Report on ResourceSpace/DAM User Survey - SLIDEBLAST.COM

Historic New England

Report on ResourceSpace/DAM User Survey

August 25, 2010 David Dwiggins Systems Librarian/Archivist [email protected]

Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 3 Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 3 How ResourceSpace is used ....................................................................................... 7 Types of Materials .................................................................................................... 10 Collections data......................................................................................................... 13 User satisfaction........................................................................................................ 13 Qualitative Feedback .................................................................................................... 14 Summary of positive user perceptions of ResourceSpace ........................................ 14 Summary of user concerns, by category ................................................................... 15 User concern: search functionality............................................................................ 16 User concern: streamlining of resource upload and description............................... 17 User concern: standards and training........................................................................ 19 Appendix A: Complete text of Qualitative Responses ..................................................... 20 What do you think are the advantages of ResourceSpace as it is currently set up? . 20 What improvements would you like to see in ResourceSpace? ............................... 21 Other comments ........................................................................................................ 24 Appendix B: ResourceSpace Infrastructure...................................................................... 26 Authentication........................................................................................................... 26 Servers and disk space .............................................................................................. 26 Software Architecture ............................................................................................... 27

Introduction ResourceSpace is an open source (PHP/MySQL-based) digital asset management system originally developed for Oxfam GB in 20071. In mid-2009, Historic New England rolled the system out for use in its ongoing Collections Access Project. The organization’s Property Care team (and its existing 45,000 images) began using the system in December, 2009, and the demands of the organization’s web redesign project led to wider availability throughout the organization in 2010. The system is now being used to track more than 93,000 digital assets. This report explains the results of a survey of users who accessed the system during its first year of operation, and is an attempt to better understand the areas in which the system is meeting the needs of the organization, as well as those where there is room for improvement.

1

More information on ResourceSpace is available at http://www.resourcespace.org. There is also an extremely active mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/resourcespace.

Report on ResourceSpace/DAM user survey August, 2010

Page 2

Methodology The findings contained in this report are based on a survey conducted via a web form in late July and early August, 2010. An e-mail was sent to all users with current accounts in Historic New England’s ResourceSpace system asking them to complete the survey. A reminder e-mail was also sent to the same group a week later. A total of 67 invitations were sent, and 37 users filled out the survey. This yielded a response rate of 55 percent. Most respondents were Historic New England employees, although at least one was a long term contractor working on various projects for the organization. It is worth noting that because only current users of the system were polled, the survey does not consider the needs of Historic New England staff members who do not currently use the system. Since many of these individuals will eventually require access to the system, it will be important to consider their needs in any future planning and development activities.

Survey Results The users who completed the survey were distributed throughout the organization, with respondents from every team except for Business Services.

The strong showings from Collection Services, Property Care, and Visitor Experience reflect the fact that large groups of users on these teams have received formal training on the system and many use it in their day-to-day work. The users were also distributed geographically, but the majority of respondents work in one of Historic New England’s three main office locations in Massachusetts. Report on ResourceSpace/DAM user survey August, 2010

Page 3

Most users felt they were able to connect to the system conveniently from their work location, although there was some variation in the responses. The reasons for these variations likely have to do with the quality of network connectivity at various sites, and the fact that users outside of Otis are currently being throttled by the overburdened network connections leading in and out of the headquarters building. Moving the server to Haverhill (currently in planning stages) will likely improve this situation for some users, while making it somewhat worse for others. Some of these answers may also be influenced by the fact that a problem with DNS resolution currently means that, although it works on the public Internet, the URL with the host name will not work reliably from parts of the internal Historic New England network. (It fails 30-60% of the time.) This has caused frustration for some users. Internal users are advised to use the IP address to access the system until this issue is resolved.


Page 4

“Can connect to ResourceSpace conveniently from my normal work location,” by work location Strongly Neutral Agree Total agree Connecticut 1 1 Haverhill 4 3 7 Lyman 10 10 Maine 1 1 New Hampshire 1 1 Other Mass. Location 2 2 Otis 1 11 14 2 Rhode Island 1 1 Total 3 17 17 37

Two thirds of the users completing the survey had received some sort of training, and more than half had attended a formal training session conducted by a member of the Library and Archives staff.

