Menu Close

Category: SAA2008

SAA2008: Chinese Hammered Dulcimer + Tango = Archivists as Creative Collaborators

3 Comments

Library of Virginia: St. Peters Service Club dance, Richmond HotelThe official title of this session was Getting to the Heart of Performance: Archivists as Creative Collaborators. It was a lovely change of pace. Upon entering this session, we discovered someone tuning a Chinese hammered dulcimer in the middle of a social dance floor. Our hosts were Scott Schwartz of the Sousa Archives and Center for American Music, University of Illinios, Urbana-Champaign and Andrew M. Wentink of Middlebury College Special Collections & Archives. The goals of the session? To teach us about Asian American Jazz fusion and Tango.

Asian American Jazz Fusion

Dr. Anthony Brown, of Anthony Brown’s Asian American Orchestra, explained why there was a Chinese hammered dulcimer sitting in the middle of the room. Brown was going to introduce us to Asian and American Jazz fusion. The curator of the Smithsonian’s Duke Ellington Collection from 1992-1996, he discovered materials related to Ellington’s Far East Suite, originally composed to honor the people who welcomed Ellington during his state department tour (cut short by Kennedy’s assasination). Brown was able to trace Ellington’s itinerary through business records and then figure out the instruments that inspired the original in the Asian American Jazz Orchestra’s recording of Far East Suite. His next CD project was Monk’s Moods. The Asian American Jazz Orchestra is now celebrating its 10th anniversary with the release of a CD titled Ten.

Yangqin Zhao plays the Chinese hammered dulcimer and is the formost performer on the instrument in the western hemisphere. The dulcimer travelled via the silk road from persia. The silk road was the original information highway. It was the way east and west were connected in the ancient eras.

Then a recording of Monk’s Moods on piano was played. Then Zhao performed the same piece on the Chinese hammered dulcimer. To achieve this, Brown and Zhao had to work together to translate the original arrangement. Excerpt from Gershwin’s rapsody in blue – recomposition – reorchestrated for his orchestra. A piece of music or a dance chart cannot come to life until you breath life into it. Enabling access to performing arts is different.

The second piece that Zhao played was Andantino from Rhapsody in Blue. Samples of both Andantino and Monk’s Moods are available on the Ten CD page. Zhao then thanked Anthony for teaching her Jazz.

Tango

The dance portion of the session was brought to us by Richard Powers of Stanford University Dance Division and his dance partner Joan Walden. Powers founded the Flying Cloud Academy of Vintage Dance. He has a design and creative process degree from Stanford where he is an expert in 19th and early 20th century social dance. Stanford has an extensive dance manuals collections and Powers is the director of Stanford’s 70 member vintage dance ensemble.

Stanford Dance department wanted Richard to make dance more visible on campus to help make sure that it didn’t get cut (partially or completely). Outreach is important – strengthen funding or let potential donors know about you. He recommends that you can bring back dance manuals from your archive. With movies like Mad Hot Ballroom and Shall We Dance? and TV shows like Dancing With The Stars, the American public is predisposed right now to be interested in dancing. Most of the dances in dance manuals were meant for teaching regular people to dance so they could dance with their friends. They were part of a self improvement movement.

Think of unique way to encourage others to use archival records. Powers encourages everyone to NOT hand it off to others. Being a non-dancer gives you a better chance for colloboration. The more we know, the harder it is to get into a true collaboration. But if it is new for you you are more open minded and more open to true collaboration.

There are other resources beyond dance manuals: dance magazines, etiquette books, anti-dance manuals (which sometimes describe the illicit dances that the proper dance manuals won’t mention), novels that give background, journals/diaries/letters, iconography – lithographs, photos, drawings, etchings, sculptures .. to help get the visual idea.. costuming. Dance cards and ball programs give lots of information – when, who.. what music.. maybe where. This also gives you a chance to see which dances were popular (vs the manuals which are promoting dances). Motion pictures from the times. So – how can we weave all of this together?

For more information about how to reconstruct dances, read Powers’ Guidelines for Dance Research and Reconstruction.

We then got a crash course in Tango history. I took notes as fast as I could, but I know I missed a lot along the way. Here are the bits I managed to get down – but don’t trust me to be an authority:

  • 100 years ago in Buenes Ares or Paris – you could find the argentinian tango. 1908 – just arrived in paris.. in the outskirts from Buenes Ares. But that version would seem simple. And then they danced!
  • 1st Myth of the Tango: It was born in the brothels. His informed opinion is that it was created by the poor, but that doesn’t mean they were pimps & prostitutes. Most tango scholars today believe it was created by the honest poor in the bario.
  • 2nd Myth of the Tango: The Tango was imported to Paris (1908-1912) and tamed by the French who found it too passionate and make it more appropriate for the ballroom. Lots of documentation from many sources that prove that the French ADDED more passion.. and that the dance was carried to Paris by young aristocrats.
  • Tango was presented in response to the dance called the Apache – exchanged influence from 1912-1914 in Paris.
  • A Buenes Arnes dance manual from 1914 (dated by the illustrations) called El Tango Argentino includes detailed illustrations and foot diagrams. Going back to the source shows us the meaning behind the names and rules about steps. Most drama and stalking was added 15 years later.
  • The true roots of Tango are unknown.
  • The main trunk of Tango is the version known in Paris 100 years ago.. social Tango today is still the same. Three branches of
  • Tango are: 1) stage performance (more dramatic), 2) ballroom competition and 3) Beunes Ares – every 10 years or so it changes dramatically.

Then they got everyone up and out on the dance floor. We went from learning history and thinking about how to one might decipher dance manuals to actually learning to Tango!

My Thoughts

If you are wondering why I am posting this over four months after the conference – you can blame Beaver Archivist’s post about Dancing Archivists. It immediately made me recall the largest gathering of dancing archivists I had personally witnessed. The session itself was really great. It was so far from people sitting in silent rows staring at powerpoint slides (not that there is anything wrong with that) that you might have thought you had wandered into the wrong conference.

