Use of Digital Libraries
Use of Digital Libraries
Annotated Bibliography: Michelle Marie John, Samantha M. Kies, Laura Michele Ruschman, Jacob H. Rynicki, & Priscila Stradioto-Verani.
The article argues for digital libraries to succeed and became more user friendly they need to embrace better ways of helping users retrieved the data they seek. When discussing user and usability of digital libraries Alemneh and Rorissa believe digital libraries need to rework how they index information so that users seeking knowledge have a better chance at finding it. They believe it is two-fold to fix the issue; first they recommend creating folksonomies, which are terms directly from the communities that deal with certain areas so the indexing would use words that the user is familiar with. Secondly they believe changing metadata schema could be beneficial to the users’ requirements and better assist them in retrieving data. Alemneh and Rorissa help their readers to understand a major problem within digital libraries and how users interact with the library. They offer several solutions to help the users’ better retrieve data by reworking how they search for data. This article helps highlight areas of users in digital libraries and one of the issues they face.
This article from Arms is a general review about the principal digital libraries projects in the 90s and their impact on modern libraries. It was during this period of time that became economically viable to create large collections online and access them over networks. That resulted on a great amount of prototypes and experimentations that, although not in use any longer, had a great influence on modern libraries. The article covers a great deal of projects and technology development, from the beginning of the web to the creation of MARC, Dublin Core and DSpace.
Bainbridge and Twidale discuss how search methods in digital libraries can be complex and too strict to help users find what they seek. They use an example of a coworker who found that when searching an author’s name seventy percent of the books under the author were prevented from appearing in the search due to several errors in the information. The authors discuss how over time methods have arrived in digital libraries to deal with name variants and issues around user searches but they say it does not go far enough to help users. They propose several changes within the data to correct and put the information back on track to ensure more users find their data. This article is important to digital libraries and its users because they highlight a major flaw within the system. A basic function of a digital library of any library is searching for materials. If a system is not working they need to be updated and changed. Bainbridge and Twidale give several examples of how they can be updated and changed to help users when searching for data. As a result this will yield the end user more information than before.
This paper examines the expectations users have of digital libraries and explores whether digital libraries should either aim to meet these expectations or aim to manage these expectations. Examination of previous studies reveals typical expectations of digital libraries to include the following, “comprehensive - include everything; accessible - everything immediately available; immediate gratification – speed of response; followability of data - seamless; ease of use - single interface; and multiple formats - text, images, sound” (p. 347). Ways to meet and manage users’ expectations include a combination of providing simple, easy to use digital library interfaces and by teaching users the materials and services provided by digital libraries. Bawden & Vilar conclude that context of the situation including the type of user and the type of library should determine how much a digital library should focus on trying to meet and trying to manage user expectations.
This piece discusses the creation, as well as the various strengths and weaknesses, of Europe’s digital library system, The European Library (www.theeuropeanlibrary.org). The project was partly a reaction to the Google Books initiative in the early 2000s, with various European memory institutions worried that dominance by Google might mean dominance of English-language works and Anglo-American culture. While The European Library has been successful at uniting various cultures across Europe, the author argues that it must work to improve its participation and digitization standards, and create better multilingual search options. This piece is relevant to the discussion of digital library usage in that it brings a new international perspective to the digital library creation story, and introduces a key usability issue at digital libraries the world over: multilingual search, and the challenges associated with that.
Blanford and Gow begin by discussing that most digital libraries do not take into consideration the users and people within those communities and their needs. One of the major aspects discussed is involving the users or people who use digital libraries in on how to create them. Getting their knowledge on what they would like to see and what issues they have and how the future digital libraries can be sure to fix such issues before they open. Gow and Blandford discuss how users can become much more involved and active within the digital libraries to increase their interactions with data. They discuss not only should this occur but librarians of digital libraries need to be more aware of the needs of the users. This article is important when discussing users and digital libraries because the approach Blanford and Gow set forth is about how future digital libraries should treat users. They shift from users being a consumer to users being much more involved in the creation of digital libraries so they can help prevent issues that get overlooked as distributors of knowledge lose sight. The article helps show the focus digital libraries need to make on the user and their needs.
