https://wiki.diglib.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jody 2026-04-16T20:08:03Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.44.0 https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7805 2016-10-19T18:04:50Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines builds on the following work products of previous AIG working groups:<br /> # A literature review and compiled [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AVlT3QlmhbcUmoRtZ0hpvEhpbD9_Eld5bHsa-JNHX24/edit?usp=sharing bibliography]<br /> # The white paper: [https://osf.io/uc8b3/ '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] <br /> <br /> We have extended the literature review to include more usability/user assessment research, and are tagging this content according to topical area, and using this<br /> extended bibliography to inform our investigations. <br /> Our working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> We are taking a multi-faceted approach to determining the best way to develop guidelines and best practices in user/usability studies. As this is a tremendous task, we encourage you to join in the effort, as clarity in this area will save us all a great deal of work, resources and confusion.<br /> <br /> ''Areas currently under investigation include:''<br /> <br /> '''Identifying users and user behavior.'''<br /> What are the methods used? What are the components of how that occurs? Are there measurable comparisons on how that's being handled? How do we determine the effectiveness of the methods in use? <br /> <br /> '''Learnability.'''<br /> How is learnability being measured? What is the definition of learnability? What is the most effective method for assessment?<br /> <br /> '''Accessibility.'''<br /> This is a relatively new area, and one which is legally mandated. Implementation outside the digital library community is fairly standardized, but we need research within the digital library community, and case studies on how accessibility is implemented in common digital library systems.<br /> <br /> '''Usability.'''<br /> What is the definition of usability, and what are its components? The [ISO 25000 series standards][1] provide clarity on several aspects of quality measurements for software. However, there are aspects of usability that are critical to digital libraries which are not covered in the standards, such as discoverability of content via web search engines. Determining what the critical aspects of usability are which are *not* covered via standards is the first step to developing guidelines for assessment.<br /> <br /> <br /> There are many other aspects to usability and user studies, and we welcome others who would like to pursue them. Here is where we have shared working areas, and can provide open access for white papers and other results, with excellent visibility. If you would like to join us, please join the Google Group linked below and speak up about your interests.<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> Our working area is in the [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework].<br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7797 2016-10-12T20:12:32Z

<p>Jody: /* Current Projects */</p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines builds on the following work products of previous AIG working groups:<br /> # A literature review and compiled [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AVlT3QlmhbcUmoRtZ0hpvEhpbD9_Eld5bHsa-JNHX24/edit?usp=sharing bibliography]<br /> # The white paper: [https://osf.io/9nbqg/ '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] <br /> <br /> We have extended the literature review to include more usability/user assessment research, and are tagging this content according to topical area, and using this<br /> extended bibliography to inform our investigations. <br /> Our working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> We are taking a multi-faceted approach to determining the best way to develop guidelines and best practices in user/usability studies. As this is a tremendous task, we encourage you to join in the effort, as clarity in this area will save us all a great deal of work, resources and confusion.<br /> <br /> ''Areas currently under investigation include:''<br /> <br /> '''Identifying users and user behavior.'''<br /> What are the methods used? What are the components of how that occurs? Are there measurable comparisons on how that's being handled? How do we determine the effectiveness of the methods in use? <br /> <br /> '''Learnability.'''<br /> How is learnability being measured? What is the definition of learnability? What is the most effective method for assessment?<br /> <br /> '''Accessibility.'''<br /> This is a relatively new area, and one which is legally mandated. Implementation outside the digital library community is fairly standardized, but we need research within the digital library community, and case studies on how accessibility is implemented in common digital library systems.<br /> <br /> '''Usability.'''<br /> What is the definition of usability, and what are its components? The [ISO 25000 series standards][1] provide clarity on several aspects of quality measurements for software. However, there are aspects of usability that are critical to digital libraries which are not covered in the standards, such as discoverability of content via web search engines. Determining what the critical aspects of usability are which are *not* covered via standards is the first step to developing guidelines for assessment.<br /> <br /> <br /> There are many other aspects to usability and user studies, and we welcome others who would like to pursue them. Here is where we have shared working areas, and can provide open access for white papers and other results, with excellent visibility. If you would like to join us, please join the Google Group linked below and speak up about your interests.<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7796 2016-10-12T20:11:54Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines builds on the following work products of previous AIG working groups:<br /> # A literature review and compiled [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AVlT3QlmhbcUmoRtZ0hpvEhpbD9_Eld5bHsa-JNHX24/edit?usp=sharing bibliography]<br /> # The white paper: [https://osf.io/9nbqg/ '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] <br /> <br /> We have extended the literature review to include more usability/user assessment research, and are tagging this content according to topical area, and using this<br /> extended bibliography to inform our investigations. <br /> Our working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> We are taking a multi-faceted approach to determining the best way to develop guidelines and best practices in user/usability studies. As this is a tremendous task, we encourage you to join in the effort, as clarity in this area will save us all a great deal of work, resources and confusion.<br /> <br /> ''Areas currently under investigation include:''<br /> <br /> '''Identifying users and user behavior.'''<br /> What are the methods used? What are the components of how that occurs? Are there measurable comparisons on how that's being handled? How do we determine the effectiveness of the methods in use? <br /> <br /> '''Learnability.'''<br /> How is learnability being measured? What is the definition of learnability? What is the most effective method for assessment?<br /> <br /> '''Accessibility.'''<br /> This is a relatively new area, and one which is legally mandated. Implementation outside the digital library community is fairly standardized, but we need research within the digital library community, and case studies on how accessibility is implemented in common digital library systems.<br /> <br /> '''Usability'''<br /> What is the definition of usability, and what are its components? The [ISO 25000 series standards][1] provide clarity on several aspects of quality measurements for software. However, there are aspects of usability that are critical to digital libraries which are not covered in the standards, such as discoverability of content via web search engines. Determining what the critical aspects of usability are which are *not* covered via standards is the first step to developing guidelines for assessment.<br /> <br /> <br /> There are many other aspects to usability and user studies, and we welcome others who would like to pursue them. Here is where we have shared working areas, and can provide open access for white papers and other results, with excellent visibility. If you would like to join us, please join the Google Group linked below and speak up about your interests.<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7774 2016-09-15T13:06:43Z

<p>Jody: /* Get Involved */</p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> We are taking a multi-faceted approach to determining the best way to develop guidelines and best practices in user/usability studies. As this is a tremendous task, we encourage you to join in the effort, as clarity in this area will save us all a great deal of work, resources and confusion.<br /> <br /> ''Areas currently under investigation include:''<br /> <br /> '''Identifying users and user behavior.'''<br /> What are the methods used? What are the components of how that occurs? Are there measurable comparisons on how that's being handled? How do we determine the effectiveness of the methods in use? <br /> <br /> '''Learnability.'''<br /> How is learnability being measured? What is the definition of learnability? What is the most effective method for assessment?<br /> <br /> '''Accessibility.'''<br /> This is a relatively new area, and one which is legally mandated. Implementation outside the digital library community is fairly standardized, but we need research within the digital library community, and case studies on how accessibility is implemented in common digital library systems.<br /> <br /> '''Usability'''<br /> What is the definition of usability, and what are its components? The [ISO 25000 series standards][1] provide clarity on several aspects of quality measurements for software. However, there are aspects of usability that are critical to digital libraries which are not covered in the standards, such as discoverability of content via web search engines. Determining what the critical aspects of usability are which are *not* covered via standards is the first step to developing guidelines for assessment.<br /> <br /> <br /> There are many other aspects to usability and user studies, and we welcome others who would like to pursue them. Here is where we have shared working areas, and can provide open access for white papers and other results, with excellent visibility. If you would like to join us, please join the Google Group linked below and speak up about your interests.<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7773 2016-09-15T13:06:18Z

