Date post: | 25-May-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | giannis-tsakonas |
View: | 451 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Evaluation Insights to Key Processes of Digital Repositories
Konstantinos Koumoutsos, Angelos Mitrelis Giannis TsakonasLibrary Information Center, University of Patras, Greece.
Libraries In the Digital Age 2010, May 24-28, 2010, Zadar, Croatia
Digital Repositories
• A familiar stranger:– Important channels for disseminating scientific/academic
productivity.– Important means for preserving scientific/academic outputs.– Representing different types of communities (institutional/
thematic).– Wide-spread systems, but with high degree of uniqueness.– Reflecting different modes of policies and interactions.
2
Digital Repositories’ Evaluation
• Institutional Repositories:– Social aspects• impact of scientific documents, motives of self-archiving activity,
relationships with other types of digital repositories, etc.– Technical aspects• effectiveness/efficiency measures of submission, interfaces, etc.
• DSpace* in particular:– Comparative evaluation of system features– Evaluation of end user performance– Administration/configuration easiness
* Used in this study
3
is Research
• Part of a wider evaluation initiative for the ‘Nemertes’ IR.• Emphasizes in key processes held inside the repository:– Submission (users as self-submitters).– Retrieval (users as searchers).– Editing (librarians, moderators, administrators).
4
Context
• ‘Nemertes’, the University of Patras’ IR.– Developed by Library and Information Center.– Since 2006 on a DSpace installation (v 1.4).– Link: http://nemertes.lis.upatras.gr
• Collections:– Self-submission.– ‘eses and Dissertations of University of Patras’
(primary collection, also on OPAC, printed/digital format)– ‘Technical Reports’– ‘Journals/Proceedings Publications of the LIC personnel’– ‘Faculty Members Publications’
(pre/post-prints of the faculty members of the University) 5
Methodology ~ Overview
Submission process: a questionnaire survey addressed to people who had earlier submitted in the IR.
Retrieval process / Interfaces: a HCI-based user study.
Editing processes: interviews with librarians.
6
Methodology ~ Some Details
• uestionnaire survey:– Previously submitted in the IR.– From 1129 registered, 126 participated.– Online, 25 questions, scale from 1 (-) to 5 (+).
• HCI-based user study:– 24 graduate students, Department of Electrical Engineering,
HCI background.– Based on usability heuristic evaluation principles (10 principles,
4 levels of problem significance).• Interviews:– 5 librarians supporting the service.– Semi-structured, approx. 19 minutes duration.
7
Insights to Submission
• Reported: Overall satisfaction with the process.• Fairly satisfied with help facilities and submission wizard.• Satisfied with the support of the librarians.• Very satisfied with the self-submission and the
bilingualism of the system.
8
Further Insights to Submission
• Satisfied with copyright (now: institutional license/plus an option for a Creative Commons one).– Yet 15.1 % do not know or do not answer.
• Satisfied with exclusion period (publication embargo)– Alternatives: most: up to 2 years / a few: up to 5 years.
• Fairly satisfied with access policy (now: free access to all)– Alternatives: most: controlled access to everyone / a few: closed
to everyone.
9
Insights to Retrieval Interfaces
Principle Unique problems
Number of Reports (by Severity)
Number of Reports (by Severity)
Number of Reports (by Severity)
Minor Important SeriousVisibility of system status 4 2 4 3Match between system and the real world 17 10 29 20User control and freedom 6 3 9 3Consistency and standards 12 5 24 8Error prevention 4 1 14 2Recognition rather than recall 3 1 11 4Flexibility and efficiency of use 9 9 13 5Aesthetic and minimalist design 20 0 74 18Help users recognize, diagnose, & recover from errors 4 0 11 7Help and documentation 5 5 6 2
36 (11.88%)
195 (64.36%)
72 (23.76)
10
Further Insights to Interfaces
11
x16
x6
x9
x8x3
Further Insights to Retrieval
12
x16
x1
Insights to Editing
• e editing process is long and time consuming. – Yet minimizes the possibility of errors.
• Retrospective editing of metadata and corrections to files is considered essential.
• Submitters’ keywords are considered invaluable.• Reporting problems in users’ navigation in the physical
space to accomplish a submission.• Receiving complaints for the completion of the license.
13
Further Insights to Editing
• Usual problems:– e absence of abstracts and keywords in parallel language.– e errors in bibliographic descriptions (capitals, mixed
keyboard languages, ‘greeklish’).– e uploading of damaged or non compliant files.
• Auto-suggestion fields are recommended.• Faculties and Departments should assist in promoting
‘Nemertes’.• Library should be proactive.
14
A Wide View of Findings
• Submitters seem very positive. Librarians and ‘HCI users’ were strict.
• Search functionalities need revision.• Interface features need clarity and consistency.• Editing needs revision to enhance efficiency.
15
Response
• Migration to new DSpace version.• Resolve problems in information retrieval.• Apply add-ons that assist submitters and librarians.– Secure correct entry of metadata.
• Careful consideration of labels and terms.• Exploit submitters’ keywords.• Design a new theme and graphical elements.
16
Conclusions
• An obvious conclusion: more research. – More views are needed.– Each collection poses new challenges.
• e three processes are linked. – Each process has an effect on the other.– e physical aspect of the service affects the digital.
17
e End
• ank you for your attention.• uestions?
Addendum:• ‘Nemertes’: http://nemertes.lis.upatras.gr/dspace/handle/123456789/3069• ‘E-LIS’: http://eprints.rclis.org/18502/• Contact: Giannis Tsakonas, [email protected]
18