This article addresses the two competing definitions of digital libraries that emerged in the 1990s: content collected on behalf of user communities, and institutions where users can enjoy services comparable to physical libraries. This tension, the authors argue, has largely developed between researchers and librarians, and so this article seeks to explore these two key groups and their rationales, as well as the reasons for these developments. The piece concludes with a look at the anticipated future directions of digital library research, as well as a call to resolve these competing visions so as to make way for additional research and collaboration. While this article was written in the last years of the 20th century, it is still highly relevant and important in that it explores an early debate around the definition of digital libraries. This debate – whether digital libraries are just websites where content is collected, or places that provide real services – also touches at the heart of how these institutions are, and should be, used.
Brantley discusses the roles of the library today, and the need for a change of focus to engage and empower people. Although he is writing about academic libraries, his ideas can easily apply to other types of libraries, because the conflicts that he describes are universal. He believes that there is the need of creating digital collections but most importantly, there is the need to make the collections available to patrons, not only guarding and preserving the information, because “digital libraries collections are useless unless they’re seen” (p.32). Brantley also emphasizes the need of collaboration between libraries and search engines, such as Google, Yahoo!, Amazon and Microsoft, giving the example of the DLF Aquifar Project as a starting point in this direction. He suggests that libraries become the architects of collaboration, because “libraries are successful when they offer new services and when they help others discover services provided by others”.
On this article, Bullis and Smith review the literature from 2004 to 2008 on digital collection management and development. Their topics cover aspects such as the nature of the digital collections, management responsibilities and practices, cooperation and collaboration and the collection assessment and evaluation. Although the authors have some concerns about how to accommodate the fast growing digital creations, they end the article with an optimist vision of the digital age and the future of library collection, considering facts such as open access and reduction of costs.
Buczynski discusses how digital libraries are failing their users. He highlights search engines like google and how they are more effective than what librarians create in digital libraries. Buczynski is talking about users and their search needs and their interactions within the digital library. His argument discusses how digital libraries have become so out of portion and larger they are forgetting the users they service by making things more difficult than they have to be. His argument is that search engines like google make it simpler to find and scan for what you are searching for. He believes libraries make the search process too hard on end users, which he says is ultimately failing the users. He then discusses methods of cutting down on the interactions that users must face to get to their information. This is a perfect example of how digital libraries are failing to help users and shows how they are lacking usability. The author then gives quick tips on how to remedy and fix the issue so users will find digital libraries much more effective.
This article, first published in 1945, traces the philosophical foundations for digital library systems. Written in a time when the available technology could not support such a vision, the article addresses the problem of an overabundance of scientific data and research, and no efficient way to share that information. Noting that traditional methods of publication do not allow scientists and researchers to “make real use of the record,” Bush suggests that technology holds the key to a potential solution; he supports this argument by first illustrating ways that former problems have been solved by technology, such as adding machines and photocells. Most notably, Bush theorizes about the existence of a machine he names a “memex,” a machine that could store all of a man’s books, records, and communications, and would be built in such a way to be easily and quickly consulted.
While more than 50 years old, this piece outlines much of the underlying rationale for digital library research in the 20th and 21st centuries, as well as lays the foundation for how digital libraries are currently being used right now.
Written in response to Candela’s 2007 piece, “Setting the foundations of digital libraries,” this article revisits the Digital Library Reference Model created by DL.org and the European Union’s DELOS Network on Digital Libraries, a four-part volume finalized in 2011 that establishes underlying theories for digital libraries, identifies universal digitization standards, and introduces a model for providing services in a digital library environment. The article delves into each of the four parts of the Model: the Digital Library Manifesto, the Digital Library Reference in a Nutshell, the Digital Library Reference Model Concepts and Relations, and the Digital Library Reference Model Conformance Checklist. The author argues that while the Model seeks to provide answers to the question, “How should digital libraries serve users?” the document should remain dynamic and open to additional research.
This piece is relevant to the discussion of usability and digital libraries in that it further explores an important way for users to interact with, and use, digital libraries – seeking and benefiting from reference services. In addition, this “Reference Model” is proposed as a potential usage model for other digital libraries to emulate.
This article provides an overview of the core parts of the Digital Library Manifesto, created by the European Union’s DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries in 2006. This document was created in response to the multiplicity of definitions of the term “digital library”, a field that sits at the crossroads of many disciplines and fields. The article defines “digital libraries” as made up of three systems: digital libraries, digital library systems, and digital library management systems. In addition, the article outlines the six core concepts underlying digital libraries – content, users, functionality, quality, policy, and architecture – as well as the four kinds of actors involved – end-users, designers, administrators, and developers. This article is especially pertinent to the topic of digital libraries and how they’re used not only because it specifically identifies the digital libraries’ core users, but because it outlines a methodology for defining the term “digital libraries;” only by doing so can digital library usage be clearly defined.
