Newsletter Issue 2 

Main | Feature Article | Cluster Reports | DLA | IAP | A/V-NTO | UIV | KESI | EVAL | Dissemination | Latest News

User Interfaces and Visualization

Stephen Kimani reports on a major item of activity by his cluster based on four case studies on digital libraries.
  
Case Study Analysis
   
The DELOS WP4 User Interfaces and Visualization cluster has carried out an analysis of a number of case studies of digital libraries. The analysis was headed up by Risoe National Library which is responsible for Task 1, the provision of an empirical basis.
  
The case studies analyzed were:
  
LAURIN http://laurin.uibk.ac.at/ - Libraries and Archives Collecting Newspaper Clippings (analysis by Roma1)

SCHOLNET http://www.ercim.org/scholnet/ - a test bed for retrieval and annotation of software concepts for development of digital libraries (analysis by Fraunhofer-IPSI, prime contractor)
  
COLLATE http://www.collate.de/ - a Collaboratory for Annotation, Indexing and Retrieval of Digitized Historical Archive Material (analysis by Fraunhofer-IPSI, prime contractor)
  
i-dove http://i-dove.ics.forth.gr/ - Interactive Guidelines Support Tool for the Development of Virtual Environments, developed in the context of the VIEW Project by Forth-ICS (and analysis by Forth-ICS, Project Partner)
  
This analysis specifically concentrated on the following overall aspects of digital libraries: domain(s), users, tasks/services, methodology (empirical perspective)as well as input for a digital library taxonomy.
  
Domains
  
As far as the domains are concerned, they are divided into two categories: work domains and collection content domains. The work domain refers to the primary territory of work at which the digital library is targeted. The collection content domain refers to the primary types of knowledge that are accessible in the digital library. COLLATE and LAURIN address the work domains of archives and libraries, i-dove covers the work domain of development of virtual environments, and SCHOLNET addresses the work domain of development of digital library environments. With regard to the collection content domains, COLLATE addresses film knowledge, LAURIN covers newspaper content, i-dove covers ergonomic virtual environment knowledge, and SCHOLNET addresses development knowledge.
  
Users
   
The DELOS WP4 technical annex identifies three classes of digital library users: experts in knowledge mediation, experts in knowledge content and end-users. In COLLATE, experts in knowledge mediation are film archive staff; experts in knowledge content are film archive staff, film researchers, and university students; whereas end-users are almost any type of user (from experts to 'lay' users). In LAURIN, experts in knowledge mediation are librarians in public libraries; experts in knowledge content are professionals (e.g., journalists and researchers); whereas end-users are public library users. In i-dove, experts in knowledge mediation are knowledge creators/reviewers (e.g. moderators); experts in knowledge content are managers and producers of sources of knowledge; whereas end-users are developers of industrial virtual environment applications. In SCHOLNET, experts in knowledge content and end-users are digital library developers and managers; it is not evident however who the experts in knowledge mediation are.
  
Tasks and Services
  
Each of the four digital library cases was analyzed in terms of tasks and services. In COLLATE, the primary tasks are integration of knowledge through indexing; cataloguing and annotation; and access to knowledge. LAURIN also provides access to knowledge and supports the integration of knowledge through thesaurus-building. In i-dove, the primary tasks are development and management of distributed knowledge; access to knowledge; and knowledge exploitation for the creation of virtual environments. SCHOLNET supports the management of distributed digital library knowledge and provides access to knowledge.
  
Methodology
  
As for the methodology, the empirical aspect of the digital library and user interface development were analyzed. In particular, the kind of data gathered and used to define user requirements, design and evaluation, how the data are gathered and analyzed, and the kinds of supporting technology (guidelines/available technology) that are used, etc. The analysis presents an overview of the main digital library characteristics that are derived from the dimensions: user domain and knowledge domain. As far as the user domain is concerned, the most common unit of analysis is individual users, viewed as representative of particular professions or stakeholders. Study methods vary from participant observation, interviews and questionnaires to testbeds and interactive prototyping. Dialogue between users and developers appears to be important in analysis of user needs. As for the knowledge domain, the gathering of knowledge content has two phases (which may iterate): creating an initial knowledge content base, and maintaining/revising the knowledge content base. The four digital library efforts have approached the creation of an initial knowledge base in quite different ways.
  
Digital Library Taxonomy
  
With regard to the input for a digital library taxonomy (in a thesaural tree-structure format), the analysis produced a tree structure with the following top terms: domain, user, task, services. Task and service categories cover the so-called “functional requirements”. Among the case studies examined, the following general non-functional requirements were identified: scalability, platform independence, reliability, strength, flexibility, adaptability, customizability, and usability. All case studies have featured the importance of reliability, flexibility, and usability. However, none of the digital libraries analyzed has been designed in a manner so as to support accessibility.
   
Conclusions
   
The case studies analyzed presented significant differences in terms of domains, users, and tasks but they all were developed following user-focused approaches. Iterations of design solutions and evaluations involving users were features identified in most of the reported DL development lifecycles. However, the analysis did not provide insights sufficient to identify definitively the various phases in the DL usage lifecycle in general. The digital library lifecycle phases that just one of the case studies supports include: the acquisition process, the clipping archive management (indexing, thesaurus), the access to the selected clippings through the queries, data retrieval access, maintenance of the database and future exploitation. Further studies are needed to arrive at a general characterization of such lifecycle phases.
  
Author Details
  
Stephen Kimani
University of Rome "La Sapienza"
DIS, Piano 2, Stanza 233
Via Salaria 113
00198 Rome
Italy
  
url: http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~kimani/
E-mail:
Telephone: +39-06-49918548

---

Publication date: October 2004
File last modified: Monday, 22-May-2006

The Delos Newsletter is published by the Delos Network of Excellence
and is edited by Richard Waller of UKOLN, University of Bath, UK.
   

PDF version of the whole issue