It was the takeaway that was especially appealing to me. I really like the idea of finding new ways to bring performance based archives back to life – of finding new ways to reach out to people and make the records sing and dance again. Hearing music reinterpreted and reinvented is of course fundamentally different from seeing sheet music in a glass case. What if every archives that had performance art related records found a way to have two live, participatory events each year? I can only imagine the new audience who might be drawn in to learn about what is hidden in the archives — they might just come back because it is fun. My fingers are crossed that I can get my 2nd Tango lesson in Austin, TX in August 2009.

As is the case with all my session summaries from SAA2008, please accept my apologies in advance for any cases in which I misquote, overly simplify or miss points altogether in the post above. These sessions move fast and my main goal is to capture the core of the ideas presented and exchanged. Feel free to contact me about corrections to my summary either via comments on this post or via my contact form.

Read more →

Susa 2.0: Max Evans’ Finding Aid Prototype

4 Comments

Susa Young GatesAs part of his portion of our SAA 2008 panel in San Francisco, Max Evans demonstrated his prototype for a new way to view an EAD finding aid. You can download his presentation from the SAA’s site: Finding Aids for the 21st Century: The Next Evolution.

Max’s prototype of Susa 2.0 is now online! He asked that I make sure you know it works best (showing all the intended mouse over text for links) with Internet Explorer version 6.0. The prototype presents the finding aid of the Susa Young Gates Papers from the Utah State Historical Society. His design tackles the major issues that plague large finding aids normally displayed in traditional single page layouts. Anyone who has looked at a large finding aid online has had the experience of being scrolled down somewhere in the middle and realizing they have no idea what they are looking at. What folder is this item in? What box is this folder in? Am I reading through a list of letters from 1950 or are these the ones from 1970?

Context is hard to communicate when you are dealing with long lists of folders that stretch longer than the length of the screen. Max’s design uses a three column approach to provide context from left to right. His design also gives users a way to look at the full list of either items or folders, independent of their originating containers – each list then sortable in three different ways: ‘as arranged’, alphabetically or by date. I love this page which shows how a scanned document might be displayed within the proper context of the collection – in this case, page 2 of document 1 of the General Correspondence from 1886-1909. All of these ideas get at the heart of giving researchers more control over how to tackle the records in a collection while making sure that they don’t loose the tools that ordered documents in a folder would provide them in the research room.

His prototype takes a step beyond just changing how the finding aid itself is presented – but also considers how the work flow of a researcher can be improved while also simplifying the record request processes. The prototype gives the patron the option to request the scanning of specific folders or items. They can also add records to their ‘research cart’ to either request the proper boxes be retrieved or to store the records in a personal research area within the archives website – both possibilities sound useful to me.

Max’s prototype is such a great example of rethinking how people are expected to work with archival records within the confines of the information we already have available in finding aids as they exist today. I highly recommend you give Susa 2.0 a look. It is a testament to Max’s incredible patience that he was able to create this prototype using over 200 separate HTML files – but it also sets the bar high for what we could be doing with our interface design!

Read more →

SAA2008: Yale, Family Papers & High School Students (Session 508)

2 Comments

The session’s official title was Family and Community Archives Project: Introducing High School Students to the Archives Profession. It focused on a pilot outreach program carried out by 21 archivists from Yale University at the Cooperative Arts and Humanities magnet high school in New Haven, CT. 117 high school juniors participated as part of their US History course. The pilot aimed to introduce them to what archivists do, work with them to find, understand and describe their family papers and also to present archives as a possible profession to students who might assume that it was only welcoming to Caucasians.

A number of their original plans were adjusted after they met with the high school administrators:

  • They would need to work with juniors rather than seniors because it is the juniors who take US History
  • The principal wanted them to work with all 5 classes of US History students, rather than a single class.
  • The program would run from March to May instead of January to June
  • When they realized that a number of students are in foster care, they needed to find other ways to include students who did not want (or could not) do family research. They chose to add the option of researching the history of community organizations.

Logistics

A total of twenty-one archivists from various departments at Yale University volunteered. They were divided up into five teams, one for each class with which they would be working during the course of the pilot. Starting in October they held weekly meetings to create the schedule and plans. A total of eight lesson plans were created. These took much more time than the archivists had expected. They also designed and printed a brochure to introduce the students to archives, archivists and basic archival terms. A wiki (Family Community Archives Project Wiki) was created to facilitate communication among the archivists and teachers. The wiki included bios of the archivists.

All classwork would be graded by the teachers without input from the archivists. This classwork included a journal component. It was decided that the journal (a 3-ring binder that the archivists provided) would remain in the class room. This choice was made based on teacher input – there was concern that if the journals were removed from the classroom that they would quickly be misplaced or forgotten.

Parents and guardians of participating students were alerted via a letter explaining the class project and encouraging them to help students as they worked on their family or community research.

A blog (Family and Community Archives Project Blog) was created that students, archivists and teachers could all use to communicate with each other. They met with the classes for 8 weeks. Every student got a certificate of participation and an ‘archivally themed goody box’ (think Oscars.. but less opulent). They asked students to complete an evaluation form – to ‘be honest… we are thick skinned’. They mounted an exhibit in the main Yale library featuring the student’s work. As is often the case with 16 year olds, the students pulled it together at the last minute and did a great job. They had an opening reception that included students, parents and the community.

Lessons Learned

They discussed both with the teachers and archivists to analyze what worked and what didn’t. What worked?

  • Students learned what archivists do – some said they might consider a career as an archivist and that they learned a lot.
  • The teachers enjoyed it – noticed some students were more engaged than they sometimes were (while some were not that interested).
  • Brought Yale into community and the community into Yale.
  • Collaboration across libraries and departments – archivists met each other and worked together.
  • The group creation of lesson plans.
  • The choice to assign several archivists per class. It permitted small groups and one-on-one work. Lesson plans were sometimes customized to suite the classroom/teacher/student special cases.
  • The blog: this communication worked for some.. but not all. Hard to know why some students were more comfortable with the blog than others. It was a good way to provide students with information about the archivists and the project.
  • The wiki: provided schedules, lesson plans, resources.. etc. It was very successful & usefull.

The most successful aspects?

  • The archives tour
  • Discussion of who uses archives and why which included audio/visual examples and archival material.
  • The exhibit was a high point of the project. They photographed the items they wanted to display and that worked well. Students were very proud of the exhibit.. 25% did not contribute.

What did not work?