<p>Jody: /* Current Projects */</p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> We are taking a multi-faceted approach to determining the best way to develop guidelines and best practices in user/usability studies. As this is a tremendous task, we encourage you to join in the effort, as clarity in this area will save us all a great deal of work, resources and confusion.<br /> <br /> ''Areas currently under investigation include:''<br /> <br /> '''Identifying users and user behavior.'''<br /> What are the methods used? What are the components of how that occurs? Are there measurable comparisons on how that's being handled? How do we determine the effectiveness of the methods in use? <br /> <br /> '''Learnability.'''<br /> How is learnability being measured? What is the definition of learnability? What is the most effective method for assessment?<br /> <br /> '''Accessibility.'''<br /> This is a relatively new area, and one which is legally mandated. Implementation outside the digital library community is fairly standardized, but we need research within the digital library community, and case studies on how accessibility is implemented in common digital library systems.<br /> <br /> '''Usability'''<br /> What is the definition of usability, and what are its components? The [ISO 25000 series standards][1] provide clarity on several aspects of quality measurements for software. However, there are aspects of usability that are critical to digital libraries which are not covered in the standards, such as discoverability of content via web search engines. Determining what the critical aspects of usability are which are *not* covered via standards is the first step to developing guidelines for assessment.<br /> <br /> <br /> There are many other aspects to usability and user studies, and we welcome others who would like to pursue them. Here is where we have shared working areas, and can provide open access for white papers and other results, with excellent visibility. If you would like to join us, please join the Google Group linked below and speak up about your interests.<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7772 2016-09-15T13:04:31Z

<p>Jody: /* Current Projects */</p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> We are taking a multi-faceted approach to determining the best way to develop guidelines and best practices in user/usability studies. As this is a tremendous task, we encourage you to join in the effort, as clarity in this area will save us all a great deal of work, resources and confusion.<br /> <br /> *Areas currently under investigation include:*<br /> <br /> **Identifying users and user behavior**. <br /> What are the methods used? What are the components of how that occurs? Are there measurable comparisons on how that's being handled? How do we determine the effectiveness of the methods in use? <br /> <br /> **Learnability.**<br /> How is learnability being measured? What is the definition of learnability? What is the most effective method for assessment?<br /> <br /> **Accessibility.**<br /> This is a relatively new area, and one which is legally mandated. Implementation outside the digital library community is fairly standardized, but we need research within the digital library community, and case studies on how accessibility is implemented in common digital library systems.<br /> <br /> **Usability**<br /> What is the definition of usability, and what are its components? The [ISO 25000 series standards][1] provide clarity on several aspects of quality measurements for software. However, there are aspects of usability that are critical to digital libraries which are not covered in the standards, such as discoverability of content via web search engines. Determining what the critical aspects of usability are which are *not* covered via standards is the first step to developing guidelines for assessment.<br /> <br /> There are many other aspects to usability and user studies, and we welcome others who would like to pursue them. Here is where we have shared working areas, and can provide open access for white papers and other results, with excellent visibility. If you would like to join us, please join the Google Group linked below and speak up about your interests.<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7759 2016-08-18T17:24:57Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> * reviewing existing and pending related standards<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, incorporate standards, and develop guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines.<br /> <br /> This will provide an initial starting point from which we expect to broaden our scope, with the ultimate goal of developing guidelines and best practices for user &amp; usability studies for digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jo@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7723 2016-05-24T16:27:32Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> * reviewing existing and pending related standards<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, incorporate standards, and develop guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines.<br /> <br /> This will provide an initial starting point from which we expect to broaden our scope, with the ultimate goal of developing guidelines and best practices for user &amp; usability studies for digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7706 2016-05-10T17:53:24Z

<p>Jody: /* Current Projects */</p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines.<br /> <br /> This will provide an initial starting point from which we expect to broaden our scope, with the ultimate goal of developing guidelines and best practices for user &amp; usability studies for digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7705 2016-05-10T17:52:14Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder] or join our [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/user-usability-studies-guidelines--best-practices Google Group]. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7704 2016-05-10T14:23:26Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing&amp;tid=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8 Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7703 2016-05-10T14:22:42Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents, and an [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework page] to organize our documents and efforts. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7702 2016-05-10T14:21:16Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and engage the community to determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7701 2016-05-10T14:11:03Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:User_Studies | Back to the User Studies home page]]<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7700 2016-05-10T14:09:20Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com Jody DeRidder]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7699 2016-05-10T14:07:01Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> Contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com jody@jodyderidder.com] for more information.<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7375 2016-05-01T18:50:22Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit?usp=sharing tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> Contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com jody@jodyderidder.com] for more information.</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7374 2016-05-01T18:49:15Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared Google Drive folder.<br /> <br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit#gid=0 tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> Contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com jody@jodyderidder.com] for more information.</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment&diff=7373 2016-05-01T18:47:21Z