Castelli takes a look at Digital Libraries and their origin. They were initially created to serve end-users as consumers of information and there was no functionality for submitting documents. However, over time, the requirements have changed and much of the focus of this paper is on those new technologies that have evolved and the new organizational models out there. One particular innovative digital library technology – DILIGENT – is focuses on and what role libraries can play in the new scenario is explored. Because research today is more collaborative and carried out by groups that could be scattered around the world, virtual research organizations have begun to rely extensively on digital libraries to be the tool to allow collaboration and accelerate research results among the group, be less expensive and more dynamic development models. Finally, Castelli takes a look at future digital libraries and what they’ll be expected to do – they’ll be able to handle more that physical libraries and archives, be composed of more types of data and will offer innovative and more powerful means for researchers to share and collaborate on work – as well as share the results of their work.
Clifton discusses the problems associated with digital materials and its preservation. His concern does involve problems such as equipment, data and file formats, its degradation and obsolescence. Clifton proposes solutions to contain these problems, using what he calls a risk man approach. His conclusion is that identifying, assessing and approaching the problems are essential to protect a digital collection.
This study takes a different approach than other studies by examining non-users of digital libraries. Non-users are defined as users who may have used a digital library once but did not use it again for a variety of reasons. The users in this study comprised of students, faculty, and other staff in a university. Consonni identified non-users by examining login information of users to access the digital library off campus. This login information includes the e-mails of users (or in this case, non-users). Consonni sent web-based surveys to these non-users asking personal information such as their age and role in the university and their evaluation of the digital library. The survey addressed reasons why they do not use the digital library. Results showed that non-users felt they knew the digital library very well but it did not meet their needs. Reasons include either the material for their discipline or interests were not available, they felt the digital library was not user-friendly, they use a different digital library, or they felt they did not need to use the digital library. Digital libraries need to meet users needs and this study brings up issues related to non-use of digital libraries. These issues need to be addressed by digital libraries.
The Digital Library Federation (DLF) put together a summary about their annual meeting. One of the major talking points was users and usability of digital libraries and how they respond to user needs. Several steps are taken into the notes; such steps involve finding the problems and issues that are occurring, then using qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the issues, and then several steps of how to solve the issues explored. The reason this article is very important to the topic of digital library users and usability is because it is one of the few articles that not only discusses issues for users but offers ways to measure such problems. In addition to measuring the problem the widespread effects of the issues can be explored than much more easily treated if the librarians know the affected areas. This is the articles strongest point, it shows librarians a way to use qualitative and quantitative methods to measure issues users face. Many of the same articles that discuss issues with users do not really have a way to measure and if they do it is more theoretical than an actualization.
This article explores the many early challenges facing the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) while it was still in its early planning stages, namely, the challenge of going beyond being a simple aggregator. The author describes the latter model as being similar to several regional digital library projects, and argues that if the DPLA is to succeed, it must thoughtfully look at ways to “transform” the way digital library services are presented, with an eye to how the content will be used, and how end-users will interact with it. The piece concludes with a list of potential ideas for effecting these transformations, including using a technology-agnostic framework, giving users the opportunity to create their own collections, and enabling tiered discovery. This article is relevant to the topic of digital libraries usability because it important aspect of the DPLA – how it will be used, and how that usage will be different from other digital collections that currently exist, or have existed in the past.
Fox focuses on two primary categories of data (metadata data and primary objects) that libraries work with and how research needs are looking to outpace the capacity for libraries to assist this research. Libraries are seen as central to the provisioning of data archiving, curation and analysis of research data and as libraries have evolved, they have become more prepared to deal with different data types, like multimedia, statistical data files and raw data formats. Most importantly, as storage space needed by researchers continues to grow, digital libraries seem to provide a practically unlimited resource for them. However, if data curation by libraries is to be successful, a partnership needs to form between three groups – subject liaisons, metadata specialists and research faculty members. Together, they can develop an environment that will benefit the broader scientific endeavor – allowing users to retrieve and intelligently access previously accumulated research data that is vital to the endeavor as a whole.