  • Teacher support varied – success completely depended on the enthusaism and commitment of the teacher.
  • 8 weeks is too long for this sort of project
  • Class meeting times too long – 40 and 80 minute sessions
  • Needed more feedback earlier in the process from teachers on lesson plans – didn’t learn the reading level of the students until lesson plans were done… needed clearer definition of expectations for the exhibit.
  • Efficacy and support for homework – some people thought there should be no homework (other than project tasks) .. some thought it should be more structured.
  • Technology support for A/V lesson – school didn’t have equipment to support the A/V projection needs
  • Student privacy – they needed parent/guardian permissions to allow video & photos of students to be taken. There was a very late question about if they could use the students’ first and last in the exhibition. No media release forms were sent out in time to make a video about the session.
  • School activities schedule changed all the time – interfered
  • Early class time led to poor attendance (7 am!)
  • The archivists talked too much – they needed more hands on lessons. Students should have been able to bring in materials earlier in the process and have more time to work with them. More opportunity to connect to the student – the example being the LAST class session when the students brought materials in for scanning by the archivists. This gave a way to connect to the archivists and understand why their materials were important.

Teacher’s suggestions for improving the project

  • Run the project for 2 weeks in march – just after national testing is completed
  • Meet with each class 5 times in a row in one week.. with one class being the tour

This project fit in really well with Yale’s goals of reaching out to the local New Haven community.

Potential lessons for other archivists

  • planning phase:
    • define measures of success
    • define what you want students to learn & how – realistic objects for a 16 year old.. do not be too ambitious. Include perspectives of archivist parents. for some classes lecturing worked well.. some classes small groups worked really well
    • define resources needed ( they had 21 archivists who did work on Yale’s time) – Money = $3,000 spent on photo reproductions, handouts, mounting, gift boxes, lunch for teachers & archivists and final reception.
    • explore what is available on the Internet – look for lesson plans – good stuff out there that is often too ambitious, but good for adaptation
    • partner with the teacher – engage the teachers early on.. define what the students need to do by the end of the project. think about archivists who have never taught before.. figure out what you can do to help them
    • include a tour of a repository
    • provide teaching lessons for archivists who haven’t taught
    • plan for unengaged students and teachers – adapted their lessons.. hard situation..
    • avoid early morning classes
    • resolve privacy/confidentiality issue early
  • implementation:
    • be flexible – be prepared for changing activities schedules and other in class challenges
    • do an exhibit – create copies.. understand that these are precious materials
    • be visual in your teaching – video!
    • delving into family history can raise sensitive information – help 16 year olds figure out how to choose what to display in a public exhibit
    • introduce them to other jobs beyond archivist – at first only talked about archivists work… but next year will also talk about all the people who work in archives. Tie in their interests (this was an arts school.. include that perspective)
    • wrap up meetings with teachers and archivists essential

Diversity

One of the underlying goals of the pilot was to explore ways to increase diversity.

Cultural exchange: What did archivists learn from the students and teachers when working with the school? They learned about the student’s families and their community organizations. It bridged a generation gap – the archivists learned about what it meant to be a high school kid these days. Not all of it was positive – it left a lot of the archivists with concern for the state of education – issues with their writing skills.

Difficult to measure: How do we know it worked? No longitudinal study is being done to find out if they end up working in archives. We need to take a long view – but be impatient.

The impact on archives, defined broadly – no matter if they did not make any new archivists, they supported the archival endeavor – 110 students, teachers and their families now have a better understanding of archives and records.

Questions & Answers

Question: Who crafted the evaluation for the students?

Answer: One of the archivists created it and it was approved by the rest of the team.

Question: In the future would you find it more desirable to work with the teachers on evaluating the student projects for grading purposes? or is that not our business?

Answer: No, they would not want to be involved with grading. The teacher knows the students. That said – they do wish that the teachers had planned the final project earlier on. Next time the archivists would encourage/push for final project guidelines.

Question: How did you measure that your learning objectives were met other than the survey?

Answer: They didn’t do that formally – but anecdotally when the students were in other classes – they heard other teachers report that students continued to talk about the archives work outside of the history class. There was a ‘buzz’ among the students.

Question: How did you find the time to do this?

Answer: The leadership had to agree (at least informally) that the archivists can do this. Molly: They were very surprised by how much time it all took. It was a volunteer effort.. they met as a group 1x a week during their lunch hour.

Question: Why didn’t you consider doing an electronic journal?

Answer: There was a concern that not all students are tech savvy. For example – only a handful of kids engaged with the blog. They felt they couldn’t require it unless everyone had access and a sufficient comfort level with the tools.

Question: Where any archivists of color involved in the project ? If one of the goals of projects like this is to encourage individuals of color to consider a career as an archivist, it might be easier if they see people who look like them.. people out there documenting diverse communities.

Answer: Yes.. a few. There were suggestions that they could contact the roundtables of color/ethnicity – bring in visiting speakers to talk about how they came to work in archives. The materials are important too – materials they can relate with. It was emphasized again that this was a pilot and the had to spend a great deal of time creating their lesson plans from scratch. Now that they have the building blocks – they can improve other aspects.

Question: What about talking about preserving things like MySpace pages – maybe use myspace for the blogging

Answer: They didn’t want to do anything that might exclude people.

Question: Was the non-involved teacher aware of what archives do?

Answer: He didn’t come to the archives tour. He was totally tuned out. He felt he was very behind in the teaching schedule – both students and the teacher felt it was taking away from class time.

Question: Could they offer the 11 out of 117 who said they might want to be archivists internships?

Answer: Maybe – but since the rules of the school required that any student who left the campus was accompanied by an adult, it would be very challenging.

My Thoughts

I found this session very inspiring. I loved that it took the archives to the community and it the community into the archives. This is the sort of outreach project I hope has a chance of spreading to other schools. Interested in considering a project like this at your archives? Take a look at all the resources available on the wiki’s handouts and homework page and be on the lookout for a writeup of the pilot in the Nov/Dec issue of Archival Outlook.

