The Cross-Search and Context Utility: Contextualizing Digital Content and Associated Encoded Archival Description Finding Aid Metadata in the Northwest

Editor's Notes

• #5: [ image: finding as long scrolling text ]
• #7: [ image: finding as long scrolling text ]Issues identified during previous usability testing:hierarchical display is confusing / difficult users want to customize their experience users want direct access to content novice users struggle with archival terminology emphasize not only the problem with finding aids, but their connection (non-connection) with digital content. also often point to the MWDL and how it tries to put digital content and EADs side by side, but never relates the two. That's a great way to show that this isn't just our problem. ;-)I'd also add that the value of the rich metadata in finding aids gets lost in DAMs. 
• #9: [ image: graphic of network of silos ] unique digital content in numerous silos DAMs IRs EAD findings aids inconsistent exposure to search engines lack of context in descriptive info
• #10: [ image: graphic of network of silos ] inconsistent exposure to search engines lack of context in descriptive info
• #11: emphasize not only the problem with finding aids, but their connection (non-connection) with digital content. also often point to the MWDL and how it tries to put digital content and EADs side by side, but never relates the two. That's a great way to show that this isn't just our problem. ;-)
• #13: [ image: user profiles ] Who are the users we are going to test? developed user profiles administratoravocational faculty (teaching) faculty (research)geneaologist student came out of previous studies refined / modified for testing recruitment
• #15: Home page
• #16: Search results
• #17: Item page
• #19: Collection page
• #21: [ image: messy metadata / variability ]big challenge variable metadata no digital content metadata standards not so much structure (dublin core) lack of shared data content / value standards dates identifiers Differences in how digital objects are structured issues with identifying collections vs. mass of digital objects
• #22: [ image: messy metadata ---> scripts ----> normalized MODS records ] current strategy is OAI provider turned on ?scripts developed for each collection not just each institutionmetadata is normalized by creating MODS records put into access / backlight system speed of workflow from nwda to uva has increased / smoothed
• #23: [ image: normalized MODS records ]
• #24: What we want is this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dizmangphotography/9284617870
• #25: What we are getting is this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/5984094240
• #26: additional testing / feedback on graphic design need a better name have been asking users during testing hired outside marketing firm to help summative evaluation - late october - report
• #27: http://www.flickr.com/photos/expressmonorail/3046970004/Future:sustainability demonstration grant we didn’t promise perfectly functioning tool options make the case for nwda / orbis to sustain finding other entity to sustain big questions making the case for supporting / sustaining maintaining ead database harvesting of digital objects and metadata? fund normalization of metadata ? or fund development of best practices for metadata creation ? are institutions willing to invest ? are outcomes compelling ? implications for nwdaorbiscascadecommunityead / digitalobjectsdatabasescurrentlyseparate from ILS atorbiscascade as opposed to outsourcing allthis to discoverysystems primo outcomeslooksatexistingtools and standardscommunityhaslimitedability to influence siloedworld of digitalcontentcan we createsomethingusefulthatscompellingcouldprovide data towardimplementingdigitalcontent data standardspotential as feeder for dplawouldthat be compelling for nwda / cascademembers to continuesupport for thisproject ?