Have you received formal training in ResourceSpace, by team:

No Visitor Experience Collection Services Property Care No response External Affairs Development Historic Preservation Administration Grand Total

2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 12


Yes, from Library and Archives staff 8 4 1 2 2 1 1 19

Yes, from someone on my team

Grand Total 10 8 8 3 3 2 2 1 37

1 5

6

Page 5

A majority of the respondents indicated that they considered themselves intermediate ResourceSpace users. Far more rated themselves toward the lower end of the expertise scale, indicating the potential value of additional training.

The survey also asked users about their level of expertise with various types of assets frequently stored in the system, including digital photography and digital audio:


Page 6

How ResourceSpace is used The survey queried users about the reasons they used the system.2The majority of users indicated that they use the system to search for materials at least once a week, making this the most common activity:

When asked how frequently they find images for particular types of uses, users indicated that they use the system less frequently. However, a third of users who responded to the question still used the system at least 2-3 times a month to find images for print.

2 Note that some users did not answer these questions at all, presumably indicating that they never engage in these activities. Percentages in this section are based on the number of users that answered the question.


Page 7

A larger percentage (42%) indicated that they use the system at least 2-3 times a month to locate images for the web. This is to be expected due to the ongoing website updates and increasing social media presence, as well as the fact that the new web content management system has increased the number of staff involved in web publishing. (Improved ResourceSpace integration with Plone could make online use of ResourceSpace images more straightforward.)

Fewer users indicated that they used the collection features of ResourceSpace to create and share collections:


Page 8

A quarter of users use the system more than once a month to rotate or crop images, a relatively new capability that has been added since the initial launch.

Relatively few users indicated that they frequently upload their own materials, which may indicate pockets of the organization that are not currently storing digital assets in the system. Report on ResourceSpace/DAM user survey August, 2010

Page 9

Broken down by team, it becomes clear that the Collection Services, Property Care, and Visitor Experience are the most likely to upload materials, which makes sense since these teams have received formal training in the system. However, even within these teams there are individuals who seldom upload materials. For example, only one user on the Visitor Experience team indicated that s/he uploaded materials more than once a month. This may indicate a lack of familiarity with the system or with the type of materials that should be contributed. There may also be unique metadata or functionality needs that have not yet been addressed by the system as it is currently deployed. How often do you use Historic New England’s ResourceSpace system to: -Upload my own materials, by team: Once a month or less Collection Services Property Care Visitor Experience Unknown Development Historic Preservation Administration External Affairs Grand Total

3 4 7 2 2 2 1 1 22

2-3 times a month 1 1 1

once a week 2 1

2-3 times a week 1 2

Grand Total

daily 1

1

3

3

3

2

8 8 8 3 2 2 1 1 33

Types of Materials The survey asked about the types of digital materials users deal with in their jobs. Digital photographs were mentioned most frequently, followed by a virtual tie between reports, spreadsheets, and databases.


Page 10

It is worth noting that of these categories, photographs and reports are most easily managed in a DAM because they can be stored in relatively stable formats like TIFF and PDF. The next most frequently used formats, spreadsheets and databases, present unique preservation challenges because they are often stored in proprietary formats that may not be suitable for long term preservation. The prevalence of these asset types in the organization points toward the importance of establishing an effective electronic records management program that can evaluate these materials for their long-term archival value and ensure that those which retained are held in a format that will ensure their continued usefulness in the future. The survey went on to ask users their opinions about the importance of DAM for specific formats. Predictably, there was widespread agreement that photos and documents were of high importance. Opinion was split on audio files, which some teams are now using to record oral history interviews. The importance of this category will likely grow as this type of activity becomes more widespread. The survey did not consider video files since the organization is not currently storing substantial quantities of video in the DAM. However, this is likely to become another area of growth as digital video becomes more commonplace for day-to-day projects. It is worth noting that multimedia formats such as video and audio can have unique digital preservation concerns and can require large amounts of disk space to archive. Because of this, it will be important to consider the growth of these formats when planning for long term DAM requirements.