<p>Jody: /* Working Groups */</p> <hr /> <div>= '''DLF Assessment Interest Group''' =<br /> <br /> The [http://www.diglib.org/groups/assessment/ DLF Assessment Interest Group (AIG)], founded in 2014, seeks to engage the community in developing best practices and guidelines for various kinds of digital library assessment. This wiki will be a central location for documentation and collection of resources to assist those seeking to assess their digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Working Groups ==<br /> <br /> Using the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/18kOolh-U0qIrT3tcJg8fXMnN5pnKylFpxvtRL561baU/edit?usp=sharing Digital Library Assessment Framework], we formed four working groups in the fall of 2014 in areas of strong interest to the DLF AIG community:<br /> * [[Assessment:Analytics]]<br /> * [[Assessment:Citations]] <br /> * [[Assessment:Costs]] <br /> * [[Assessment:User Studies]]<br /> <br /> Each of these four groups worked to develop white papers and tools, which were presented at the 2015 DLF Forum. <br /> <br /> In 2016, the following additional working groups formed:<br /> *[[Assessment:Metadata]]<br /> *[[Assessment:Cultural Assessment]]<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:Analytics]], [[Assessment:Costs]], and [[Assessment:User Studies]] are continuing to evolve their work, and the latter has split into two sub-working groups. Results will be shared at the 2016 DLF Forum.<br /> <br /> In addition to visiting each working group's wiki page above, you can also learn more about the AIG's most recent work by reading [http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november15/chapman/11chapman.html &quot;Developing Best Practices in Digital Library Assessment: Year One Update&quot;] in D-Lib Magazine's November/December 2015 issue (Volume 21, Number 11/12).<br /> <br /> == Background == <br /> <br /> Research and cultural heritage institutions are, as a matter of course, providing online access to converted and born-digital scholarly and cultural content. As the amount of that content continues to grow, there is an increased need to strategically standardize our assessment efforts. <br /> <br /> The DLF AIG is concerned with:<br /> <br /> * determining how to measure the impact of digital collections; <br /> * developing areas of commonality and benchmarks in how we measure collections across various platforms; <br /> * understanding cost and benefit of digital collections; and <br /> * exploring how can we best collect, analyze, communicate, and share such information effectively across our various stakeholders—from collection managers to scholars.<br /> <br /> The DLF AIG was born in the spring following the 2013 DLF Forum after a working session called “Hunting for Best Practices in Library Assessment” garnered over 50 volunteers to continue the discussion after the conference, and a second working session on altmetrics was also met with huge interest. A Digital Library Assessment Google Group was established to provide a space for practitioners to discuss assessment efforts. At the following 2014 DLF Forum, an assessment panel discussed a new NISO initiative to develop standards for altmetrics, a new web-based cost estimation tool for digitization, and both qualitative and quantitative results from digital library user studies. The panel, like the working group the year before, was followed by a lively discussion about how to further the development of best practices for digital library assessment. Again, many community members volunteered to continue the discussion, and four working groups formed in November 2014. These groups were tasked with developing to best practices centered in the assessment of digital libraries, in the areas of user studies, analytics, cost, and citations.<br /> <br /> A previous DLF AIG Working Group also focused on [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment:Benefits measuring benefits] in digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> To take part in the conversation, join the [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group], which is open to anyone interested in learning about or collaborating on the improvement of digital library assessment.</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment&diff=7369 2016-04-22T20:00:54Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>= '''DLF Assessment Interest Group''' =<br /> <br /> The [http://www.diglib.org/groups/assessment/ DLF Assessment Interest Group (AIG)], founded in 2014, seeks to engage the community in developing best practices and guidelines for various kinds of digital library assessment. This wiki will be a central location for documentation and collection of resources to assist those seeking to assess their digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Working Groups ==<br /> <br /> Using the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/18kOolh-U0qIrT3tcJg8fXMnN5pnKylFpxvtRL561baU/edit?usp=sharing Digital Library Assessment Framework], we formed four working groups in the fall of 2014 in areas of strong interest to the DLF AIG community:<br /> * [[Assessment:Analytics]]<br /> * [[Assessment:Citations]] <br /> * [[Assessment:Costs]] <br /> * [[Assessment:User Studies]]<br /> <br /> Each of these four groups worked to develop white papers and tools, which were presented at the 2015 DLF Forum. <br /> <br /> In 2016, the following working groups formed/are meeting now:<br /> *[[Assessment:Metadata]]<br /> *[[Assessment:Cultural Assessment]]<br /> <br /> [[Assessment:Analytics]], [[Assessment:Costs]], and [[Assessment:User Studies]] are continuing to evolve their work, and the latter has split into two sub-working groups. Results will be shared at the 2016 DLF Forum.<br /> <br /> In addition to visiting each working group's wiki page above, you can also learn more about the AIG's most recent work by reading [http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november15/chapman/11chapman.html &quot;Developing Best Practices in Digital Library Assessment: Year One Update&quot;] in D-Lib Magazine's November/December 2015 issue (Volume 21, Number 11/12).<br /> <br /> == Background == <br /> <br /> Research and cultural heritage institutions are, as a matter of course, providing online access to converted and born-digital scholarly and cultural content. As the amount of that content continues to grow, there is an increased need to strategically standardize our assessment efforts. <br /> <br /> The DLF AIG is concerned with:<br /> <br /> * determining how to measure the impact of digital collections; <br /> * developing areas of commonality and benchmarks in how we measure collections across various platforms; <br /> * understanding cost and benefit of digital collections; and <br /> * exploring how can we best collect, analyze, communicate, and share such information effectively across our various stakeholders—from collection managers to scholars.<br /> <br /> The DLF AIG was born in the spring following the 2013 DLF Forum after a working session called “Hunting for Best Practices in Library Assessment” garnered over 50 volunteers to continue the discussion after the conference, and a second working session on altmetrics was also met with huge interest. A Digital Library Assessment Google Group was established to provide a space for practitioners to discuss assessment efforts. At the following 2014 DLF Forum, an assessment panel discussed a new NISO initiative to develop standards for altmetrics, a new web-based cost estimation tool for digitization, and both qualitative and quantitative results from digital library user studies. The panel, like the working group the year before, was followed by a lively discussion about how to further the development of best practices for digital library assessment. Again, many community members volunteered to continue the discussion, and four working groups formed in November 2014. These groups were tasked with developing to best practices centered in the assessment of digital libraries, in the areas of user studies, analytics, cost, and citations.<br /> <br /> A previous DLF AIG Working Group also focused on [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment:Benefits measuring benefits] in digital libraries.<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> To take part in the conversation, join the [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group], which is open to anyone interested in learning about or collaborating on the improvement of digital library assessment.</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User/UX&diff=7368 2016-04-22T19:44:21Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot;Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared [https://drive.google....&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Use &amp; Usability Best Practices &amp; Guidelines working documents are organized in [https://osf.io/zfqc3/ Open Science Framework] and are stored in a shared [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8QIcqLZNmd3Wk5meW84U3IwRVE&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder].<br /> <br /> <br /> We are:<br /> * building on the previous lit review and tagging effort, and extracting our focus from the results of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9x1Su48KWBU14I0i5odrxh1SCYurrGWLXlfiST5NLI/edit Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries].<br /> * modifying the lit review [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZEDdattkw63GUVGCkJJzZWLuL_fe9zvMBl9pxtNRt0M/edit#gid=0 tagging dictionary] to meet our needs<br /> * collecting additional resources to add to those already tagged<br /> <br /> We expect to drill down to compare how others measure various aspects and develop their studies.<br /> <br /> We will compare and contrast use of terms and measures across the literature, using this to form guidelines, which we expect to share as a white paper.<br /> <br /> In the areas where we encounter conflicts and variations, we will report on our findings and determine how to move forward to resolve the issues necessary to develop guidelines. <br /> <br /> We are seeking broader participation!<br /> <br /> Contact [mailto:jody@jodyderidder.com jody@jodyderidder.com] for more information.</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User_Studies&diff=7367 2016-04-22T19:30:44Z