Fox provides a look at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), an impressive research organization within the Library of Congress that provides service to Congress to assist them in making balanced decisions. To do this, they utilize vast sources of data. By looking at the CRS, Fox discusses what tools could be utilized by digital libraries to get the same fast results that CRS gets. Focus is given to special collections and rare books and digitizing them, as well as working on the text mining issues (different languages, different fonts that can be difficult to OCR, etc.). Fox says one way to help overcome these challenges is to work collaboratively (historians with language faculty) to make these texts available in the digital environment and to take the tools that CRS uses and pilot them in a digital library context and see how text mining can become a significant part of the digital library as well as the digital librarians first sought after tools.
Garcia-Marco explores the roles of libraries and librarians in the new digital world. Much is discussed of what roles they will have, how they will be affected by this new digital world, how their roles can (and should) evolve and what will happen to the paper collections that exist today as we move into a more digital environment. Most importantly, libraries currently and in the future will serve as the bridge between knowledge that is available and gaps in the knowledge of an individual; though they are not the only source of knowledge or the only bridge for that knowledge, they are one of the more recognizable. As more ways to access knowledge appear and the ability to access that knowledge broadens, the knowledge transfer environment has and has been radically changing to incorporate these updates and need to continue to do so. Digital libraries are and need to incorporate the changes that are occurring in the knowledge transfer process to ensure they are able to provide the information necessary to their users and keep pace with the information changes as they occur, or follow right along with it.
Gorny and Mazurek take a look at digital libraries in Poland, and more importantly, the users of these digital libraries. Utilizing a questionnaire, they looked to determine what factors influenced who was using the library - their ages and occupations as well as reasons for using the repositories. Much of the reason people have begun using the library is because they digitized items of importance - namely newspapers and printed material from the 1800 and 1900s. From here, the authors looked at who was using the digital library and what conclusions could be drawn from that - namely, how to bring more people in and how to get the current users to use the digital libraries more. They found that IT connections have a huge influence on who does and does not use the digital resources, and the actual items available also play a large role; because there are fewer “fine literature” options available, and limited school text books and popular science literature, there are fewer individuals utilizing the digital library for these options. Because of the level of academia in Poland at this time, the authors focus on getting the printed historical documents digitized first, before looking at more ways that teachers and students can increase their literature options and then work on bringing more people in to use the digital libraries.
This literature review discusses current studies about that look at user evaluations of digital libraries. Digital libraries are defined as, “extensions of physical libraries in an electronic information society”(p. 269). Heradio, Fernandez-Amoros, Cabrerizo, & Herrara-Viedma examine 41 studies to answer questions about: criteria used to evaluate digital libraries in a user-centered manner, how those criteria are measured and processed, and future challenges regarding these criteria. Heradio et al. note that in the literature there are several variations in defining the complex concepts of usefulness and usability. Usefulness and usability are often included as part of the criteria when evaluating digital libraries and the authors of this study state there is a need to come to a consensus when defining usefulness and usability. Without doing so, it is challenging to compare study results. Heradio et al. criticize the use of Likert scales in studies as interval data. They point to the potential errors or misuse of these because the, “intervals between values cannot be presumed equal” (p.278). Instead, Heradio et al. suggest using fuzzy linguistic modeling because it may give better results when studying evaluations of digital libraries.
Higgins discusses digital libraries and their impact on the most disadvantage in America. He is exploring the areas where technology and digital libraries could be made most useful by helping these communities. Higgins begins to explore the ramifications of technology and shows how digital libraries can play an important role. However it is more than just about the disadvantaged he discusses. When looking at his argument he is actually speaking about all users of digital library and how they access information. He explores how this transaction or process could be made easier for people particularly those disadvantaged but also all users who struggle with technology. He points out the interactions that occur and how it can be more of a barrier. His article is exceptionally worthy of the topic dealing with users and digital libraries. He explores in depth the very basis of the users’ experience and questions how to make it more user friendly meaning he questions the very usability of digital libraries. Not only does he raise issues but he gives ways in which librarians can tweak systems and re-shift digital libraries so that the users can engage much more and get more out of the experience.