Read more →

SAA2008: Preservation and Experimentation with Analog/Digital Hybrid Literary Collections (Session 203)

floppy disks

The official title of Session 203 was Getting Our Hands Dirty (and Liking It): Case Studies in Archiving Digital Manuscripts. The session chair, Catherine Stollar Peters from the New York State Archives and Records Administration, opened the session with a high level discussion of the “Theoretical Foundations of Archiving Digital Manuscripts”. The focus of this panel was preserving hybrid collections of born digital and paper based literary records. The goal was to review new ways to apply archival techniques to digital records. The presenters were all archivists without IT backgrounds who are building on others work … and experimenting. She also mentioned that this also impacts researchers, historians, and journalists.For each of the presenters, I have listed below the top challenges and recommendations. If you attended the sessions, you can skip forward to my thoughts.

Norman Mailer’s Electronic Records

Challenges & Questions:

  • 3 laptops and nearly 400 disks of correspondence
  • While the letters might have been dictated or drafted by Mailer, all the typing, organization and revisions done on the computer were done by his assistant Judith McNally. This brings into question issues of who should be identified as the record creator. How do they represent the interaction between Mailer & McNally? Who is the creator? Co-Creators?
  • All the laptops and disks were held by Judith McNally. When she died all of her possessions were seized by county officials. All the disks from her apartment were eventually recovered over a year later – but it causes issues of provenance. There is no way to know who might have viewed/changed the records.

Revelations and Recommendations:

What is accessioning and processing when dealing with electronic records? What needs to be done?

  • gain custody
  • gather information about creator’s (or creators’) use of the electronic records. In March 2007 they interviewed Mailer to understand the process of how they worked together. They learned that the computers were entirely McNally’s domain.
  • number disks, computers (given letters), other digital media
  • create disk catalog – to reflect physical information of the disk. Include color of ink.. underlining..etc. At this point the disk has never been put into a computer. This captures visual & spacial information
  • gather this info from each disk: file types, directory structure & file names

The ideal for future collections of this type is archivist involvement earlier – the earlier the better.

Papers of Peter Ganick

  • Speaker: Melissa Watterworth
  • Featured Collection: Papers of Writer and Small Press Publisher Peter Ganick, Thomas J Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut

Challenges & Questions:

  • What are the primary sources of our modern world?
  • How do we acquire and preserve born digital records as trusted custodians?
  • How do we preserve participatory media – maybe we can learn from those who work on performance art?
  • How do we incrementally build our collections of electronic records? Should we be preserving the tools?
  • Timing of acquisition: How actively should we be pursuing personal archives? How can we build trust with creators and get them to understand the challenges?
  • Personal papers are very contextual – order matters. Does this hold true for born digital personal archives? What does the networking aspect of electronic records mean – how does it impact the idea of order?
  • First attempt to accession one of Peter Ganick’s laptops and the archivist found nothing she could identify as files.. she found fragments of text – hypertext work and lots of files that had questionable provenance (downloaded from a mailing list? his creations?). She had to sit down next to him and learn about how he worked.
  • He didn’t understand at first what her challenges were. He could get his head around the idea of metadata and issues of authenticity. He had trouble understanding what she was trying to collect.
  • How do we arrange and keep context in an online environment?
  • Biggest tech challenge: are we holding on for too long to ideas of original order and context?
  • Is there a greater challenge in collecting earlier in the cycle? What if the creator puts restrictions on groupings or chooses to withdraw them?
  • Do we want to create contracts with donors? Is that practical?

Revelations and Recommendations:

  • Collect materials that had high value as born digital works but were at a high risk of loss.
  • Build infrastructure to support preservation of born digital records.
  • Go back to the record creator to learn more about his creative process. They used to acquire records from Ganick every few years.. that wasn’t frequent enough. He was changing the tools he used and how he worked very quickly. She made sure to communicate that the past 30 years of policy wasn’t going to work anymore. It was going to have to evolve.
  • Created a ‘submission agreement’ about what kinds of records should be sent to the archive. He submitted them in groupings that made sense to him. She reviewed the records to make sure she understood what she was getting.
  • Considering using PDFa to capture snapshot of virtual texts.
  • Looked to model of ‘self archiving’ – common in the world of professors to do ongoing accruals.
  • What about ’embedded archivists’? There is a history of this in the performing arts and NGOs and it might be happening more and more.

George Whitmore Papers

Challenges & Questions:

  • How do you establish identity in a way that is complete and uncorrupted? How do you know it is authentic? How do you make an authentic copy? Are these requirements as unreasonable and unachievable?

Revelations and Recommendations:

  • Refresh and replicate files on a regular schedule.
  • They have had good success using Quick View Plus to enable access to many common file formats. On the downside, it doesn’t support everything and since it is proprietary software there are no long term guarantees.
  • In some cases they had to send CP/M files to a 3rd party to have them converted into WordStar and have the ascii normalized.
  • Varied acquisition notes.. and accession records.. loan form with the 3rd party who did the conversion that summarized the request.. they did NOT provide information about what software was used to convert from CP/M to DOS. This would be good information to capture in the future.
  • Proposed an expansion of the standards to include how electronic records were migrated in the <processinfo> processing notes.

Questions & Answers

Question: As part of a writers community, what do we tell people who want to know what they can DO about their records. They want technical information.. they want to know what to keep. Current writers are aware they are creating their legacy.

Answer: Michael: The single best resource is the interPARES 2 Creator Guidelines. The Beineke has adapted them to distrubute to authors. Melissa: Go back to your collection development policies and make sure to include functions you are trying to document (like process.. distribution networks). Also communities of practice (acid free bits) are talking about formats and guidelines like that Gabriela: People often want to address ‘value’. Right now we don’t know how to evaluate the value of electronic drafts – it is up to authors.

Question: Cal Lee: Not a question so much as an idea: the world of digital forensics and security and the ‘order of volatility’ dictate that everyone should always be making a full disk copy bit by bit before doing anything else.

Comment: Comment on digital forensic tools – there is lots of historical and editing history of documents in the software… also delete files are still there.

Question: Have you seen examples of materials that are coming into the archive where the digital materials are working drafts for a final paper version? This is in contrast to others are electronic experiments.

Answer: Yes, they do think about this. It can effect arrangement and how the records are described. The formats also impact how things are preserved.

Question: Access issues? Are you letting people link to them from the finding aids? How are the documents authenticity protected.

Answer: DSpace gives you a new version anytime you want it (the original bitstream) .. lots of cross linking supports people finding things from more than one path. In some cases documents (even electronic) can only be accessed from within the on site reading room.