Page 11


Page 12

Collections data The survey asked users whether they felt ResourceSpace was the best way to get information about museum and archival collections. The intent here was to gauge the extent to which users are relying on ResourceSpace to find information about collections materials. Although there are now thousands of images of collections objects stored in ResourceSpace, the most accurate and current information about these objects can be found in the Minisis Collections Management system, as well as the new online Collections Access portal. Almost half of users agreed that ResourceSpace was the best source for collections data, while only two disagreed. This indicates that users may be relying too heavily on ResourceSpace when researching collection objects, given the often incomplete data available in the system.

Since ResourceSpace may present the most convenient user interface for many day-today tasks relating to collections objects, the best solution to this problem is to forge improved linkages between the assets stored in ResourceSpace and the collections data stored elsewhere. The collections team has already taken the first steps in this direction by indicating within the ResourceSpace records when items are cataloged within Minisis, and by providing a link to the public collections record for most such items. Future plans call for improving this capability by indexing and displaying certain information from collections records directly in ResourceSpace. The addition of this capability will require software development by staff or contractors.

User satisfaction Overall, users seem to believe that ResourceSpace is working well and meeting the needs of the organization. 75 percent of users completing the survey either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that ResourceSpace is a useful way to manage digital assets.


Page 13

That said, there are clearly areas for improvement, some of which can be gleaned from the qualitative responses in the following sections.

Qualitative Feedback The free-response questions on the survey revealed a variety of favorable user opinions about the system, with many respondents noting the easy variety of a wide range of images, that the system generally works well, and that it makes it easy to share information and resources. The positive feedback is summarized below.

Summary of positive user perceptions of ResourceSpace Issue Wealth of material available/one stop place for all photos / easy to get pictures for web / many images of sites Works well overall / easy to use / Good when you need images in a hurry / awesome tool Easy to share information/images (between/within teams) Multiple/high resolution images available/automatically created Easy to access from my office Easy to search/browse archival images Easy to access remotely Less duplication of images / no need to keep images locally Easy to share information/images (outside patrons and clients) Good user interface Easy to search/browse museum objects Helpful in developing educational programs and materials Open source/low cost Easy to customize No need to bug others/search on own time Like themes; useful for browsing


Mentions 10 9 8 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Page 14

* Note individual statements were broken out from all qualitative fields and then analyzed. If a respondent mentioned the same issue twice, it is counted twice in this table.

The qualitative responses also revealed a number of areas where users saw opportunities for improvement in the system:

Summary of user concerns, by category Issue Search needs improvement / more Google like / handling synonyms like COG/Cogswell's.

Mentions

Category

12

Search

Better filtering: Need ability to search by property name/team/other categories, including subsearch of recent; ability to filter property care images; ability to search only historic images; distinguish museum collections from other types

7

Search

Takes too long to upload/download/need streamlined upload/Streamline metadata entry / lots of fields we don't use

7

Usability

Inadequate metadata on resources / need better titles / more consistency in terms / accession numbers / better info on collection objects and property care photos

6

Content

Better dates on resources / better dates on archival photos/grouping of results by date Need more training / more promotion / "upload days"

4 4

Content Training

Stronger guidelines for uploading modern photos/ rights/privacy/metadata/etc. / Guidelines on intranet usage / guidelines on when reports/documents should be uploaded

4

Training

Hard to get permission to use images/want ability for site managers to download needed images without bothering library

2

Access Control

More objects from archives, house museums, architectural fragment collection, microfilm collections Type of images I frequently need not on ResourceSpace

2 2

Content Content

Better information on how they can and cannot be used / better information on usage limits

2

Training

Need to be able to batch edit metadata / ability to do bulk processing other than uploading [ALREADY PRESENT] Slow to navigate and cumbersome/speed Ability to track who is using images/how images are used Limiting access for certain types of materials is major concern for team Need to remove duplicate resources Have not been directed to use / have not had training Need ability to access remotely [ALREADY PRESENT]

2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Training Usability Access Control Access Control Content Training Training

Unclear on connection between CAP portal and ResourceSpace - can't always find images that appear on web Access unreliable Add spell checking Difficult to rotate photos Easier to quickly access photos for reports/drag and drop Finding images on local hard drive more efficient More user friendly Would like Plone integration

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Training Usability Usability Usability Usability Usability Usability Usability

* Note individual statements were broken out from all qualitative fields and then analyzed. If a respondent mentioned the same issue twice, it is counted twice in this table.