Hull and Kell turn to bibliographies and the challenges that digital libraries pose when putting bibliographies together. Digital libraries can be difficult to manipulate – each is set up differently and this can pose problems for researchers. Much of the article focuses on searching and organization literature data together with metadata and provides a look at a variety of databases and how documents are stored within the database, particularly the metadata that is used to identify each document. The article also provides an overview of some of the main issues with digital libraries – the identity crisis (no one way of identifying publications throughout all digital libraries), getting metadata (because there is no universal way to retrieve, there are many different ways to search for the metadata) and which metadata (with no single way of representing metadata and no common standards to follow, there will be no single way to represent the metadata). In addition, the authors look at ways to make libraries seem less “cold” to users through personalization and socialization, as well as a variety of tools to use now and in the future to help “defrost” the digital libraries and the perceptions people hold of them. Finally, obstacles that currently exist, as well as recommendations are explored, including using URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) and identification of publications and people.
In this article, the author explores three key themes for improving the digital library “user journey” from the white paper published by OCLC, ‘Meeting the E-Resources Challenge: An OCLC Report’. According to the author, digital library stakeholders - from librarians to vendors - must collaborate in order to improve this experience for digital library users, an experience that has become more complex as the number of digital resources grows. There are three areas in which this can be done: developing new tools that improve system interoperability and create better metadata, synchronizing and streamlining the data collection process, and using collection-based metrics to make informed decisions about priorities. This piece is relevant in that it touches on several key factors of digital library usability, with current suggestions on how to improve them.
Jones defends that the basic functions of collection development can be applied for physical collections as well as digital collections. According to the author, the primary objective of collection development is “to give structure to a collection of resources by organizing them in a meaningful manner”(p.3), and that approach should direct the collection development on both cases. The structure of a collection should be based on identification of materials, selection of materials and decisions related to the retention of materials previously collect. Jones also emphasizes on the need of personnel training to acquire the skills necessary to process and access the digital collection.
This study examines what library design features users want from digital libraries. Digital library is defined as a, “networked repository of digital content” (p. 396). The literature review reveals several concepts including the imperative need to consider users’ needs in digital library design, consideration of users’ information technology skill levels, the need for digital library interfaces to be easy for users to learn, and that users need to be familiar with digital libraries in order to feel comfortable with them. Kani-Zabihi, Ghinea, & Chen determine there is a gap between what users want and what is available to them in digital libraries. A survey with questions meant to elicit the opinions and wants of digital library users reveals that regardless of users’ information technology skills, users hold the expectation of digital libraries for quick, easy, and reliable access to information. Users also want digital libraries to be easy to familiarize themselves with. However, users may have different needs and wants from digital libraries depending on their experience with digital libraries.
Koehler takes a look at digital libraries and explains why their look is still uncertain, primarily due to two forces at work – the “book” or information package has changed and due to changing technology, the library as a structure to house the information package has diminished. However, Koehler doesn’t dismiss traditional libraries – until we fully take care of the legacy collections, we still need them. Much of the focus of the article focuses on the shifts happening: as libraries continue to shift, the “book” continues to evolve and it stands to reason that those mediating between the two will also have to evolve and adapt. In addition, what users want and expect continues to change as well and librarians have to be able to respond and provide what they’re looking for, be it a service provided electronically or changing what services they offer to their patrons. While some may balk at the changes that have come and are coming, they are necessary for the libraries to have a place in the digital future. Additionally, the article looks at the standards available (with the multitude out there, having one universal standard seems very far off, if not impossible to achieve), and the benefits of digital libraries (physical storage space is practically gone, the ease of requesting items that your local library does not hold, how multiple people can use one file, etc.), it also looks at the issues that have to be dealt with (no longer does a library hold a physical object when they purchase it, rights issues, limited access to licensed items, institutional issues related to rights, etc.).
This paper describes a potential information model for digital libraries that stresses going beyond simple search and access, instead focusing on creating what the authors call “collaborative and contextual knowledge environments.” The authors argue that digital libraries should serve as an interconnecting network of nodes corresponding to information units within the library, including documents, data, and services. This article describes how this information model is implemented in Fedora’s repository software, and argues that a model based on metadata storage alone is not sufficient. This article is relevant to digital library usability because it outlines a specific model for how digital libraries should, and are, used: as a digital hub that provides services similar to those experienced at a physical library. These services can help set digital libraries apart from other archives or repositories, and so this model is critical when considering not only the definition of “digital libraries,” but those these institutions can be utilized.
