Recommendations
These recommendations are for the default values. The labels should be able to be changed by implementers.
Top-Level
Repositories
Collections
Digital Items
- previously Digital Objects
Unprocessed Material
- new top-level item
- gathers together records that may be flagged unprocessed somehow
Subjects
People and Organizations
Record Groups
- previously Classifications
Object-Level
Accession Records
- previously a top-level item
- recommended to make these records only available at the object level
Administrative Information
Dates
Physical Description
Related People and Organizations
Subjects
Description
Media Formats & Access Information
Contents & Arrangement
Comments & Discussion
Leaving in this document to show some of the reasoning we used in coming to the recommendations.
Top-Level
Repositories
- 2011 recommendation: N/A
- Current recommendation: This is a term that can mean a variety of different things. From my perspective, for example, it means "library". Not sure if we should change it. (Sue)
- Sue: I'm still at a loss about this one. Synonyms for repository (according to Roget's) are:
- Different institutions probably use the functionality differently. Maybe some configurable hover
<abbr> text would be useful for institutions to define Repositories in the way they are using it. —TK- I agree with TK here. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel; "repository" is a common word which covers all of those more specific terms and doesn't bear any additional meanings likely to confuse a researcher.—CS
- I've never experienced any confusion with researchers in regards to the term repository. We use the term because while some of our special collections units reside in free standing libraries with their own reading rooms, some of our special collections units share a single library and reading room. Repository is generic enough that it works for a particular special collections department that could be within a library that may house three departments or it is a special collections unit that stands alone. I think repository is a fine choice for a default term but perhaps, since it is a phrase I heard used by several people in the call, the term "unit" or "collections unit" is functional. - Jessica Crouch
- We use "Repository" currently and I have never heard anyone being confused about that term. Confused about many other terms, but not that one.–Susan Pyzynski
Collections
- 2011 recommendation: Resources
- Current recommendation: Keep
- "Collections" seemed to be well understood by users in the usability testing.
- Lets change this to "Collections" (Sue)
Digital Objects
- 2011 recommendation: Digital Objects
- Current recommendation: Digital Items
- If this is kept as a top-level item it would make sense to make it clear on the browse page that digital items are a very small subset of what can be found in the physical archives.
- Also, digital items will need to be given higher visibility within the context of their collections.
- I think this should be completely rethought. What these digital objects actually are, are reproductions. So perhaps using a term like "Images"? (Sue)
- I would encourage us to retain the word "Digital" here, or something else which clearly signals that this is a facet for materials which are readily accessible online. If I'm a student looking for visual material to augment a paper, I would likely expect that searching for "images" would show me any place where visual, non-textual material can be found, whether they're available online or not. And if I were looking for a letter in a collection, I would likely find the stand-alone term "image" misleading (even though it's technically correct).—CS
- Why are these digital objects only reproductions? Surely they could be born-digital objects. Also, we have a large amount of digitized audio, the word "Images" doesn't work for us.–Susan Pyzynski
- Just to echo Susan, we have a large amount of digitized audio, and I assume many others do as well...so I think "images" is too narrow of a term to replace digital objects and consequently I would lean more towards digital items or keeping digital objects. -Matt Francis
Accessions
- 2011 recommendation: Accessions
- Current recommendation: (not sure users understand or care about accession records; does anyone have evidence one way or the other?) Agreed. Most archives will spawn resource records if they want accessions made discoverable.
- If an institution wants to make accession records publicly available, using something like Unprocessed Material might make it more clear to users what they might find under it. Also it should be noted on the browse listing and record detail page exactly what a user is seeing. —TK
- Agreed (Sue and Matt Francis)
Subjects
- 2011 recommendation: Subjects
- Current recommendation:
- (it is unclear whether users find subject browsing useful from the usability testing; more review and discussion may be required)
- I am going to vote for making subject browsing a feature, since we use it all the time (Sue)
- I agree with Sue (Jessica Crouch)
Names
- 2011 recommendation: Names
- Current recommendation: Keep
- (it is unclear whether users find agent browsing useful from the usability testing; more review and discussion may be required)
- People and Organizations would make it more clear what kind of names are found in this area. —TK
- Agreed. And as above, we use it all the time (Sue)
- Ditto, Sue (Jessica)
Classifications
- 2011 recommendation: N/A
- Current recommendation: I'm still not sure what this even means, so not sure what to do with this. Repository site map?
- This seems to be functionality that different institutions can use in very different ways, similar to Repositories above.
- After reading Scott's comments, I'm concluding that Classifications refers to record groups. This is also a fairly technical term that is only common to records managers and institutional archivists, so I think we will need someone who uses classifications to weigh in with a more user-friendly term (Sue)
- I would just ask for those of us who don't use it, we can suppress this in our implementation of the front-end.–Susan Pyzynski
- After reading through the comments I would favor "record groups" over classification, while making the label customizable. (Matt Francis)
Object-Level
Summary
- Recommendation: Administrative Info
- Reasoning: Summary sounds too much like what one would find in an abstract. This information is of little use to archives users, except the identifier.
- Summary of what? I dont think the Admin info (e.g., Descriptive Rules) is helpful for patrons. Keeping collection identifier is a good idea.
- I vote for getting rid of Administrative info at the object level. Its pointless (as I tried to point out). Pulling different info in here, and then labeling it Summary, or even Scope and Contents, would be applicable. Again, it will depend on what information we choose to actually display here (Sue)
- While I agree that some of the information under the "summary" is not the most relevant at an object level, I do think that the "conditions governing access" and "conditions governing use" fields can be worthwhile to present at an object level...though by no means do I think they have to appear under a section called "Summary or "Administrative Info". Of course, to take full advantage of displaying these fields it would need to be set-up to inherit from the nearest higher level when there is not data present at the object level. (Matt Francis)
Dates
Extents
- Recommendation: Physical Size & Scope of Material
- Reasoning: Extents is jargon. By changing the label archives users will know whether or not they care about this info. The priority on the page should be moved down as well.
Agent Links
- Recommendation: Related Persons, Corporations, and Families
- Reasoning: Agent Links is jargon. By adding the word Related we make it more clear that the links here are not to more information about the record the archives users is on, but to a record of an agent.
- Persons, Corporate Bodies, and Families
- or to be less formal People and Corporate Bodies
- or Related Persons and Organizations (see Tommy's comments above) (Sue)
- I recommend that whatever term(s) we use here should match what is used under Names above (i.e. Related People and Organizations, if the latter three words are what we're using for names).—CS
- Agreed (Matt Francis)
Subjects
Notes
- Recommendation: Description
- Reasoning: Notes is too casual. This is the most important information for someone looking at records.
Instances
- Recommendation: Physical Storage & Digital Access Information
- Reasoning: Instances is unclear. Changing the label makes it clear what the info can be used for. Potentially combine or make adjacent to Extents.
- Perhaps leave this out altogether (Sue)
- The box and folder numbers do need to be displayed somewhere.—CS
- Agreed with CS. Would it make sense to simply exclude the field labels? Using one of the wireframe for example, simply displaying "Box 1, Folder 15" under "Physical Storage and Access Information" instead of "Container Found In: box 1 // Additional container information: Folder 15"? I guess it wouldn't always work out that simply, but to me this seems like a case of trying to describe something that can simply be conveyed through the displayed metadata. (Matt Francis)
Components
- Recommendation: Child Records / Component Records / Specific Components / Noted Components
- Reasoning: None of the options is ideal, though Inventory from Sue below is better. Components is the right word, but no users understand what that means when they first see it. Something is needed to express the hierarchy and the fact that there is potentially more detailed information in the records below.
- Inventory