<p>Jody: /* Current Projects */</p> <hr /> <div>The User Studies Working Group compiles resources, conducts research, and drafts literature to assist those who are interesting in evaluating users of digital repositories and their needs.<br /> <br /> == Publications from the DLF AIG User Studies Working Group ==<br /> <br /> '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9NBQG) is available [https://osf.io/9nbqg/ here]''' <br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> After discussions at the 2015 DLF Forum [https://docs.google.com/document/d/15-mFHPXjW63srbZ-QZoh5_cAV9BXXNtj5aTQl-DlqO4/edit?usp=sharing Assessment Lunch], the User Studies Working Group is focusing on two new projects in 2016:<br /> <br /> * Developing [[Assessment:User/Usability Studies Guidelines and Best Practices | guidelines and best practices for user/usability study development]]<br /> * Generating a toolkit to assess digital library reuse<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:sathompson3@uh.edu Santi Thompson]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> == Past Projects ==<br /> <br /> === The User Studies Working Group white paper (2014-2015) ===<br /> <br /> Participants identified four assessment topics to explore during the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rLdMSPCbR_F-hE0ZhWzS70IBGEMh1450ff0x_ioPrIk/edit Assessment Breakout Session] at the 2014 DLF Forum:<br /> <br /> # User/Usability studies<br /> # Identifying users and uses<br /> # Return On Investment (ROI)<br /> # Reuse of content/what do users do with content<br /> <br /> These four groups will make up the focus of a white paper on assessing users and user needs. The working group will complete a series of tasks to generate the white paper:<br /> <br /> # Compile a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AVlT3QlmhbcUmoRtZ0hpvEhpbD9_Eld5bHsa-JNHX24/edit?usp=sharing bibliography]<br /> # Develop a literature review -- '''Completed'''<br /> # Release [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jd7N6BMh7g1DbgSpL0vigY4s87k7UQjOJLvgYYkqP0c/edit?usp=sharing '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] for public comment<br /> # Release final draft of [https://osf.io/9nbqg/ '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] <br /> <br /> ==== White Paper Participants ====<br /> <br /> ===== White Paper Team =====<br /> * Joyce Chapman, Duke University<br /> * Megan Hurst, Athenaeum21 Consulting<br /> * Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans<br /> * Caroline Muglia, University of Southern California<br /> * Genya O’Gara, Virtual Library of Virginia<br /> * Ayla Stein, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<br /> * Santi Thompson, University of Houston (Co-Leader)<br /> * Liz Woolcott, Utah State University (Co-Leader)<br /> * Tao Zhang, Purdue University<br /> <br /> ===== Literature Review Team =====<br /> * Joyce Chapman, Duke University<br /> * Jody DeRidder, University of Alabama<br /> * Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans<br /> * Martha Kyrillidou, Association of Research Libraries<br /> * Caroline Muglia, University of Southern California<br /> * Genya O’Gara, Virtual Library of Virginia<br /> * Ayla Stein, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<br /> * Santi Thompson, University of Houston (Leader)<br /> * Rachel Trent, State Library of North Carolina<br /> * Liz Woolcott, Utah State University<br /> <br /> ===== Bibliography Team =====<br /> * Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans<br /> * Santi Thompson, University of Houston (Leader)<br /> * Rachel Trent, George Washington University<br /> * Liz Woolcott, Utah State University<br /> * Tao Zhang, Purdue University<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User_Studies&diff=7366 2016-04-22T19:30:09Z

<p>Jody: /* Current Projects */</p> <hr /> <div>The User Studies Working Group compiles resources, conducts research, and drafts literature to assist those who are interesting in evaluating users of digital repositories and their needs.<br /> <br /> == Publications from the DLF AIG User Studies Working Group ==<br /> <br /> '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9NBQG) is available [https://osf.io/9nbqg/ here]''' <br /> <br /> == Current Projects ==<br /> <br /> After discussions at the 2015 DLF Forum [https://docs.google.com/document/d/15-mFHPXjW63srbZ-QZoh5_cAV9BXXNtj5aTQl-DlqO4/edit?usp=sharing Assessment Lunch], the User Studies Working Group will be focusing on two new projects in 2016:<br /> <br /> * Developing [[Assessment:User/Usability Studies Guidelines and Best Practices | guidelines and best practices for user/usability study development]]<br /> * Generating a toolkit to assess digital library reuse<br /> <br /> == Get Involved ==<br /> <br /> The working group maintains a [https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxKlOQm6nnVndnJrR200UFZoSm8&amp;usp=sharing Google Drive folder], which contains meeting notes and drafts of working documents. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions, or are interested in participating in the working group, please contact [mailto:sathompson3@uh.edu Santi Thompson]. You can also fill out our [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16X0B-NSulh1V6HuqkSZZq0El35AQlZLbpWUlzNx2Puo/edit User Studies Participant] spreadsheet.<br /> <br /> == Past Projects ==<br /> <br /> === The User Studies Working Group white paper (2014-2015) ===<br /> <br /> Participants identified four assessment topics to explore during the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rLdMSPCbR_F-hE0ZhWzS70IBGEMh1450ff0x_ioPrIk/edit Assessment Breakout Session] at the 2014 DLF Forum:<br /> <br /> # User/Usability studies<br /> # Identifying users and uses<br /> # Return On Investment (ROI)<br /> # Reuse of content/what do users do with content<br /> <br /> These four groups will make up the focus of a white paper on assessing users and user needs. The working group will complete a series of tasks to generate the white paper:<br /> <br /> # Compile a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AVlT3QlmhbcUmoRtZ0hpvEhpbD9_Eld5bHsa-JNHX24/edit?usp=sharing bibliography]<br /> # Develop a literature review -- '''Completed'''<br /> # Release [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jd7N6BMh7g1DbgSpL0vigY4s87k7UQjOJLvgYYkqP0c/edit?usp=sharing '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] for public comment<br /> # Release final draft of [https://osf.io/9nbqg/ '''Surveying the Landscape: Use and Usability Assessment of Digital Libraries'''] <br /> <br /> ==== White Paper Participants ====<br /> <br /> ===== White Paper Team =====<br /> * Joyce Chapman, Duke University<br /> * Megan Hurst, Athenaeum21 Consulting<br /> * Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans<br /> * Caroline Muglia, University of Southern California<br /> * Genya O’Gara, Virtual Library of Virginia<br /> * Ayla Stein, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<br /> * Santi Thompson, University of Houston (Co-Leader)<br /> * Liz Woolcott, Utah State University (Co-Leader)<br /> * Tao Zhang, Purdue University<br /> <br /> ===== Literature Review Team =====<br /> * Joyce Chapman, Duke University<br /> * Jody DeRidder, University of Alabama<br /> * Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans<br /> * Martha Kyrillidou, Association of Research Libraries<br /> * Caroline Muglia, University of Southern California<br /> * Genya O’Gara, Virtual Library of Virginia<br /> * Ayla Stein, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<br /> * Santi Thompson, University of Houston (Leader)<br /> * Rachel Trent, State Library of North Carolina<br /> * Liz Woolcott, Utah State University<br /> <br /> ===== Bibliography Team =====<br /> * Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans<br /> * Santi Thompson, University of Houston (Leader)<br /> * Rachel Trent, George Washington University<br /> * Liz Woolcott, Utah State University<br /> * Tao Zhang, Purdue University<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> [http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Altmetrics&diff=146 2015-05-12T13:54:11Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How can we best utilize altmetrics for digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;[http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1392140 Determining Assessment Strategies for Digital Libraries and Institutional Repositories Using Usage Statistics and Altmetrics]&quot; by Stacy Konkiel, Michelle Dalmau and Dave Scherer begins to lay out some initial best practices for altmetrics ([http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1392140 http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1392140]).<br /> <br /> According to them, altmetrics should be:<br /> <br /> # Transparently collected and displayed<br /> # Auditable (in a manner similar to COUNTER metrics)<br /> # Appropriate to the medium being measured<br /> # Include context (via percentiles, demographic information, etc)<br /> # Open data (freely available and thereby auditable and also available for reuse under as permissive a license as possible)<br /> <br /> There is a new [http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/ NISO effort to begin to standardize altmetrics], which we hope to both inform and leverage to our benefit! <br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for assessing altmetrics for digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=131 2015-04-24T12:55:34Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> Potential steps to establish best practices and guidelines may include the following:<br /> # Create operational definitions of value for digital libraries in general<br /> # Assess alignment of benefits with institutional goals<br /> # Develop standardized methods, comparable across institutions, to measure the benefits<br /> The latter might include:<br /> * Altmetrics<br /> * Citations<br /> * Web stats and Google Analytics<br /> * Other measurements and methods (such as surveys, focus groups)<br /> * Address special challenges raised by aggregation<br /> <br /> <br /> We are sharing resources on [[Assessment:Altmetrics]].<br /> <br /> We formed a working group on [[Assessment:Citations]] and another on [[Assessment:Analytics]], that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> For several weeks in early 2015, Elizabeth Kelly requested feedback on proposed best practices for citing digitized content and institutional repository content using 3 major citation styles. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_ROgzDKdBJKtWdl80Dh_bQKVg-y33EdXgc5cK64Y70/edit# Now Closed]. She is incorporating suggestions and recommendations.<br /> <br /> Stacy Konkiel, Michelle Dalmau and David Scherer have published a white paper on [http://figshare.com/articles/Altmetrics_and_analytics_for_digital_special_collections_and_institutional_repositories/1392140 &quot;Altmetrics and analytics for digital special collections and institutional repositories&quot;].<br /> <br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=128 2015-04-09T19:24:35Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>==Questions to Address==<br /> <br /> # What should a citation consist of?<br /> # How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> # To what extent do common citation formats support this? <br /> # What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? <br /> # What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Elizabeth Kelly has worked hard to develop proposed best practices for citing digitized special collections materials and institutional repository content in MLA, APA, and Chicago styles.'''<br /> <br /> '''Please review her proposal and comment:''' <br /> <br /> [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b9G72sjkL35uYQGEcGiL_WcUjm0qdlE2zoVYdgKjldA/edit?usp=sharing]<br /> <br /> '''Comments and feedback are requested until April 24th.''' Thank you (and Elizabeth!) for helping us build best practices for assessment in digital libraries!<br /> ---<br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)<br /> <br /> == Reference resources: ==<br /> <br /> # ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.29-2005 (R2010) &lt;em&gt;[http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12969/Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Bibliographic References]&lt;/em&gt;<br /> # The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations.<br /> # Spiro, Lisa, and Jane Segal. “The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research.” — Fondren Library, Rice University., n.d. Web. 2 July 2014. [https://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research]<br /> # Eccles, Kathryn E., Mike Thelwall, and Eric T. Meyer. “Measuring the Web Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources.” Journal of Documentation 68.4 (2012): 512–526. ProQuest. Web. 3 July 2014. [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00220411211239084]<br /> # Kelly, Elizabeth. A guide for students on citing digitized special collection materials using Chicago, MLA, and APA citation styles [http://researchguides.loyno.edu/content.php?pid=526577&amp;sid=4495329]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=126 2015-04-08T20:58:16Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> Potential steps to establish best practices and guidelines may include the following:<br /> # Create operational definitions of value for digital libraries in general<br /> # Assess alignment of benefits with institutional goals<br /> # Develop standardized methods, comparable across institutions, to measure the benefits<br /> The latter might include:<br /> * Altmetrics<br /> * Citations<br /> * Web stats and Google Analytics<br /> * Other measurements and methods (such as surveys, focus groups)<br /> * Address special challenges raised by aggregation<br /> <br /> <br /> We are sharing resources on [[Assessment:Altmetrics]].<br /> <br /> We formed a working group on [[Assessment:Citations]] and another on [[Assessment:Analytics]], that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> For several weeks in early 2015, Elizabeth Kelly requested feedback on proposed best practices for citing digitized content and institutional repository content using 3 major citation styles. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_ROgzDKdBJKtWdl80Dh_bQKVg-y33EdXgc5cK64Y70/edit# Now Closed]. She is incorporating suggestions and recommendations.<br /> <br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=100 2015-03-09T16:13:05Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> Potential steps to establish best practices and guidelines may include the following:<br /> # Create operational definitions of value for digital libraries in general<br /> # Assess alignment of benefits with institutional goals<br /> # Develop standardized methods, comparable across institutions, to measure the benefits<br /> The latter might include:<br /> * Altmetrics<br /> * Citations<br /> * Web stats and Google Analytics<br /> * Other measurements and methods (such as surveys, focus groups)<br /> * Address special challenges raised by aggregation<br /> <br /> <br /> We are sharing resources on [[Assessment:Altmetrics]].<br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on [[Assessment:Citations]] and another on [[Assessment:Analytics]], that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> <br /> Until '''April 3rd''', Elizabeth Kelly is requesting feedback on proposed best practices for citing digitized content and institutional repository content using 3 major citation styles. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_ROgzDKdBJKtWdl80Dh_bQKVg-y33EdXgc5cK64Y70/edit# Please comment!]<br /> <br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=99 2015-03-06T22:16:23Z