Liu and Luo take a broad look at digital libraries and their use or non-use. Despite the amount of money that has been invested in many digital libraries, there is still a huge number of potential users that may not be using them; by taking a look at the non-users, we can learn how to make digital libraries attractive for potential users and hopefully diminish the number of non-users. A number of factors are cited: user expectations that differ between user groups, differences between graduate and undergraduate users (in particular, much of this study focuses on graduate and undergraduate student use in China) and perception. Much was found from the survey completed, in particular that those who use digital libraries more frequently tend to have a more positive experience and graduate students tend to use digital libraries more often than undergraduate, primarily for researching and looking for electronic materials. A key point made was that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness play a critical role in the adoption of new technology and as librarians, we need to explore creative ways to increase the visibility of digital resources and work with faculty to promote the use of library digital resources among all levels of users.
Lynch takes a look at where digital libraries have been to build a foundation for where digital libraries may choose to go. The article starts off with a look at the early digital libraries and how substantial digital libraries existed prior to the World Wide Web. The period from 1994-2004 is focused on when changes were being made to digital libraries, for at this time, research could get substantial programmatic funding, which legitimized digital libraries as a field of research. More importantly, this period also created a community and began conferences to look at Digital Libraries – many of which that have continued on to this day. The community that developed was diverse and multi-disciplinary and generated enormous leverage in promoting the advancement, organization and dissemination of knowledge and ideas about digital libraries. Finally, areas where additional research could and should be done are mentioned – personal information management, long term relationships between humans and information collections and systems, the role of digital libraries/collections in teaching, learning and human development, etc.
This article discusses the task of turning digital collections into digital libraries through the creation of “useful” and “productive” services, as well as the implementation of improved federated searching and navigation portals. The goal for digital libraries, the authors argue, should be “seamless” federated searching across distributed, heterogeneous resources, while following the mantra: “aggregate, virtually collocate, and federate.” The authors give a brief history of digital library development beginning in 1993 and the Digital Libraries Initiative (DLI-1), with a particular focus on federally funded initiatives. This is followed by a look at several current projects studying federated searching, including Google Scholar and recent iterations of DLI-1 and DLI-2. This article is important to the topic of digital library usability because it addresses an important topic in the digital library realm, especially pertaining to how these resource are used – federated searching.
Moroni describes the basic needs and concerns when building a digital library, and suggests simple solutions for how to deal with ebooks. To the author, the principal differences from a digital collection and a physical collection are concerns about space, condition and access. In the article, Moroni explores these differences comparing ebooks and physical books.
These are the guidelines to create digital collections from The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) with the purpose of identify existing resources for creation and management of digital collections. It also gives an overview of the components and activities involved in creating digital collections and encourage the participation of the library community on the development of practices for the creation of good digital collections. The text explores the collections (organized group of objects), objects (digital media), metadata (information about object and collections) and initiatives (projects created to manage collections). This article also includes extensive web resources on each of the topics related to the guidelines for digital collection, and the framework for applying these guidelines.
Ooghe and Moreels relate the problems of today’s decision making for digital collections with the problems that occurred on analogue collection on the early 20th century. It involves the questions of selection and weeding, how long should and object be stored, what are the requirements for long-term preservation and at what point will the digital collections become too large to work with it. The authors call for collaboration for the creation of a more uniformly adopted concept and practices for digital collections. Based on current practices and guidelines, the article formulates a set of common criteria for selection and proposes a base-terminology that can be used in any institutional setting.
This article, written by the President of the Digital Public Library of America’s (DPLA) Board of Directors, seeks to explain the foundational mission of the DPLA, as well as what it hopes to accomplish in the future. The DPLA, which launched in April 2013, is an online hub that brings together a diverse number of digital resources from collections at libraries and other memory institutions across the country. Built using open source tools, this platform – found at www.dp.la – seeks to, in the words of the author, “educate, inform and empower” citizens and information users. The article briefly touches on the challenges faced by the DPLA so far – the relatively few institutions participating upon launch, and the roadblock of copyright restrictions. This article also includes an interview with the DPLA’s founding executive director, Dan Cohen.
This article is particularly important in the discussion of digital libraries and their usability because it focuses on the ins and outs of one of the biggest player in the digital library community, the DPLA. It is important to pay attention to what the DPLA is trying to do as its successes and challenges speak to similar issues throughout the larger digital library community. Plus, as one of the largest “public digital libraries” in the country, its structure and how users interact with the DPLA will serve as a model for others to mimic and learn from.