Page 15

The user feedback received from these questions clearly points toward areas for improvement in the system. Some of the major issues will be discussed below:

User concern: search functionality By far the most frequently mentioned issues had to do with search capabilities. Users seem to have trouble finding known resources, and sometimes have to try many variations on a search to find what they are looking for. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the perceived difficulty filtering results by various criteria. Users often mentally compare the search experience of systems like ResourceSpace to other online search services like Google, Amazon.com, etc. There are many advanced search features that are commonly used in these commercial search applications that are not present or not fully implemented in ResourceSpace. These include spelling correction/“did you mean”, stemming, synonyms, phrase searching, etc. This can make the experience of searching on ResourceSpace less intuitive than on some other systems users are familiar with. Historic New England has made some efforts to deal with these concerns, most notably adding support for right truncation of search terms in the quick search box. (This means that users can search for dog* and get dog, dogs, dogfood, doggie, dogwood, etc.) But the search features remain less robust than they could be, and features like truncation that require specialized syntax may not be intuitive for new users. ResourceSpace currently relies on a custom-written search engine embedded in the system. While well designed, this engine is fairly simple and does not offer the advanced search functionality of a full-fledged enterprise search solution like Lucene/Solr, Google Search Appliance, Microsoft Sharepoint FAST, etc. There are a variety of approaches that could be pursued for improving the search experience, including augmenting the existing search code, integrating third-party search code into the system (such as the Zend PHP port of Lucene), or providing plug-in support for an external search engine like Apache Solr. It is recommended that Historic New England investigate these options and consider supporting development of enhanced search capabilities for ResourceSpace using one of these strategies. It must also be noted that search issues are related to “content” issues, in that if a resource has not been adequately described in its metadata, no amount of searching will locate it. So while search capabilities are clearly an area of concern, ensuring that all new and existing resources have adequate and consistent descriptive metadata is also very important. This is in part a training issue, but it also relates to the ways in which users get metadata into the system, discussed below. Plans are also in the works to improve the “findability” of collections images by connecting them more closely with the descriptive metadata stored in the Minisis collections management system. The goal here is to index and display the descriptions of museum and archival objects in photographs along with the ResourceSpace descriptions Report on ResourceSpace/DAM user survey August, 2010

Page 16

of the photographs. This make more complete and accurate object descriptions available to ResourceSpace users, and will provide better metadata to enhance ResourceSpace search performance. Screen mockups for this functionality have been developed (see Figure 1), and planning is now underway for the necessary technical changes.

Figure 1: Mockup of integrated Museum/Archival collection data display in ResourceSpace

User concern: streamlining of resource upload and description Users, particularly those responsible for uploading larger quantities of photographs, also expressed concern about the time and effort involved in loading new resources into the system. If this process is overly cumbersome, users are less likely to load materials, and more likely to continue creating multiple repositories of assets scattered across the organization. In order to meet the organization’s long term goals for centralized management of digital assets, it is important to ensure that the process of loading materials into the system is as painless as possible. The standard process for most users photos is as follows: hit upload, fill out a metadata template for all items to be included in the upload, use the java uploader to select one or more items, wait for the upload to complete, and then return to the items and manually edit the metadata if needed. Uploading multiple items generally means that the user should return to each item to customize the generic metadata entered for the batch. (This does not always happen.) Report on ResourceSpace/DAM user survey August, 2010