<p>Jody: /* Questions to Address */</p> <hr /> <div>==Questions to Address==<br /> <br /> # What should a citation consist of?<br /> # How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> # To what extent do common citation formats support this? <br /> # What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? <br /> # What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Elizabeth Kelly has worked hard to develop proposed best practices for citing digitized special collections materials and institutional repository content in MLA, APA, and Chicago styles.'''<br /> <br /> '''Please review her proposal and comment:''' <br /> <br /> [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_ROgzDKdBJKtWdl80Dh_bQKVg-y33EdXgc5cK64Y70/edit?usp=sharing http://bit.ly/1AOZHXj]<br /> <br /> '''Comments and feedback are requested until April 3rd.''' Thank you (and Elizabeth!) for helping us build best practices for assessment in digital libraries!<br /> ---<br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)<br /> <br /> == Reference resources: ==<br /> <br /> # ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.29-2005 (R2010) &lt;em&gt;[http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12969/Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Bibliographic References]&lt;/em&gt;<br /> # The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations.<br /> # Spiro, Lisa, and Jane Segal. “The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research.” — Fondren Library, Rice University., n.d. Web. 2 July 2014. [https://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research]<br /> # Eccles, Kathryn E., Mike Thelwall, and Eric T. Meyer. “Measuring the Web Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources.” Journal of Documentation 68.4 (2012): 512–526. ProQuest. Web. 3 July 2014. [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00220411211239084]<br /> # Kelly, Elizabeth. A guide for students on citing digitized special collection materials using Chicago, MLA, and APA citation styles [http://researchguides.loyno.edu/content.php?pid=526577&amp;sid=4495329]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=85 2015-02-04T22:25:49Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>==Questions to Address==<br /> <br /> # What should a citation consist of?<br /> # How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> # To what extent do common citation formats support this? <br /> # What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? <br /> # What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Reference resources: ==<br /> <br /> # ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.29-2005 (R2010) &lt;em&gt;[http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12969/Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Bibliographic References]&lt;/em&gt;<br /> # The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations.<br /> # Spiro, Lisa, and Jane Segal. “The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research.” — Fondren Library, Rice University., n.d. Web. 2 July 2014. [https://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research]<br /> # Eccles, Kathryn E., Mike Thelwall, and Eric T. Meyer. “Measuring the Web Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources.” Journal of Documentation 68.4 (2012): 512–526. ProQuest. Web. 3 July 2014. [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00220411211239084]<br /> # Kelly, Elizabeth. A guide for students on citing digitized special collection materials using Chicago, MLA, and APA citation styles [http://researchguides.loyno.edu/content.php?pid=526577&amp;sid=4495329]</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=84 2015-02-04T22:23:06Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> == What should a citation consist of? ==<br /> <br /> The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document the following &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations:<br /> <br /> '''Minimal components of a data citation:'''<br /> <br /> Creator (Year) Title. Publisher. Identifier<br /> <br /> '''Core Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Creator(s): Individual(s) or organization responsible for creating the dataset.<br /> *Year: Year the dataset was published, not necessarily created.<br /> *Title: Should be as descriptive as possible.<br /> *Publisher: Organization that provides access to the dataset (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo).<br /> *Identifier: Persistent, unique identifier (e.g. a DOI).<br /> <br /> '''Additional Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Location / Availability: The web address of the dataset is essential when the identifier can’t be used to reach the dataset.<br /> *Version / Edition: Version of the dataset used in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of versioned dynamic datasets.<br /> *Access Date: Date of access for analysis in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of continuously updated dynamic datasets.<br /> *Format / Material Designator: e.g. database, CD-ROM.<br /> *Feature Name: A description of the subset of the dataset used. May be a formal title or a list of variables (e.g. concentration, optical density).<br /> *Verifier: Used to confirm that two datasets are identical. Most commonly a UNF or MD5 checksum.<br /> *Series: Used if the dataset is part of series of releases (e.g. monthly, yearly).<br /> *Contributor: e.g. editor, compiler<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Digitized Special collections bring more to the table, however. '''' For example, many institutions prefer to include citation information for:<br /> * the containing collection and holding institution. <br /> * Series/subseries/box/folder information<br /> * other?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Reference resources: ==<br /> <br /> # ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.29-2005 (R2010) &lt;em&gt;[http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12969/Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Bibliographic References]&lt;/em&gt;<br /> # Spiro, Lisa, and Jane Segal. “The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research.” — Fondren Library, Rice University., n.d. Web. 2 July 2014. [https://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research]<br /> # Eccles, Kathryn E., Mike Thelwall, and Eric T. Meyer. “Measuring the Web Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources.” Journal of Documentation 68.4 (2012): 512–526. ProQuest. Web. 3 July 2014. [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00220411211239084]<br /> # Kelly, Elizabeth. A guide for students on citing digitized special collection materials using Chicago, MLA, and APA citation styles [http://researchguides.loyno.edu/content.php?pid=526577&amp;sid=4495329]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Questions to Address==<br /> <br /> # How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> # To what extent do common citation formats support this? <br /> # What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? <br /> # What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=83 2015-02-03T20:22:56Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> == What should a citation consist of? ==<br /> <br /> The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document the following &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations:<br /> <br /> '''Minimal components of a data citation:'''<br /> <br /> Creator (Year) Title. Publisher. Identifier<br /> <br /> '''Core Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Creator(s): Individual(s) or organization responsible for creating the dataset.<br /> *Year: Year the dataset was published, not necessarily created.<br /> *Title: Should be as descriptive as possible.<br /> *Publisher: Organization that provides access to the dataset (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo).<br /> *Identifier: Persistent, unique identifier (e.g. a DOI).<br /> <br /> '''Additional Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Location / Availability: The web address of the dataset is essential when the identifier can’t be used to reach the dataset.<br /> *Version / Edition: Version of the dataset used in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of versioned dynamic datasets.<br /> *Access Date: Date of access for analysis in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of continuously updated dynamic datasets.<br /> *Format / Material Designator: e.g. database, CD-ROM.<br /> *Feature Name: A description of the subset of the dataset used. May be a formal title or a list of variables (e.g. concentration, optical density).<br /> *Verifier: Used to confirm that two datasets are identical. Most commonly a UNF or MD5 checksum.<br /> *Series: Used if the dataset is part of series of releases (e.g. monthly, yearly).<br /> *Contributor: e.g. editor, compiler<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Digitized Special collections bring more to the table, however. '''' For example, many institutions prefer to include citation information for:<br /> * the containing collection and holding institution. <br /> * Series/subseries/box/folder information<br /> * other?<br /> <br /> <br /> Reference resource: ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.29-2005 (R2010) &lt;em&gt;[http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12969/Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Bibliographic References]&lt;/em&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Questions to Address==<br /> <br /> # How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> # To what extent do common citation formats support this? <br /> # What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? <br /> # What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=82 2015-02-03T14:30:33Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> == What should a citation consist of? ==<br /> <br /> The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document the following &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations:<br /> <br /> '''Minimal components of a data citation:'''<br /> <br /> Creator (Year) Title. Publisher. Identifier<br /> <br /> '''Core Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Creator(s): Individual(s) or organization responsible for creating the dataset.<br /> *Year: Year the dataset was published, not necessarily created.<br /> *Title: Should be as descriptive as possible.