Pomerantz discusses that much of the focus of digital libraries is on collecting data to enlarge the collection. He says this has an adverse effect. While libraries collect data for their users, the fixation on collecting and obtaining the data to enlarge digital libraries has resulted in librarians losing focus of the users. While other articles approach issues of the users, Pomerantz says the major issue is not metadata or searching like many other articles. He says the main issue in digital libraries is not focusing on the users and helping them. Pomerantz goes on to say that it is changing and getting better. He offers a way in which libraries can approach obtaining collections while maintaining services to the users. Pomerantz’s article is important when discussing users and digital libraries because many articles focus on smaller issues such as search abilities and the usability, Pomerantz says it is a much larger picture, the attitude behind them must change starting with how we treat the user and how we interact with them. Pomerantz believes it is the only way to fully evolve digital libraries and their users.
This conceptual paper thoroughly examines the idea of library as a space in a physical sense and in a virtual sense. Pomerantz & Marchionini compare physical and digital libraries for similarities and differences in collection development, physical and digital library space; information architecture; preservation; individual and collaborative space for stakeholders, work and education spaces; and collaborative services. Users experience physical libraries and digital libraries in different manners and this affects their use. There is an increase of more digital materials in physical libraries along with the proliferation of more digital libraries. This will lead to a decrease in the need for libraries to be a space to store materials and an increase in the need for the library to be a space for users to socialize and to work individually and collaboratively. Digital library use is changing based on the changing needs of users. Digital libraries need to be designed to reflect these changes.
Pope focuses on the fact that how information is displayed and presented plays a huge factor in how it is received and whether or not it is utilized. Because there is no single way to present information, and many ways for digital libraries to be ‘user-friendly’, the digital libraries become very dependent upon the skill and expertise of those designing and maintaining the database. As digital libraries contain more than just textual data, they require more tools to be integrated into the electronic environment to ensure that the data is accessible by users. In addition, ensuring that all types of patrons, particularly those with disabilities, have access and are able to utilize digital libraries as easily as they can physical libraries is a must. To do this, librarians need to be a key part of developing the interfaces for digital libraries and provide insight into patrons and their needs. A number of key points have to be considered when developing digital libraries – searching within the one database and how to manage that effectively, searching across databases, what different formats of data are kept and ensuring they are accessible by users, ensuring appropriate controls are put in place in regards to access – these and many more are all part of developing digital libraries and things that librarians need to consider as they are assisting in the development and evolution of the digital libraries.
Sanborn looks at the “bookless” phenomenon - with many libraries going “bookless” what is to be done with the building? The building has the potential to be used for many things such as becoming a research support/acquiring/teaching mission driven location. The article looks at advantages to libraries going digital and help others move to digital; what the digital libraries bring to the research environment and how they add thoroughness to research never seen before. The author attempts to show just how critical digital libraries are for research today, and how they are providing “the best, most effective, and most efficient research tools” that can be used by researchers today (Sanborn, 7). Some of the focus is on the benefits during research – more than one person can have access to the same book/journal at the same time; researchers have access to significantly more information and documentation than they did before digital libraries. Also, researchers trigger library purchases – what they use and retrieve electronically is stored and allows the librarians to see what is being read and only what is actually used is paid for. The point is made that, yes there will be those that resist change and would prefer to keep to the traditional library space; however – moving to digital libraries allows the academic library to go to the core functions of collection and instruction, without worrying about the physical space requirements needed. The benefits of a digital library for research are exponentially higher than keeping the library as it is. Finally, Sanborn offers suggestions on what to do with print books in libraries, replacing hard copies with digital copies, or having both, as well as providing additional questions related to how to access the digital content – could libraries within counties/states/continents/the world share repositories so that all members at each institution can have access to the same documents as opposed to only those with significant expenditure funds being able to afford access to multiple directories due to cost.
Skekel debates the new role of librarians on the production of digital collections, not only to create the content but also to provide access to these collections. She observes a shift over the years, on the focus of digitalization at libraries from creating digital collection to preserving and sharing digital collections. The author also emphasizes the need of creating and maintaining high quality digital libraries, prizing quality over quantity, because the digital library is a reflection of the physical library and its quality.
Smith analyses the experience of libraries, their technical expertise and their practices involving digital collections. He identifies what is considered good practices and benchmarks of success for a digital collection development. Smith states that different institutions will have different approaches on digitalization, since all digital projects will have the need to fit their institution’s mission. Because of that, he separates the practices according to the type of libraries, from public universities, private institutions and libraries independent from an academic institution. His emphases are on the selection process, creation of metadata, decisions about access policies and user support systems.