Question: What is your relationship is like with your IT folks?

Answer: Gabriela: Our staff has been very helpful. We use ‘legacy’ machines to access our content. They build us computers. They are also not archivists, so there is a little divide about priorities and the kind of information that I am interested in.. but it has been a very productive conversation.

Question: (For Melissa) Why didn’t you accept Peter’s email (Melissa had said they refused a submission of email from Peter because it didn’t have research value)?

Answer: The emails that included personal medical emails were rejected. The agreement with Peter didn’t include an option to selectively accept (or weed) what was given.

Question: In terms of gathering information from the creators.. do you recommend a formal/recorded interview? Or a more informal arrangement in which you can contact them anytime on an ongoing basis?

Answer: Melissa: We do have more formal methods – ‘documentation study’ style approaches. We might do literature reviews.. Ultimately the submission agreement is the most formal document we have. Gabriela: It depends on what the author is open to.. formal documentation is best.. but if they aren’t willing to be recorded, then you take what you can get!

My Thoughts

I am very curious to see how best practices evolve in this arena. I wonder how stories written using something like Google Documents, which auto-saves and preserves all versions for future examination, will impact how scholars choose to evaluate the evolution of documents. There have already been interesting examinations of the evolution of collaborative documents. Consider this visual overview of the updates to the Wikipedia entry for Sarah Palin created by Dan Cohen and discussed in his blog post Sarah Palin, Crowdsourced. Another great example of this type of visual experience of a document being modified was linked to in the comments of that post: Heavy Metal Umlaut: The Movie. If you haven’t seen this before – take a few minutes to click through and watch the screencast which actually lets you watch as a Wikipedia page is modified over time.

While I can imagine that there will be many things to sort out if we try to start keeping these incredibly frequent snapshot save logs (disk space? quantity of versions? authenticity? author preferences to protect the unpolished versions of their work?) – I still think that being able to watch the creative process this way will still be valuable in some situations. I also believe that over time new tools will be created to automate the generation of document evolution visualization and movies (like the two I link to above) that make it easy for researchers to harness this sort of information.

Perhaps there will be ways for archivists to keep only certain parts of the auto-save versioning. I can imagine an author who does not want anyone to see early drafts of their writing (as is apparently also the case with architects and early drafts of their designs) – but who might be willing for the frequency of updates to be stored. This would let researchers at least understand the rhythm of the writing – if not the low level details of what was being changed.

I love the photo I found for the top of this post. I admit to still having stacks of 3 1/2 floppy disks. I have email from the early days of BITNET.  I have poems, unfinished stories, old resumes and SQL scripts. For the moment my disks live in a box on the shelf labeled ‘Old Media’. Lucky me – I at least still have a computer with a floppy drive that can read them!

Image Credit: oh messy disks by Blude via flickr.

As is the case with all my session summaries from SAA2008, please accept my apologies in advance for any cases in which I misquote, overly simplify or miss points altogether in the post above. These sessions move fast and my main goal is to capture the core of the ideas presented and exchanged. Feel free to contact me about corrections to my summary either via comments on this post or via my contact form.

Read more →

SAA2008: Revealing Archival Collections at the Web’s Surface (Session 102)

2 Comments

Calisphere: Vigilance Committee Warning, April 1906

The official title of Session 102 was We’re Not the Destination, We’re the Journey: Revealing Archival Collections at the Web’s Surface. If you attended this session or don’t want to read through the details, you can skip to the end and just read my thoughts on this session.

California Digital Library

The first presentation was by Lena Zentall of the California Digital Library (CDL). I believe it was titled something like “Untitled <snappy name here>”. CDL is increasing visibility of primary sources by targeting primary sources to specific audiences. Lena described how they view the URL as a line to reel in new audiences. She started with an overview of how archival content traditionally makes its way online.

Start with a box -> described by finding aids -> digital copies of finding aids put on line and cherry picked individual items are digitized to be featured online.

Two Audiences, Two Sites

CDL has taken a new approach. They have two sites for two very different audiences:

  • Online Archive of California (OAC): presents both finding aids and digitized primary sources and targets archivists, historians & researchers
  • Calisphere – only takes primary sources (for now) and targets k-12 teachers, lifelong learners, and undergraduates

Collections can have home in several places. For example, the items about the Chinese in California can be found in:

Calisphere has created themed collections to highlight superstar digital objects. They pull images out of the finding aids and rearrange them for the target audience. These images are hand picked and associated with an essay. They pick striking objects with good metadata. This is what their audience wants – the teachers asked for it. Another example themed collection is the Goldrush Murder & Mayhem collection which includes this photo of the “old time San Francisco pickpocket” Jennie Hastings.

Hidden Gems: Untitled and No Metadata

The next part of the presentation discussed what happens to items that are untitled and associated with no metadata. Lena showed us the results when you searched the OAC images for for untitled. I found 12,315 items when I did this search. They really only live in the context of the finding aid. Of course the challenge is that people use words to find images. These hidden gems can be helped by inheriting the metadata of their parent container (such as collection level information) when there is nothing else.

3 Approaches

  1. Digitize and release content to the web: low effort (after infrastructure is set up), very high return on investment. Over 40% of Calisphere traffic generated by google searches… but when users follow the link from google then they find the rich context.
  2. Align with other aggregators: – low/medium effort, medium return. Calipshere content is also being pulled into aggregators. They can also pull back new data that is added by 3rd party partners – such as reading level added on a teacher site. These are three examples of Murder and Mayhem content in three different partner sites:
  3. Cherry-picking the best items: high effort, promising returns – but it is also harder to measure the returns

Finding New Audiences and New Volunteers

The next step is to reach beyond standard cultural and education venues and move into different ares of the internet. For example, the CDL added links to Wikipedia. The perception of those involved with this effort was that it was a very convoluted process with lots of mysterious rules. They were unsure if the links would remain in place. It sometimes seemed like a lot of work when the links might just be removed. They added 33 links and found 53 links made by others not affiliated with the CDL. On the plus side, links like this puts the digital objects in a very specific context. Traffic initiated from these Wikipedia entries is almost certainly individuals seeking detailed information in the specific topic they are researching.

