Annotated Bibliography

The list below is the bibliography for my project. I extract the sentences or paragraphs from the articles and think about how I will use in my final paper. The italic words in the brackets are the notes for sections or places in which I am planning to put the paragraphs or sentences as the reference.

Borgman, C. L., Solvberg I., & Kovdcs L. (Eds.) (2002). Evaluation of digital libraries: Testbeds, measurements, and metrics. Retrieved Oct 26, 2006, from http://wwwold.sztaki.hu/conferences/deval/
presentations/DELOSWorkshop4OnEvalreport.pdf

Digital libraries may be seen as new forms of information institutions, multimedia information retrieval systems, or information systems that support the creation, use, and searching of digital content (Borgman 2002). (Definition of Digital Library; Literature Rview)

Borgman, C. L., (2000). From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in the Networked World. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 34-52.

In Borgman et al., 1996, the scope of digital library was broadened to encompass two complementary ideas:

• Digital libraries are a set of electronic resources and associated technical capabilities for creating, searching and using information.
• Digital libraries are constructed, collected and organized, by (and for) a community of users and their functional capabilities support the information needs and uses of that community. In this sense they are an extension, enhancement and integration of a variety of information institutions as physical places where resources are selected, collected, organized, preserved and accessed in support of a user community. These information institutions include, among others, libraries, museums, archives and schools, but digital libraries also extend and serve other community settings, including classrooms, offices, laboratories, homes and public spaces.

The above definition in Borgman et al., 1996 is the most complete one I have been ever seen which extends the scope of digital libraries in several directions, reflecting the contributions of scholars from a dozen disciplines. It moves beyond information retrieval to include the full life cycle of creating, searching and using information. Rather than simply collecting content on behalf of user communities, it embeds digital libraries in the activities of those communities and it encompasses information-related activities of multiple information institutions. And the most important is that the definition point out that museums are also included in the information institutions proving the digital library as an extension, enhancement and integration of themselves. (Definition of Digital Library; Literature Rview)

Jeng, J. H. (2006). Usability of the digital library: An evaluation model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jercey.

· Methodology (Model, criteria, & instruments)

· Definition of digital library (Literature Review)

· The “Future Research” section suggests there should more study focusing on cultural variables. (Motivation)

· To verify the generalization of Jeng’s model (Motivation). Trying to find our more variables affecting user experiences, new findings, and new model for Museum website.

· Synthesis of previous findings is also considered in her design of instruments.

Gorman, G.E. & P. Clayton, Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical Handbook (2nd Ed.)

Huberman, A.M. & M.B. Miles (ed.), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion

Saracevic, T. (2000). Digital library evaluation: Toward an evolution of concepts. Library Trends, 49 (2), 350-69.

Tefko Saracevic (2000) analyzed and then isolated some 80 evaluation studies and suggested an evaluation must involve selection and decisions related to:

1. Construct that was evaluated

2. Context in which evaluation was conducted

3. Criteria that were chosen as a basis for evaluation

4. Measures reflecting selected criteria to record the performance

5. Methodologies that were used

A clear specification on each of these is a requirement for any evaluation of digital libraries (Saracevic, 2000). Therefore, this project follows the lines of these five aspects as the conceptual framework for evaluation. (Conceptual Framework)

Saracevic, T. (2004). Evaluation of digital libraries: An overview. Retrieved Oct.23, 2006, from http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/DL_evaluatio
n_Delos.pdf

Glaringly missing from this list are evaluations of operational digital libraries in institutions, i.e. as instituted in academic libraries, museums, national libraries, public libraries and the like. Considerable amounts of statistics are being collected about these libraries, but as yet they have not been a subject of evaluation. As to evaluation, institutional digital libraries are a terra incognita. Yet, there are thousands of them. (Definition; Motivation)

Silverman D. (ed.), Interpreting Qualitative Data (3rd Ed.)

Screen Recorder Comparison

This weekend, I tried to search for any free or trial version screen recorder for the use in my project. And I downloaded three softwares and compared their advantages and disadvatages.

• Screen Video Recorder: 15 days trial version. The recorded mouse movement seems not very smooth. The audio recording only lasts about 30 seconds (maybe because it is a trial version).

• ZD screen recorder 2.5.0: Freeware. The recorded mouse movement is smoother. 5 minutes limitation recording.

• Auto Screen Recorder 2.1 pro: Freeware. No time limitation for both audio and screen recording. The recorded mouse movement is smooth. The text is clearer than the other two. The sounds and movements match very well. Although the post-processing is slower, this software is the most recommended so far.

Reading Response (Week 5)

The focus of this week is "fieldwork." Very practical. G & C's chapter 5 details prepared works for fieldwork. One of the "key factors for selecting the focus or topic" in P.68, which is "Is the proposed site neutral?", reminds me of the similar consideration for usability testing:

The usability testing has its root in the CS field. Originally, system designers/programmers use colleagues or themselves’ judgments to design and test their product before release. And it results in many hard-to-use systems coming up because those designers did not take "real users" into the consideration. Jeffrey Rubin (1994) wrote it in his book, Handbook of Usability Testing which is the classic reference in usability research, "the most important factor leading to the neglect of human needs has been that in the past, designers were developing products for end users who were much like themselves." A familiar site can be dangerous.

G & C mentioned (p.68) that most text on qualitative research exhort novice to use neutral sites for data collection, sites in which they are not personally involved as employees or colleagues, or in which their interest is not predetermined by existing relationships.

However, we still have to acknowledge that using familiar site is a bonus if you can put personal perceptions aside. I think it is really well said by G & C (p.69): The advice should be to use a site in which one’s powers of observation will not be clouded by personal preconceptions. And a experienced researcher develops an ability to use familiarity as a facilitator rather than a bias-prone burden.