realized is that, to confirm the fears expressed in the New York Times article, people were impatient and they didn’t want to read long blocks of text. The February 2008 article "Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Use," notes that “on the average Web page, users have time to read at most 28% of the words during [their] visit; 20% is more likely.” For archives users, this means they might read a summary, but most people I tested used the find-in-page function, searching by keyword. Context: I think there are probably many reasons for this, including information overload, fatigue, impatience, laziness, and general research exhaustion. Whatever the reason, many of those I tested were crying out for the archivist to provide the context for the collections not provided by a keyword or find-in-page search. They wanted the connections, the “why should I care about this?” explanation, and longed to be able to link things together with the click of a button. Yes, I know, nearly impossible, right? Impractical or not, these researchers live in a world where Amazon.com gives them related products and a wish list, Wikipedia gives them a dynamic list of “see also,” “references,” “further reading,” and “external links,” and mapquest gives you routing options and the closest restaurant to your destination. At the very least, they expect to find hyperlinks and digitized items. Digitization: SLIDE with quote: “I would want every possible collection online.” As you can imagine, in addition to impacting expectations for context, these experiences also impacted their expectations for content. We heard “I want it all digitized” and we heard that a lot. In fact, by the fifth round of testing, most participants asked for digitized content, links to other institutional or regional digital projects, and digital audio or visual elements. While participants in the 3rd and 4th rounds of testing told me that they want context and they want connections, expecting that the archivist will tell them why this collection is important and why it is useful, participants in the 5th round asked for more user-created content in addition to the standardized elements and language archivists use. For instance, user could add tags to folder descriptions that could be seen in a scroll-over or in a separate link. Again, I think we can give a side-glance to commercial sites. Personalization: I’d like to conclude this discussion of usability findings with a nod to personalization. All in all, many users don’t separate their expectations, desires, or needs when they are online; for them, “navigating” the web is about drifting in between worlds. On sites like Amazon, Starbucks, the New York Times, and Google, they can personalize their research experience, keeping track of and monitoring only the pieces they are interested in. Among other things, Amazon.com has a shopping cart, ratings and reviews, and a recommendations feature, Starbucks allows visitors to comment and provides an interactive contact us feature, and the New York Times lets registered users customize their view and see the most emailed or blogged stories. And Google—well, Google pretty much lets you do it all… Keep your documents, spreadsheets, & presentations online, search or upload images, explore a 3-D chat room, customize your maps, shop, read the news or a book, set up an RSS feed, create a blog, check your email—oh, right, and search for information.

At the end of the day, what does this really mean for us? How will social software tools change the way we do business? What can we learn from the commercial world? At the OSU Archives, we’ve set up a Flickr account, have a blog, we’re exploring the connections we can make to Wikipedia articles, and as of 2 weeks ago I have a Facebook page. At the NWDA, we’re looking at ways to implement commenting features, specifically asking for feedback in an upcoming researcher survey; we’re also thinking about how RSS feeds linked to the site or specific finding aids might be used or useful. Ultimately, I think we’re all still exploring, asking ourselves if we have a grasp on what users expect or want or need from online primary source web sites and cultural repositories. We are beginning to see scholarship and studies on this front: just to drop a few names: Elizabeth Yakel, Helen Tibbo, Christopher Prom, Wendy Duff, Paul Conway, and Barbara Craig have all looked at archives’ users in the digital era. In one way or another they are all asking us to wonder: as user expectations are shifting, have we also seen a shift in our content presentation and methods for providing access? In other words, have we dared to reimagine the structure of the finding aid? What might these musings mean for own our authority professional archivists? I think we can look to a line in the Yakel, Shaw, and Reynolds article: they write that while “[s]ocial navigation, collaborative filtering, and shared authority among archival users and archivists will continue to be controversial topics,” we need to commit ourselves to being a part of this conversation and explore ways to “make archival information more accessible in the virtual environment.” And maybe being part of the conversation means thinking WAY outside of our standard box! As I was preparing for this presentation, we were “blessed” by the Oregon rain gods and the temperature swung from 100 degrees and sunny to 70 degrees and drizzling. This put a bit of a damper on my meditative “thinking” walks, so I found myself wandering through the floors of my library, pondering the stacks. Wouldn’t it be great if the whole experience of accessing materials in an archive could be virtually recreated for researchers? You could cruise the virtual stacks, select your virtual box, browse through it and select a virtual folder, and open it to see the scanned pages or photographs. Or could we fashion a tutorial that shows the research process to new users? How can we imagine ways to put the finding aid, the box, or the folder list in perspective for them? And so as I walked, I found myself inhaling, listening to my footsteps, letting my eyes glide over the spines of the books…and thinking “could we really capture this virtually?” While you wouldn’t feel the temperature variations or smell the paper decaying, the experience could be a close second.

See Also

The Horizon Report, 20008 Edition. New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD5320.pdf

Yakel: Creating the Next Generation of Archival Finding Aids, D-Lib Magazine, May/June 2007 Volume 13 Number 5/6, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/yakel/05yakel.html

Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G. Dudek, C. & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers: you have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression!! Behaviour & Information Technology, 25, 115-126. http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/blink/

May 24, 2008: BBC News: Web users 'getting more ruthless' Nielsenhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7417496.stm

Harald Weinreich, Hartmut Obendorf, Eelco Herder, and Matthias Mayer: "Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Use," in the ACM Transactions on the Web, vol. 2, no. 1 (February 2008), article #5.

User Skills Improving, But Only Slightly: Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, February 4, 2008: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/user-skills.html