The next frontier involves blogs. CDL digital items are now featured in blogs, but soon CDL will be creating a blog for Calisphere to tell the story behind individual pictures. The final stop for this talk was an inspirational blog: Mustaches of the Nineteenth Century. This blog was presented as a way to achieve the fame that primary sources dream about.

Library of Congress

The second presentation, by Helena Zinkham from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division, was titled “The New Friends for Old Photos – putting pictures in your path with the Flickr commons and Web 2.0”. This talk focused on the pilot project of putting Library of Congress photos on Flickr in the new Flickr Commons.

People who want photos don’t think of libraries or archives. They go to museums and stock photo agencies. Helena wants to help people realize that archives are a great source of images.

There has been increasing progress with hidden collections. Lots of digitization and work with metadata has been done to help items make their way online. But this begs the question of whether we are just creating new hidden collections in corners of the Internet that the average person will never come in contact with. Collections like ArchiveGrid, DLF Aquifer, and OAC. The descriptions need to get out of the catalogs – most people find content on the web.. we need to put the images on the web in the path of the users.

The Flickr commons satisfied Helena’s desire to pull people in from Flickr back to discover the catalog world of archives. Flickr can be considered a virtual reading room and platform for a virtual volunteer corp. Helena showed the example of the image Weavers at Work. The comments on this photo included:

  • information that photo is of blind women weaving rugs
  • the photographer’s great grandchild identified the photographer as Percy Byron
  • the start of a discussion about what the cabinet or instrument might be shown to the far right of the photo

These commenters are new friends worth making!

Pros of Web 2.0

  • make collection available
  • gain information about collections – participatory description
  • increase the visibility of specific photos
  • win support for cultural heritage organizations

Risks of Web 2.0

  • disrespect for collections (smart aleck chat)
  • loss of meaning
  • reduce revenue from photo sales
  • excludes undigitized collections
  • higher costs (more money and time)
  • less chance for us to have fun as history detectives – other people are doing ‘our’ work

read powerhouse museums’ 3 month report about their experience. … Helena will post info about the nuts and bolts on the SAA site, but she also directed the audience to Powerhouse Museum’s Commons on Flickr First 3 Months Report.

Flickr Basics

Helena asked the session attendees who was familiar with flicker? Most of the room raised their hands. Who has accounts? Still good number. Who is adding archival content? A sprinkling of hands were raised.

Helena then explores Flickr basics and showed off the following neat search examples:

Logistics and Statistics

The LOC liked Flickr and felt it was a good fit because photographs are the main focus of the site. They did need one big change. Because LOC is not the owner or photographer (unlike most photo contributors), they needed a way to express that clearly. Flickr responded by creating The Commons. They also created a new rights statement of ‘no known copyright restrictions’ for members of The Commons to use. This is different from public domain. Flickr also appears (based on my hunt through the links) to permit each institutions in The Commons to link to their own explanation about what they mean by ‘no known copyright restrictions’. LOC deep links to a specific section of their Copyright and Other Restrictions page for Prints & Photographs. George Eastman House has a special George Eastman House & The Commons on Flickr page about copyright, as does the Brooklyn Museum.

Statistics from the first 6 moths on Flickr:

  • 3,500 LOC photos posted
  • 8 million views
  • 30,000 favorites for 80% of the photos
  • 14,000 Flickr members made LOC a contact
  • 5,000 comments (3,300 people)
  • 12,500 unique tags (59,000 total)
  • 500 catalog records updated – Helena indicated that this could be considered a new kind of backlog, “but a backlog you can come to like”
  • 20% increased traffic to p&p online catalog

There are 30,000 more photos from Bain News Service on the way, but they are only adding fifty photos a week. This number was recommended by Flickr as the largest they would want to push at any one time. This goes back to the tolerance of people who have Flickr in their friend photo stream. Fifty photos is about as many as people want to get at any one time. More than that and you increase the likelihood that people would remove you from their stream instead of be overwhelmed. They would have no chance to really look at more than that.

Contributors to The Commons can choose which features to enable. For example, the Portrait of Hine as small child standing by drum shows how george eastman house chooses to send people back to their institution for prints.

How much does it cost?

  • a Flickr pro account costs $24.95 a year
  • digitization costs
  • time: daily moderation on the account – LOC checks every day for uncivil discourse which takes about 10 minutes
  • 15-20 hours a week to pull data from comments to update metadata

Flickr Comments

One of the greatest parts of this presentation was the examination of ways in which flicker users contributed through comments. Here are some examples:

  • Auto Polo: – comment includes link to an auto polo thread on the Jalopy Journal’s message board which includes newspaper images and an extended discussion.
  • Sylvia Sweets Tea Room – includes a very extensive history of the business added by the daughter of the original proprietor
  • Negro boy near Cincinnati, Ohio – the comments include a deep conversation about the title of the photo and the context of this title at the time it was taken (1942 or 1943).
  • Jones Barn where dynamite was found – Flickr members found the context and news article to go with this photo
  • Al Palzer – this photo’s original title was Al Palser – but the misspelling was pointed out in the comments. The comments also include a response from the LOC noting that the boxer’s name would be updated in the original catalog record.

Other Promotion Approaches

The Library of Congress has now started linking out from the LOC catalog entries to the Flickr image so that it is easy for users to discover any conversations associated with the Flickr version. Powerhouse museum has a Photo of the Day blog to highlight images from their collection. The Brooklyn Museum encourages people to upload photos of things happening in Brooklyn. Then and now photos can be taken – in this case see factory buildings in Lowell, Massachusetts in December 1940/January 1941 and then again in January of 2008.

The key to 2.0 is frequent, new content and interaction from archival staff. Helena is open to new ideas about how to use Flickr and closed with saying that Web 2.0 is right in our path.

Questions and Answers

Question: What is their view of the accuracy/inaccuracy user generated tags and comments?

Answer: Study done in the past comparing accuracy of official cataloging to comments – even if people make mistakes, but others will correct them.. LOC has a ‘hands off’ policy to not delete/change stuff unless it is defamatory or spam. Only 3 instances of this so far. LOC is citing the source as ‘Flickr commons’ and also include commenters’ sources – which are actually a lot more varied than you might expect (like the Jalopy Journal).

