I (Rain Michaels (Unlicensed)) read the articles that Mark Custer sent about finding aids and usability studies centered around finding aids. All three of these articles are on the older side (2008, 2010, and 2011), but the points in them reflect sentiment already gathered from the working group.

Following are my cliff notes from relevant points. Italics are my own additional thoughts on top of what I was reading.

Observing Users

2010

Control + F / Command + F very important

Archival terminology only barrier when presented without context

Subject headings found to be confusing and distracting

Sidebars that are “too busy” are likely to be ignored

Table of contents tend to be helpful (especially since they work well with Control + F)

Most important thing users need to easily see on a record: where is the item located?

Terms such as repository, EAD, description summary, folder list, and finding aid are too jargony and not understood by many day-to-day users. Archivists, however, may depend on these terms. (Can we offer both? provide hover for definitions for terms ala ICANN or a glossary?)

Users are far more likely to navigate with search than browse a hierarchy. E.g. starting with Quick Search Links.

What about featuring finding aids to highlight the most commonly used ones?

How to view materials and FAQ sections have proven helpful in usability studies.

Ability to save and retrieve preferred finding aids and items.

Re-imagining Archival Display

2011

User-friendly, single-level display formats.

Hierarchical lists and tables of information have been found to be confusing to typical users. They don’t understand this structure (or care enough to figure it out).

Users may not care about or understand collection-level classifications, either, so the search needs to be all encompassing and not assume the user will drill down to a relevant location to start.

The hierarchical structure still needs to exist, however, for those users who are more experienced, as they can be found to browse through the structure rather than direct searching.

Text-heavy gets overwhelming. Avoid large blocks of text. Break things up into bullets and easily skimmable sections.

Terminology can be problematic. (A common thread.)

Cited as reference: http://findingaid.lib.byu.edu

BYI has a “Request a digital copy” link in the top right corner of the record. Also separates details and admin details in tabs. This is a nice approach. Also nice: browse by collection & title are available for those who want these options. On items where there is a digital object already available, the digital object shows as thumbnail in the search results.

Revisiting Archival Finding Aid

2008

Terminology and hierarchy also referenced here as a big stumbling block.

The look must give a sense of being trustworthy and accountable.

Browser not supported