<br /> *Publisher: Organization that provides access to the dataset (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo).<br /> *Identifier: Persistent, unique identifier (e.g. a DOI).<br /> <br /> '''Additional Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Location / Availability: The web address of the dataset is essential when the identifier can’t be used to reach the dataset.<br /> *Version / Edition: Version of the dataset used in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of versioned dynamic datasets.<br /> *Access Date: Date of access for analysis in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of continuously updated dynamic datasets.<br /> *Format / Material Designator: e.g. database, CD-ROM.<br /> *Feature Name: A description of the subset of the dataset used. May be a formal title or a list of variables (e.g. concentration, optical density).<br /> *Verifier: Used to confirm that two datasets are identical. Most commonly a UNF or MD5 checksum.<br /> *Series: Used if the dataset is part of series of releases (e.g. monthly, yearly).<br /> *Contributor: e.g. editor, compiler<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Digitized Special collections bring more to the table, however. '''' For example, many institutions prefer to include citation information for:<br /> * the containing collection and holding institution. <br /> * Series/subseries/box/folder information<br /> * other?<br /> <br /> ==Questions to Address==<br /> <br /> # How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> # To what extent do common citation formats support this? <br /> # What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? <br /> # What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? <br /> <br /> Reference resource: ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.29-2005 (R2010) &lt;em&gt;[http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12969/Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Bibliographic References]&lt;/em&gt;<br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Costs&diff=41 2014-12-17T19:40:26Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> == What's the best way to assess costs for digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Last year, Joyce Chapman, Assessment Coordinator for Duke Universities, developed a beta version of a [http://statelibrarync.org/plstats/digitization_calculator.php Library Digitization Cost Calculator] to assist organizations in estimating the costs for digitizing collections. We would be grateful for suggestions for improvement and especially data from your institution's experiences with digitization, so that Joyce can incorporate it into the cost estimation tool.<br /> <br /> There are many potential areas for measuring costs:<br /> * Hardware and software<br /> * Technical support<br /> * Overhead<br /> * Content arrangement and description<br /> * Content preparation<br /> * Metadata creation<br /> * Digitization, which can vary by:<br /> ** type and fragility of content<br /> ** type of capture mechanism<br /> ** expertise of staff<br /> ** amount of quality control measures implemented<br /> * Upload processes<br /> * Web services support and development<br /> * Cross-departmental communications<br /> * Outreach<br /> <br /> To say nothing of the costs of preservation! <br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for assessing costs of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)<br /> <br /> Joyce is now heading up a small task force that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment&diff=40 2014-12-17T19:39:33Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Digital Library Assessment'''<br /> <br /> Research and cultural heritage institutions are, as a matter of course, providing online access to converted and born-digital scholarly and cultural content. As the amount of that content continues to grow, there is an increased need to strategically standardize our assessment efforts. <br /> <br /> The [http://www.diglib.org/groups/assessment/ DLF Digital Library Assessment Group] seeks to engage the community in developing best practices and guidelines for various kinds of digital library assessment.<br /> <br /> We are concerned with:<br /> * determining how to measure the impact of digital collections; <br /> * developing areas of commonality and benchmarks in how we measure collections across various platforms; <br /> * understanding cost and benefit of digital collections; and <br /> * exploring how can we best collect, analyze, communicate, and share such information effectively across our various stakeholders—from collection managers to scholars.<br /> <br /> This wiki will be a central location for documentation and collection of resources to assist those seeking to assess their digital libraries.<br /> <br /> Using the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/18kOolh-U0qIrT3tcJg8fXMnN5pnKylFpxvtRL561baU/edit?usp=sharing Digital Library Assessment Framework], <br /> we have subdivided the areas for working groups into:<br /> * [[Assessment:Costs]]<br /> * [[Assessment:Benefits]] and<br /> * [[Assessment:User Needs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> The [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group], which is open to anyone interested in learning about or collaborating on the improvement of digital library assessment.</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Analytics&diff=39 2014-12-17T19:14:27Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>The DLF Analytics Subcommittee is working to draft out how best to capture analytics about how digital library content is accessed.<br /> <br /> In December 2014, we began to draft a set of '''high-level types of data''' we want to capture with analytics, such as:<br /> * Referrals<br /> * Search terms<br /> * Number of users<br /> * Number of accesses<br /> * Number of downloads<br /> <br /> We also began to define a set of '''content types''', as those may impact the capture of analytics. Examples include:<br /> * Institutional repositories<br /> * Licensed resources<br /> * Digitized unique content<br /> * Datasets<br /> * Finding aids<br /> * Websites<br /> <br /> And we also realized that different audiences may need different information gathered. Here's our first draft of '''potential audiences''':<br /> * Administrators<br /> * Content selectors<br /> * Metadata providers<br /> * System administrators<br /> <br /> If you're interested in helping this subcommittee move forward, please join the [[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-analytics Digital Library Analytics Google Group]] and speak up!</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Analytics&diff=38 2014-12-17T19:13:53Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot;The DLF Analytics Subcommittee is working to draft out how best to capture analytics about how digital library content is accessed. In December 2014, we began to draft a set...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The DLF Analytics Subcommittee is working to draft out how best to capture analytics about how digital library content is accessed.<br /> <br /> In December 2014, we began to draft a set of high-level types of data we want to capture with analytics, such as:<br /> * Referrals<br /> * Search terms<br /> * Number of users<br /> * Number of accesses<br /> * Number of downloads<br /> <br /> We also began to define a set of content types, as those may impact the capture of analytics. Examples include:<br /> * Institutional repositories<br /> * Licensed resources<br /> * Digitized unique content<br /> * Datasets<br /> * Finding aids<br /> * Websites<br /> <br /> And we also realized that different audiences may need different information gathered. Here's our first draft of potential audiences:<br /> * Administrators<br /> * Content selectors<br /> * Metadata providers<br /> * System administrators<br /> <br /> If you're interested in helping this subcommittee move forward, please join the [[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-analytics Digital Library Analytics Google Group]] and speak up!</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Altmetrics&diff=37 2014-12-17T19:04:18Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot; == How can we best utilize altmetrics for digital libraries? == &quot;[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uVn0BsY4RAZN7gNI3Jnbp9UiFkiQ5UDBAzceM-WoKiE/edit?usp=sharing Determini...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How can we best utilize altmetrics for digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uVn0BsY4RAZN7gNI3Jnbp9UiFkiQ5UDBAzceM-WoKiE/edit?usp=sharing Determining Assessment Strategies for Digital Libraries and Institutional Repositories Using Usage Statistics and Altmetrics]&quot; by Stacy Konkiel, Michelle Dalmau and Dave Scherer begins to lay out some initial best practices for altmetrics.<br /> <br /> According to them, altmetrics should be:<br /> <br /> # Transparently collected and displayed<br /> # Auditable (in a manner similar to COUNTER metrics)<br /> # Appropriate to the medium being measured<br /> # Include context (via percentiles, demographic information, etc)<br /> # Open data (freely available and thereby auditable and also available for reuse under as permissive a license as possible)<br /> <br /> There is a new [http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/ NISO effort to begin to standardize altmetrics], which we hope to both inform and leverage to our benefit! <br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for assessing altmetrics for digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=36 2014-12-17T18:58:43Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> Potential steps to establish best practices and guidelines may include the following:<br /> # Create operational definitions of value for digital libraries in general<br /> # Assess alignment of benefits with institutional goals<br /> # Develop standardized methods, comparable across institutions, to measure the benefits<br /> The latter might include:<br /> * Altmetrics<br /> * Citations<br /> * Web stats and Google Analytics<br /> * Other measurements and methods (such as surveys, focus groups)<br /> * Address special challenges raised by aggregation<br /> <br /> <br /> We are sharing resources on [[Assessment:Altmetrics]].<br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on [[Assessment:Citations]] and another on [[Assessment:Analytics]], that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=35 2014-12-17T18:43:24Z