Question: Are you worried about an increase demand in staff time as you add more photos?

Answer: Yes.. there will be an increase in demand.. but the Flickr comments are there and since LOC is adding links back out to those records they are available for researchers even if they are not added to the original catalog record. Maybe they need more staff? depends on goals. Could work with expert teams and look for ‘formal trusted’ volunteers. A great example was the baseball history association who took photos and contributed expert information in a spreadsheet (if I heard correctly they gave LOC a spreadsheet identifying team, game, date and opponent for more than 3000 photos).

Question: Isn’t the link from the LOC catalog record to Flickr enough? Why update the LOC catalog records at all?

Answer: They are really only updating when it is a mistake (like Palser’s name mistake). Flickr also provides APIs and LOC pulls all the comments and tags into external database so that LOC can choose how to use the information over time.

Question: What are your thoughts and concerns about the longevity of Flickr as a platform?

Answer: What grows fast can die fast. Their perspective: Flickr is a copy.. and LOC has an extract of all the tags and comments – nothing lost if it disappears.

Question: Calipshere: how do they work with teachers to learn their needs and their satisfaction with the work that is done?

Answer: They hired Berkeley experts to talk to teachers about what they wanted. They used interviews and created personas to capture the audience needs. Targeting the K-12 audience was aimed at being a success by being clear about their audience. Teachers used to print out images, but now they do more with powerpoint and iPods plugged into TV in the classroom. The teachers say they are happy with the theme collections and they want more. They have an advisory board with teachers.. they use surveys and watch the bboards.

Question: Is there a crossover between Calishpere and OAC users?

Answer: They almost didn’t cross link to the finding aids from within Calisphere.. but they decided the information was so important. Reason for the upcoming blog – want to tell the story behind the photos.

Question: Do they have anlytics/evidence of pulling people back to their sites?

Answer: Yes.. they can see increases in usage from everything they have done.

Question: When you download the comments – are they dated so you can only look at the new ones? How hard was it to change the title in your catalog?

Answer: Everything is time/date stamped when you pull info out of Flickr. Quick and easy to update.. 10 minutes per picture to do the updates.. Flickr members are doing a great job with citations.

Question: Do you have advice about how to get historical society folks who are concerned about loosing the admission fee for people coming in to do research on board with these web 2.0 approaches?

Answer: You show them alternative revenue streams. In the museum world .. they realized that they weren’t making money from reproductions and a change is in process to let people use images for publishing.. all about improving the brand recognition. Helena: I would love ideas from people using Flickr.. and to hear from people who are dealing with multiple audiences.

Question: Have you had complaints? Any specifically from copyright holders?

Answer: Yes.. they have had complaints.. one “Why haven’t you cleaned up the photos?” LOC position is to provide the version they have.. and it is up to others to cleanup and do what they like with the photos. They also point out that instead of perfecting photos, they are spending money on providing access to more photos.

Question: Expectations of service. Are people expecting that if they ask a question about a photo that they will get an answer from a LOC representative?

Answer: Do you have to respond to everyone who asked to be a contact? No.. perhaps different expectations for institutions. They currently add a comment when they are updating the original catalog records. Might acknoledge big contributors (more than 10 photos) at the end of the pilot via a direct e-mail to individuals.

Question: Have people complained about rights – that is my grandmother.. don’t put it on the web?

Answer: No. They do have a policy in place. Most people are ‘pleased as punch’ to learn that their family heritage is alive and well. OAC: They haven’t had anyone ask to take the content down. In the case that people provide feedback for updates – since OAC is an aggregation of items from so many institutions – they have to pass corrections info along to original keeper of the metadata and leave it in their hands to do updates.

Question: Is there a fear that interest will decrease as more photos are added to the commons?

Answer: Bloggers in the web were in love with the idea that the photos would go into Flickr. There was a big peak at the start – but views and comments are still steady (but smaller) . The more additions.. more communities that will be touched. The Powerhouse Museum experienced a tripling of their traffic after posting images in the Flickr Commons.

Question: Have people come into the reading room because of the Flickr pilot?

Answer: Maybe? We don’t know. Lena said she did!

Question: Are we teaching the teachers how to teach with photos?

Answer: Calisphere has provided links to info about using primary sources and analysis tools.. resources for teachers. (Follow-up: Are they clicking those links? Good question!)

Question: Are you contacting the people who post negative comments?

Answer: Yes.. and most of them were more spam.

My Thoughts

Culture of Online Communities

There are a few different ideas I wanted to share related to the material from this presentation. First, I noticed that the online culture of both Flickr and Wikipedia were called out as having a clear impact. They are in fact two very different communities. In the case of the LOC and Flickr we heard that part of what seemed to keep the comments constructive and friendly was that Flickr’s users strive to keep a ‘play nice’ atmosphere in place. In contrast, we heard that Wikipedia was perceived as confusing and unpredictable when the CDL staff was updating pages to add links back to their primary sources. They never felt certain that the links they were working so hard to add wouldn’t be removed the next day.

These are just two examples of ways in which the archival community is beginning to bump into various online communities. We need to really understand the cultural rules for each of the communities in which we want to participate. Another excellent example of this was the revelation that LOC should only upload 50 new images a week into Flickr because of the way in which users view new images uploaded by their friends. It would be unfortunate for LOC to loose many of its Flickr friends because it overwhelmed their Flickr feeds with 1,000 images.

Personas: Targeting Real People

I was also very pleased to hear Lena discuss the creation of personas to define and target the audiences they want to serve. If you want to listen to a great presentation on personas – give a listen to the IA Summit 2008 presentation Data driven design research personas (2nd podcast down on the page) while going though the presentation slides up on slideshare. I promise it is a very accessible talk (ie, low on jargon and tech – high on real life examples) and very worth your time. It was one of the best sessions I saw at that conference.

Finding Images Without Words

While today it is generally true that people must use words to find images – someday people will be able to use images to find images. An example of this work in progress is an experimental service named retrievr. You can already use this tool to search for Flickr images either by uploading an image or by creating a sketch you want to match. Another interesting image search interface is found over on Xcavator.net. You pick a photo as your starting point – and then you can even trace a subsection of the image to be used for subsequent image matching. We are not there yet – but we will be someday. I can only image the number of Untitled images that will finally be found!