Page 17

ResourceSpace does have the ability to read embedded metadata from imported photographs. This capability is not currently exploited by most users, mostly because they have not been trained on this and do not have convenient access to software to embed metadata in the files. The Collections team is using a streamlined workflow for loading digitized collections images into the system. By using Adobe Lightroom to edit photographs and embed metadata within the image files themselves, these users are not required to fill out individual metadata records within ResourceSpace. Large batches of files can be automatically ingested into the system with complete metadata already in place. This speeds up the process of creating new records in the system. This process is not currently in use elsewhere, partly due to the fact that the Lightroom software being used is somewhat expensive, and the process has not been tested on other software. However, use of embedded metadata workflows may be a solution for frequent uploaders who are frustrated by the current process. One possible solution involves Google Picasa, a free desktop photo application that in some ways behaves as a poor-man’s Adobe Lightroom. It allows users to import images from cameras and other sources, rotate and make other basic edits, and to embed metadata in a few key fields. Preliminary experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of developing a plug-in for ResourceSpace that would allow Picasa users to add a “send to ResourceSpace” button to the program’s toolbar. Embedding metadata and then uploading to ResourceSpace via the native Picasa interface would likely streamline the process, addressing the concerns of survey respondents. It is recommended that Historic New England pursue this enhancement.

Figure 2: Google Picasa image organizer showing proposed ResourceSpace upload button

Another option suggested by respondents was to create a simplified upload process that omits some of the less common metadata fields, possibly provides the ability to batchedit uploaded resources, etc. In particular, an interface that allowed users to easily review


Page 18

and edit key fields of recently uploaded photos might be useful. Before pursuing such an option, it would be necessary to create a set of functional requirements.

User concern: standards and training Several users expressed specific desire for additional training on the system. Other users noted a desire for new features that already exist, indicating a need for additional training and documentation. (For example, several respondents were unaware that the system has tools to allow batch editing of resources.) In some cases, users indicated that they had received informal training on the system from a member of their team, but these informal training sessions may not have covered all aspects of the system. In other cases, people may be interested in learning about more advanced topics that were not covered in their introductory training. For teams that have already been trained on the system, it would likely be worthwhile for a representative from the library and archives to attend a staff meeting and discuss concerns about the system. The outcome of these discussions might include additional training or cheat sheets, or even changes to the operation of the system in response to user needs. We may wish to consider this type of review for the Property Care team and for museum site managers. Other users have not received any training, perhaps because the system was never formally rolled out to their team. (The intervention of the web redesign project resulted in an accelerated rollout schedule for ResourceSpace that did not include training for all staff.) This should be addressed by conducting specific needs analyses for each group that has not been officially launched, and then conducting system training as needed. Key groups that should likely be at the head of this list are Marketing/Public Relations, Development, and Stewardship/Historic Preservation. (Note that Stewardship has unique privacy/confidentiality needs that may require modifications to the system.) Some concerns regarding training and data standards could likely be addressed by enhancements to the system itself. For example, adding online tooltips to explain the use of some fields might improve the quality of the metadata being entered. And features to facilitate the entry of controlled vocabulary from existing authority files might help improve the consistency of terminology used in the system. Enhancements such as these should be considered while planning for future development priorities on the system.


Page 19

Appendix A: Complete text of Qualitative Responses Note that these are broken down into individual statements, so multiple statements may have come from a single respondent.

What do you think are the advantages of ResourceSpace as it is currently set up? • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

It is helpful to create and share collections with staff members and search archival images. The other major advantage is the ability to access this remotely. Working from different sites, or from home is not limiting as it was when photos were tied to a server. Access to information across the teams and easily sharing images through collections. Very useful tool to find images of historic properties-interior and exterior spaces, collections, and landscapes. It allows all members of staff to search our collection from the buildings themselves to the collections that they house. Easy access from my office. Wealth of material available on RS. Great to get images from all teams without having to call them or search in the S drive. A one-stop place for all our organization's photos I'm still on the fence as to its ease in using the program. It’s slow to navigate and cumbersome. I think ResourceSpace works well for managing images related to our collections and archives and the web access on our new website. It seems to have a lot of material, but so far on the one occasion I had to locate images for publication, I was discouraged from using them other than for internal use. I was confused. I thought one reason for having the images catalogued was to enable public use. I can see photos and documents without having to go to archives. Searching and browsing for new images or high-res copies of known images Available inside and outside the office Accessibility of resources from other teams This is the first time we've had this type of access to our collections, which has been very helpful to me in developing educational programs and materials. I very much like the fact that high-res images are often available. Less duplication of images that clog the P and S drives. Easy file sharing and sending of reference numbers as opposed to sending copies of the image. Ease of downloading files in varying resolutions. The system centralizes digital materials for the organization and facilitates sharing among staff members and providing images to outside patrons and clients. I find the system to be very easy to use and to offer great functionality in respect to