<p>Jody: /* What should a citation consist of? */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> == What should a citation consist of? ==<br /> <br /> The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document the following &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations:<br /> <br /> '''Minimal components of a data citation:'''<br /> <br /> Creator (Year) Title. Publisher. Identifier<br /> <br /> '''Core Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Creator(s): Individual(s) or organization responsible for creating the dataset.<br /> *Year: Year the dataset was published, not necessarily created.<br /> *Title: Should be as descriptive as possible.<br /> *Publisher: Organization that provides access to the dataset (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo).<br /> *Identifier: Persistent, unique identifier (e.g. a DOI).<br /> <br /> '''Additional Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Location / Availability: The web address of the dataset is essential when the identifier can’t be used to reach the dataset.<br /> *Version / Edition: Version of the dataset used in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of versioned dynamic datasets.<br /> *Access Date: Date of access for analysis in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of continuously updated dynamic datasets.<br /> *Format / Material Designator: e.g. database, CD-ROM.<br /> *Feature Name: A description of the subset of the dataset used. May be a formal title or a list of variables (e.g. concentration, optical density).<br /> *Verifier: Used to confirm that two datasets are identical. Most commonly a UNF or MD5 checksum.<br /> *Series: Used if the dataset is part of series of releases (e.g. monthly, yearly).<br /> *Contributor: e.g. editor, compiler<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Digitized Special collections bring more to the table, however. '''' For example, many institutions prefer to include citation information for:<br /> * the containing collection and holding institution. <br /> * Series/subseries/box/folder information<br /> * other?<br /> <br /> How can we best support appropriate citations?<br /> <br /> == To what extent do common citation formats support this? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=34 2014-12-17T18:17:58Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> == What should a citation consist of? ==<br /> <br /> The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document the following &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations:<br /> <br /> '''Minimal components of a data citation:'''<br /> <br /> Creator (Year) Title. Publisher. Identifier<br /> <br /> '''Core Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Creator(s): Individual(s) or organization responsible for creating the dataset.<br /> *Year: Year the dataset was published, not necessarily created.<br /> *Title: Should be as descriptive as possible.<br /> *Publisher: Organization that provides access to the dataset (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo).<br /> *Identifier: Persistent, unique identifier (e.g. a DOI).<br /> <br /> '''Additional Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Location / Availability: The web address of the dataset is essential when the identifier can’t be used to reach the dataset.<br /> *Version / Edition: Version of the dataset used in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of versioned dynamic datasets.<br /> *Access Date: Date of access for analysis in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of continuously updated dynamic datasets.<br /> *Format / Material Designator: e.g. database, CD-ROM.<br /> *Feature Name: A description of the subset of the dataset used. May be a formal title or a list of variables (e.g. concentration, optical density).<br /> *Verifier: Used to confirm that two datasets are identical. Most commonly a UNF or MD5 checksum.<br /> *Series: Used if the dataset is part of series of releases (e.g. monthly, yearly).<br /> *Contributor: e.g. editor, compiler<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Digitized Special collections bring more to the table, however. For example, many institutions prefer to include citation information for the containing collection and holding institution. How best can we do that?'''''<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == To what extent do common citation formats support this? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on these issues, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Citations&diff=33 2014-12-17T18:16:35Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot; == What should a citation consist of? == The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library&#039;s Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics,...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> == What should a citation consist of? ==<br /> <br /> The [http://datapub.cdlib.org/datacitation/ California Digital Library's Datapub blog] has a good summary of data citation basics, which document the following &quot;core&quot; and &quot;recommended&quot; components of dataset citations:<br /> <br /> '''Minimal components of a data citation:'''<br /> <br /> Creator (Year) Title. Publisher. Identifier<br /> <br /> '''Core Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Creator(s): Individual(s) or organization responsible for creating the dataset.<br /> *Year: Year the dataset was published, not necessarily created.<br /> *Title: Should be as descriptive as possible.<br /> *Publisher: Organization that provides access to the dataset (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo).<br /> *Identifier: Persistent, unique identifier (e.g. a DOI).<br /> <br /> '''Additional Elements'''<br /> <br /> *Location / Availability: The web address of the dataset is essential when the identifier can’t be used to reach the dataset.<br /> *Version / Edition: Version of the dataset used in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of versioned dynamic datasets.<br /> *Access Date: Date of access for analysis in the present publication. Needed to reproduce analysis of continuously updated dynamic datasets.<br /> *Format / Material Designator: e.g. database, CD-ROM.<br /> *Feature Name: A description of the subset of the dataset used. May be a formal title or a list of variables (e.g. concentration, optical density).<br /> *Verifier: Used to confirm that two datasets are identical. Most commonly a UNF or MD5 checksum.<br /> *Series: Used if the dataset is part of series of releases (e.g. monthly, yearly).<br /> *Contributor: e.g. editor, compiler<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Digitized Special collections bring more to the table, however. For example, many institutions prefer to include citation information for the containing collection and holding institution. How best can we do that?'''''<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == To what extent do common citation formats support this? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == What are the limitations of current digital library software systems, for displaying citation information? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == What are best practices for displaying citation information for reference manager software capture? ==</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=32 2014-12-17T18:06:37Z