Vigilance

Your reward for reading this far is discovering my rationale for using the image I included at the top of this post. I think that many people are worried that we must be like the San Jose Vigilance Committee of 1906 – on our guard to stop people from stealing images from cultural heritage institutions when they are posted online. I would argue that the two projects described in this session show the benefits of a more open attitude. The Internet isn’t the wild west anymore. We should stop treating it that way. We don’t need Vigilance Committees online – we need ambassadors, interpreters and brave pioneers like Lena, Helena and the amazing teams of people who made the projects they described come to life.

Image credit: History San Jose Research Library via Calisphere.

As is the case with all my session summaries from SAA2008, please accept my apologies in advance for any cases in which I misquote, overly simplify or miss points altogether in the post above. These sessions move fast and my main goal is to capture the core of the ideas presented and exchanged. Feel free to contact me about corrections to my summary either via comments on this post or via my contact form.

Read more →

SAA2008: Hitting the ground running

I am gearing up for my first day at the SAA annual meeting here in San Francisco. I am still not totally sure what I am going to attend today – each slot has at least 3 interesting looking sessions. For those of you not familiar with how I blog at conferences, I will NOT be live blogging. Live blogging (as I define it) is sitting in a session and recording my notes and thoughts during the session and posting it as fast as possible. Instead I will be taking notes during the sessions – and then turning them into posts on each session at a later time. Sometimes I manage to do this while I am still at the conference. Sometimes this happens over the course of the week or two after the conference. This lets me add links, draw connections between the sessions and get a bit more perspective. I don’t promise to blog every session I attend, but if the past two years are any indication I should manage better than half.

In a side note – if you are staying at the conference hotel and have paid the fee to access Internet from within your hotel room ($15 a day!), you can then call down to the front desk and get a magic code to use in order to get wireless wherever it is available within the hotel.

I hope to meet as many of you as I can this year. The one guaranteed place to find me is during my session on Saturday morning at 9:30 am: Session 602: After the Revolution: Unleashing the Power of EAD. If you read my blog, feel free to come and introduce yourself. It is nice to know who is out there!

Read more →

SAA Wiki 2008: Create an account and add your voice!

2 Comments

SAA 2008 WikiAs of this writing, seventy-three individuals have created accounts on the UnOfficial Wiki of the 2008 SAA Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Where are the rest of you? For all of you wondering why to create an account, here are some reasons to join the wiki fun:

Not presenting?  There are still plenty of ways you can use the wiki to improve your conference experience.

Not going to the conference? Look through the Introductions page and take the opportunity to reconnect with your colleagues. The annual meeting gives everyone a chance to focus on the latest thoughts and activities in the archives community – no matter where you are. See a session you wish you could attend? Add a note to that session’s page – let the presenters and those who might blog the session know about your interest.

Have questions or need help? Drop me a message via my contact page and I will lend a hand. Remember – wikis are very sturdy, you won’t break it!

Read more →

Group Looking for Accreditation of Archival Education by SAA

Just in case you haven’t seen the postings elsewhere – a group of archivists and archivists-in-training is gathering support for their Request to Appoint a Task Force to Examine the Feasibility of SAA Accreditation of Graduate Archival Education Programs. The plan is to submit this as an item for consideration by the Council of the Society of America Archivists at the annual meeting in San Francisco in August. The full text of the request is online, along with this recent update:

Update on July 29: We’ve received more time to collect feedback and support. If you are interested in signing on in support of this submission to SAA Council for their August 2008 meeting, please send an email to Christine Di Bella at cdibella@gmail.com by August 4, 2008. Please indicate whether you are an SAA member in your message.

Sound like something you might want to through your support behind? Take note of that fast approaching deadline and go take a look at the full text of the request.

Read more →

SAA2008: The Wiki is Online

2008 wiki logoAs you may have heard elsewhere, the wiki to support the 2008 annual meeting of the Society of American Archivists is now online and waiting for your contributions.

Check out (or add to) the the pages with Maps of San Francisco, hotel information and details about public transport. Look for a roommate or a rideshare. Learn about or organize an unofficial event.

New to wikis? Well, there is a page just for you!

New to SAA Conferences? Check out the SAA First-Timer Tips. Been a million times? Well then go make sure that the First-Timer Tips page includes everything it should!

What I mention above just scratches the surface of what is on the wiki… and remember, the goal isn’t only to read but also update, add and correct the wiki. Because a full history of every page is kept there is no way for you to do anything wrong such that we cannot roll back to a prior version very easily. I am also offering help for anyone new and nervous with wikis. Either post a question on my profile page on the wiki or send me a message via my contact page.

Read more →

SAA2008: PDFs of Conference Presentations

I found another reason recently to be excited about the progress of SAA’s online presence. Buried in the ARCHIVES 2008: Archival R/Evolution & Identities Checklist for Presenters is first tidbits of a plan to provide access to PDF versions of conference presentations on the SAA website.

Send an Electronic Copy of Your Presentation to SAA. The conference organizers would like to offer meeting attendees the opportunity to view presentations after the conference on the SAA 2008 Annual Meeting website (www.archivists.org). If you’ll supply a copy of your presentation, we’ll convert it to a PDF and post it. Please note that by sending SAA a copy of your presentation in electronic format, you grant permission for your presentation to be viewed by all SAA 2008 Annual Meeting attendees.

I am so pleased! I have always wanted access to the presentations – both for those sessions I attend and those I cannot. I have often been that person hovering at the edge of the stage after a panel, waiting to request a soft copy of the presentation.

I do wonder what they mean when they say that the presentations will be “viewable by meeting attendees”. In my heart of hearts I hope they go a step further and let the speakers sign off on these presentations being shared with the world (or at least with all of SAA). I haven’t gone through every Session Page on the SAA 2007 Un-Official Wiki, but I believe that not very many presenters took the opportunity to provide links to soft copies of their presentations. I hope that SAA is more successful on this front.

No matter the choices made relating to immediate access – I see this as a big step forward in the commitment to using technology. I think one of the best ways to learn is through getting your hands dirty. Technology is listed as one of SAA’s strategic priorities. Every choice that SAA makes that encourages their membership to become more tech-savvy is a step towards supporting that priority.

Read more →