Page 20

• •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

handling and manipulating materials and to providing metadata about them. The system's capability of automatically creating multiple versions of a file is a major advantage. The most obvious advantage is access to many images of our sites that we haven't necessarily seen before. access from anywhere, by anyone, using browser and internet connection; no installation needed; open source (so no initial cost or monthly charges, other than effort to set up, customize, and maintain); pretty good UI; customizable for HNE's needs. Access to materials available for employees Having access to all those images. I have mostly used it for finding images, and it is quite efficient in the way it searches under different categories (archive, property care etc.) The interface is pretty friendly and easy to understand. Searched on your own time. Don't need to disturb other staff. Don't need to keep copies of images on local computer. It is quite easy to get beautiful pictures for the new website! I like the themes, which have been useful for browsing, and the search capacity continues to improve as more metadata is added. I haven't really used it to look up collections objects; I've mainly used it for images so far. I have been using our new website for that, but I should give this a try. Easy access. All in one place opportunity. It's important to have ALL digital images for the entire organization in a central location with clear information on how they can and cannot be used. The ability to search for photographs by property or team name. Ability to have derivative image size access to images very quickly. For the most part I love how one can access Resource space if you need an image in a hurry. Identifying an image for use on the web site shop or licensee pages. Being able to email an image of a collection item to a manufacturer. Searching for objects with in certain categories. Useful to see what's available. Access is unreliable. I need more training/practice to find out how to be selective and not have to look through irrelevant material. Great repository for all digital images.

What improvements would you like to see in ResourceSpace? •

It is difficult and time consuming to rotate photos in the program. My chief complaint, however, is that it takes a very long time to upload/download pictures. Writing reports which require photo integration can be frustrating because of the length of time associated with downloading photos individually. Of course, one can download a zipped collection which is helpful, but the photos still have to be transferred to the desktop or another server space. I've heard people say that it would be great to have the versatility of dragging and dropping images from


Page 21

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ResourceSpace into a document--and it would be. I have "copied and pasted" photos in the past as well and that works as long as the photo is large enough to be manipulated. My other primary concern is the way that the search option works-it's not like "Google" but if it was I think that would be helpful. To that end, integrating spell check would probably be advantageous. The search function seems to be poor (or I need training in how to better use it). I think we need to stream line the metadata entry for photos - there seems to be a lot of fields that are not used by my team. It would be nice to go back and be able to batch edit metadata for a collection of photos - that might improve the search functionality mentioned above (we uploaded all of property care's photos but sometimes they are hard to find without the right searching protocol - likewise it would be easier to clean up data with a batch metadata editor). Images to Plone? Improved detail in terms of identification of people, places and things found in images, so the search engine can find things, otherwise not available by a basic search. Simplify the search. So that if I type in Cogswell, I get the same results that I would get if I typed Cogswell's Grant or COG. The ability to search and exclude the Property Care PMF photos. Better search linkages. It is hard to understand why searches for Tucker, Castle Tucker, etc. do not bring up the same set of images. Date the archival photos - even if we can only guess a range of dates. Enable site managers to download whatever we need without having to bother Jeanne or Lorna each time. The ability to access remotely when needed. A way to speed up or streamline uploads. Right now, I have a number of images that I have yet to upload because I don't have time. Takes FOREVER to upload/download photos. Maybe this is based on the internet speed... but it can be problematic. If there is any way to speed this up, it would be helpful. There are so many photos and no real image naming system. May have to look into several different searches for the right image. More sophisticated search engine I guess to be more user friendly. It just seems to load images takes a heck of a lot of time and steps. I find the search function to be problematic sometimes. If you are searching for images of a specific house, for example, you need to look for Lyman; Lyman House; Lyman Mansion; Lyman Estate etc. to get at all the resources. Often the search is flooded with unnecessary Property Care images that are not useful but have to be sifted through. Downloading images for use in presentations, reports etc. is time consuming, even at a lower resolution. I actually worry that once my team's images are on ResourceSpace it will take forever to find what I need and download it each time I need it. Many of our images are used frequently and having to download them each time we need them would be cumbersome.