<p>Jody: /* How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> Potential steps to establish best practices and guidelines may include the following:<br /> # Create operational definitions of value for digital libraries in general<br /> # Assess alignment of benefits with institutional goals<br /> # Develop standardized methods, comparable across institutions, to measure the benefits<br /> The latter might include:<br /> * Altmetrics<br /> * Citations<br /> * Web stats and Google Analytics<br /> * Other measurements and methods (such as surveys, focus groups)<br /> * Address special challenges raised by aggregation<br /> <br /> There is a new [http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/ NISO effort to begin to standardize altmetrics], which we hope to both inform and leverage to our benefit!<br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on [[Assessment:Citations]] and another on analytics, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=31 2014-12-17T18:05:51Z

<p>Jody: /* How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> Potential steps to establish best practices and guidelines may include the following:<br /> # Create operational definitions of value for digital libraries in general<br /> # Assess alignment of benefits with institutional goals<br /> # Develop standardized methods, comparable across institutions, to measure the benefits<br /> The latter might include:<br /> * Altmetrics<br /> * Citations<br /> * Web stats and Google Analytics<br /> * Other measurements and methods (such as surveys, focus groups)<br /> * Address special challenges raised by aggregation<br /> <br /> There is a new [http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/ NISO effort to begin to standardize altmetrics], which we hope to both inform and leverage to our benefit!<br /> <br /> We have formed a working group on [[Assessment:Citations Citations]] and another on analytics, that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!<br /> <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for measuring benefits of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Costs&diff=30 2014-12-17T17:49:20Z

<p>Jody: /* What&#039;s the best way to assess costs for digital libraries? */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == What's the best way to assess costs for digital libraries? ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Last year, Joyce Chapman, Assessment Coordinator for Duke Universities, developed a beta version of a [http://statelibrarync.org/plstats/digitization_calculator.php Library Digitization Cost Calculator] to assist organizations in estimating the costs for digitizing collections. We would be grateful for suggestions for improvement and especially data from your institution's experiences with digitization, so that Joyce can incorporate it into the cost estimation tool.<br /> <br /> There are many potential areas for measuring costs:<br /> * Hardware and software<br /> * Technical support<br /> * Overhead<br /> * Content arrangement and description<br /> * Content preparation<br /> * Metadata creation<br /> * Digitization, which can vary by:<br /> ** type and fragility of content<br /> ** type of capture mechanism<br /> ** expertise of staff<br /> ** amount of quality control measures implemented<br /> * Upload processes<br /> * Web services support and development<br /> * Cross-departmental communications<br /> * Outreach<br /> <br /> To say nothing of the costs of preservation! <br /> If you are interested in helping us develop best practices and guidelines for assessing costs of digital libraries, please join our <br /> [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group] and speak up! :-)<br /> Joyce is now heading up a small task force that we hope will have progress to share at the next [http://www.diglib.org/forums/2015forum/ DLF Forum]!</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:User_Needs&diff=28 2014-12-10T13:54:25Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot; == What are the best methods for assessing user needs with regards to digital libraries? ==&quot;</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == What are the best methods for assessing user needs with regards to digital libraries? ==</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Benefits&diff=27 2014-12-10T13:53:47Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot; == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==&quot;</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == How best can we measure the benefits of digital libraries? ==</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment:Costs&diff=26 2014-12-10T13:53:11Z

<p>Jody: Created page with &quot; == What&#039;s the best way to assess costs for digital libraries? ==&quot;</p> <hr /> <div><br /> == What's the best way to assess costs for digital libraries? ==</div>

Jody https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=Assessment&diff=25 2014-12-09T19:10:32Z

<p>Jody: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Digital Library Assessment'''<br /> <br /> Research and cultural heritage institutions are, as a matter of course, providing online access to converted and born-digital scholarly and cultural content. As the amount of that content continues to grow, there is an increased need to strategically standardize our assessment efforts. <br /> <br /> The [http://www.diglib.org/groups/assessment/ DLF Digital Library Assessment Group] seeks to engage the community in developing best practices and guidelines for various kinds of digital library assessment.<br /> <br /> We are concerned with:<br /> * determining how to measure the impact of digital collections; <br /> * developing areas of commonality and benchmarks in how we measure collections across various platforms; <br /> * understanding cost and benefit of digital collections; and <br /> * exploring how can we best collect, analyze, communicate, and share such information effectively across our various stakeholders—from collection managers to scholars.<br /> <br /> This wiki will be a central location for documentation and collection of resources to assist those seeking to assess their digital libraries.<br /> <br /> Using the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/18kOolh-U0qIrT3tcJg8fXMnN5pnKylFpxvtRL561baU/edit?usp=sharing Digital Library Assessment Framework], <br /> we have subdivided the areas for working groups into:<br /> * [[Assessment:Costs]]<br /> * [[Assessment:Benefits]] and<br /> * [[Assessment:User Needs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> We also have a [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/digital-library-assessment Digital Library Assessment Google Group], which is open to anyone interested in learning about or collaborating on the improvement of digital library assessment.</div>

Jody