In this article the authors are trying to examine digital libraries and how the users interact within such organizations. They point out that unlike real libraries, digital libraries are not built around communities. The very idea of digital libraries is that they are open to everyone. The authors point to this as the beginning of the issue with users. If the digital library is not representing a group but everyone it is hard for meaningful interactions to occur. Their next issue deals with the reliance on technology to help users. Due to the nature of digital libraries the users deal much more with technology than people and it is more difficult to design a program that will fully understand what is being asked. This limits the user from the start especially if the digital library does not have staff full time to manage and help users. The reliance on technology is high and this causes many issues with users and limits their usability. The article is very important in the regards of digital libraries and usability along with users. The article highlights the root cause of most user issues stemming from the nature of how digital libraries are constructed. The paper shows how these issues can change which will drastically reduce the issues users have with digital libraries.
This study looks at user perceptions of digital libraries. Tammaro examines user satisfaction with digital library resources and services. This provides information about digital library use and usability. Using a survey questionnaire, users in 3 different digital libraries were asked questions about expectations of access, staff assistance, OPAC catalogs, portals, promotion/publicity, computer hardware and their education background. Survey results revealed users were very satisfied with digital library remote access and on-line portals/sites. However, users were not satisfied with promotion/publicity of resources, on-line tutorials, user education, and staff assistance. These were areas of weaknesses for the digital libraries in this study. Users also indicated they highly value the on-line catalogue, on-line databases, and electronic databases within digital libraries. Users also indicated they find, “speed of access to digital resources, the greater number of resources available, and personalization” (p. 135) to be advantages of digital libraries. Many users wanted more resources available but are sometimes unaware of resources available to them. Additionally some users lack skills in using digital library resources. Digital libraries must ask the users they serve what they like or do not like about digital library services and resources. Learning what resources and services users use or want can assist digital libraries in meeting users needs and keep digital libraries relevant to their respective communities.
Wiederhold focuses on 3 major differences in digital libraries versus physical libraries (storage in digital form, direct communication to obtain material and copying from a master version) and the major changes that are coming, how the technological foundations are in place, but the social and organizational changes that are following. Many questions are raised by these changes – as social aspects of the interactions that occur when visiting a physical building go away, what will replace them? With quicker access to materials than before, how will management of copyright be done? A lot of the article focuses on the traditional functions of authorship, editing, publishing, review, selling, etc., and how they will and are being greatly affected by digital libraries. Many potentials for digital libraries exist, but they require appropriate funding and setup, which will take time and publishers need to adjust to a digital environment to be able to provide the same functions that they provide in traditional print forms to digital forms.
This research study examines evaluation criteria and problems of digital libraries from the viewpoint of users. Xie uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures to elicit what users think digital library evaluation criteria should be and to have users evaluate a digital library using those criteria. The criteria users felt were most important when evaluating digital libraries include: usability, collection quality, service quality, system performance efficiency, and user opinion solicitations. After applying these criteria to evaluate their respective digital libraries, it was revealed that users value usability as the most important factor in usefulness of digital libraries. Another very important issue identified was collection quality. Each of the identified criteria reflects the related problems in digital libraries. The identified areas of usability, collection quality, service quality, system performance efficiency, and user opinion solicitations need improvement. If digital libraries are to be considered useful to users, they must be able to meet users needs as identified by user determined criteria and evaluation.
This study examines what users look for when evaluating digital libraries. Xie used quantitative and qualitative methods (closed-ended questionnaire, diary, open-ended survey) to gain richer understanding of user evaluations of digital libraries. Even though it is understood by researchers that evaluation of digital libraries need to be determined by the user, a significant amount of research has the user in a passive role. Researchers typically decide what criteria need to be included in evaluation of digital libraries. There are disparities between criteria considered important by researchers and the users. Researchers consider the criteria of cost, treatment, preservation, etc. as important for evaluation of digital libraries. However, the users in this study felt the interface usability and the system performance were more important. The study showed that digital library design affects how users use the digital libraries. In order to improve digital libraries it is concluded that views of library evaluation from researchers, professionals, and library users need to be combined. Xie adds that future research needs to continue to include users as active participants in evaluating digital libraries.