Page 22

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • •

I have my own specialized set of images for PowerPoint presentations that I make on a very frequent basis. None of that type of image is on Resource Space and for that reason I do not foresee using Resource Space much at all for the type of presentations I make. I wish that the historic images had dates on them. I also think they should be in a searchable separate group. Better search results, cross-referencing Speed Ability to do bulk processing other than uploading There is often a lack of information about objects in the collections. I don't know if this will change over time. Stronger guidelines for uploading modern photographs, more archival images, more objects from the house museums, the architectural fragment collection, mircofiche and film at some point I think it's actually working quite well. I think you may need to make the process of uploading and creating metadata quicker and easier, to ensure that people populate the system as well as using it to retrieve images. You may need two "levels" -- one that is fairly automatic for snapshots, and one that is more detailed for known archival images. You will need policies and guidelines around rights, privacy, credits, metadata -- if these can be incorporated into the upload / download process, that will work best. I would need further information to properly answer this question. Better search ability The images could be grouped date wise. If that could be done, I won't have to click through 80 pages to reach the 2001 image that I want. More dates associated with photos and scans are needed. The scan date may be helpful for some things, but for historic photos, the dates and/or captions that might be on the back of photo would be a great addition. This information doesn't seem to be included regularly. Continue to work on search results. Sometimes I do a search for an image of a property that I know has been scanned, but searching for the property's name doesn't bring it up. There have been times when I have had to try a couple of different things to find an image that I know should be there. Ability to search recent uploads by team Guidelines on intranet usage. Better image titles. Clearer information on usage limitations. More organization wide training about how to properly use ResourceSpace. Need to improve data accessed through RS; need to track who is using images in system; need to distinguish museum collections from other types of images. That being said, it is very difficult to search for specific images. There needs to be some consistency in key words, etc. I often have a hard time locating an image that I know is in there. I only know how to use it for my specific needs. I'd like to learn more about all the features it offers. don't know enough to comment.


Page 23

•

All collections images identified by accession number or keywords to improve searchability. Often times I know a photo of an object exists in RS but I cannot find it by searching keyword or accession number, because this information is not in the metadata. Or I get one or two images of the object but I know there are more that I'm not finding. Which leads me to another improvement- cleaning up duplicate images.

Other comments • • •

• • •

• • •

•

• •

I'm not sure if I'm an appropriate taker of this survey, since I have SO little experience with Resource Space, since we in conservation have not been directed to begin using it, and have not yet received any formal training in its use. Property Care has dumped a ton of photos into the program, but not everything was labeled correctly. Re-labeling should be a priority. There is a broad definition of asset management in the upper section. Right now I think reports on ResourceSpace is a good thing. Is this how we are planning to archive other files? Do we need definitions of when a working file becomes archivable? RS is fabulous!!!!! Thank you, David and everyone for all your hard work! Limiting access to certain sensitive and private images is still a major concern for my team. I am not sure Resource Space will fit very well for the type of Public Outreach programs and presentations that I do, which are thematically related to larger preservation issues that are not generally reflected in our museum properties. It seems Resource space is much better suited to Cataloguing and internal Publications purposes. I sometimes feel that it is difficult to search for images that I want, even though they are labeled by subject. I wish I had more time to spend working with it. While the tool is important, I find keeping copies of my images on a local hard disk for more efficient in terms of finding an image within a group. It is easier and quicker to look at a bunch of thumbnails in windows explorer and select what is needed than wade through Resource Space. I've been wondering about the connection between ResourceSpace and the collections access section of the new website. I have found museum objects in the website system and then looked for them in ResourceSpace in the hopes of finding a larger image (the images in the system on the website are sometimes even too small to see the object clearly, let alone use in program materials), and they are not always in ResourceSpace. It's a wonderful resource, though I feel like we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg... ResourceSpace is a major asset to the organization and makes my job a great deal easier.


Page 24

•

• •

• •

I think in addition to training you'll need some kind of ongoing program to encourage use of RS over time - promote it, organize “upload days”, provide ongoing short training sessions for new people, new features, new uses, etc. The biggest challenge of DAM is getting people to add stuff to it, since the benefits accrue more to the institution than to the individual Note that I'm not an HNE employee, so some of my responses to this survey could skew your results (e.g., I handle a lot of digital assets but rarely use the system). Jeanne showed me how to use Resource Space so I could select some images for a flyer & PowerPoint for a Codman program. It was wonderful to be able to access these images without taking up more of Jeanne's time. It was also great to be able to be at Otis looking at an image & be able to discuss it with Wendy who could be looking at it at Gropius. I am relatively uninformed about Resource Space and have used it minimally, but for my basic needs I found it easy to use. I think it is a great start. We simply need more information/images loaded. RS is an awesome tool!


Page 25

Appendix B: ResourceSpace Infrastructure In addition to the user-facing issues outlined in this report, it is also important for Historic New England to consider the invisible infrastructure that powers the ResourceSpace system.

Authentication Currently the ResourceSpace system is authenticating users against the Novell EDirectory user database using LDAP. This is working reasonably well, but is failing at times due to inconsistencies in the E-Directory user data. The IT Manager has recommended switching to authenticate against the Windows Active Directory domain. This change will likely be fairly straightforward, but will require configuration and testing prior to rollout. ResourceSpace user groups are currently assigned by reading the user’s team setting from LDAP. This may become more complex if a decision is made to implement more stringent access requirements for certain groups or types of resources (such as Stewardship program photos), or if we have an increase in the number of users needing to function as members of multiple teams.

Servers and disk space Currently, the system is running on a Suse Enterprise Linux server located in the server room at the Otis House in Boston. The server is connected via a private gigabit Ethernet network to an iSCSI network attached storage appliance (Buffalo Terastation). This unit is mounted via a logical volume group (permitting expansion with additional volumes) and provides approximately 2.7 terabytes of usable storage for the system. As of August 26, 2010, this unit was approximately 70% full, with approximately 792 GB available. At the current rate of consumption, it is likely that the storage will be exhausted by early 2011. If major digitization initiatives (such as scanning architectural drawings or Nathaniel Stebbins prints) move forward, the space will fill up more quickly. Thus it is crucial that planning begin immediately for additional storage capacity.3

3

It is worth noting that while we are actively adding new users to the system and encouraging teams to centralize their digital assets, resources stored by the Collections Services team continue to take up the most space on the system. This is due to the quantity of high resolution images being stored, and the fact that the current master format being used for collections images (uncompressed TIFF and associated DNG) is very space-intensive – at least 100-200 typical JPEG snapshots can fit into the space taken by one object photographed on the new high-resolution cameras and stored in our standard formats.


Page 26

While it would be possible to add another TeraStation NAS unit to the available storage, this approach is not infinitely scalable. Early discussions have indicated a preference for a larger-scale Storage Area Network system that would make it easier to add and reconfigure capacity as storage needs change, and would also add redundancy to the overall system. This type of hardware is considerably more expensive, but is likely a necessary investment as Historic New England continues to rapidly expand its digital collections. Related to this, there are also plans in the works to move the primary ResourceSpace server to Haverhill, and perhaps even to run multiple ResourceSpace servers in a cluster configuration at the major Historic New England locations. (This would require software changes to the system.) Because of the impending storage crunch, it is imperative that these architectural issues be worked out quickly, and that we move forward in the next several months to add storage capacity.

Software Architecture Several improvements for ResourceSpace have been proposed, including: 1. Tighter integration with Plone 2. Tighter integration with Minisis (as discussed earlier) 3. Enhanced search capabilities (via enhancement of existing code or integration of third party search engine.) 4. Improvements to S3 remote backup plug-in (in progress) 5. Integration with Google Picasa image organizer (as discussed earlier) 6. Support for Getty vocabularies web services to make it easier to add structured terminology to resources, and/or better support internally for structured thesauri. 7. Support for name authority lookup within ResourceSpace, to encourage use of standard terminology 8. Support for distributed/mirrored filestores to allow users to upload resources to a local server and then replicate them in the background. 9. Better support for ICC color profiles in derivative images to ensure that color is being properly represented. 10. Improved integration This list is presented here to stimulate further discussion, and is not comprehensive. Some of these features may be developed by (or in collaboration with) other members of the broader ResourceSpace user community.


Page 27