12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
has impacted processing decisions, one respondent
claimed, “Use of EAD has forced greater consistency
in processing practices” while another noted that, “We
adjusted some processing policies to conform to EAD
structure and online searching.” Other comments
ranged from “Does not impact processing decisions”
to “There has been a steep ‘learning curve’ in training
varied staff and building the technical infrastructure
to deliver EAD records.” Not all respondents (7 or
10%) are encoding in EAD and a couple comment-
ed that they have adopted DACS as a result of EAD
implementation.
Among those hosting finding aids on the Web,
whether in EAD or other format, many commented
on the increase in research queries. One respondent
commented that putting finding aids online “helped
us determine which collections are used and impacts
what we process.” Another interesting comment from
the survey discussed the advantage of making collec-
tions available in this environment, “With minimal
processing, we’ve gone with the idea that some info
is better than none and having any information on
the Web will enhance access. Finding aids for full,
minimally, or preliminary processed collections are
posted. Ability to keyword search has probably made
it easier to accept minimal processing as adequate
for a collection ever to receive.” There is a downside
to online guides, as one respondent said, “Some re-
searchers, seeing the online finding aid, expect the
materials to be digitized as well.”
Impact of Using Web 2.0 Applications
Using Web 2.0 applications and social software such
as Facebook, Flickr, etc., does not seem to have much
impact on processing goals at this point. One respon-
dent commented, “2.0 tech has contributed very little
of value to our collection descriptions, even though
we employ these technologies as vehicles.” Most of the
respondents (32 or 64%) who employ 2.0 applications
indicated that this does not impact processing deci-
sions and many have “only begun to experiment with
this.” Other respondents (18 or 36%) are not currently
involved in 2.0 applications.
Impact of Providing Access through Databases
Once again, the majority of respondents felt that the
impact of providing access through databases was
not a factor. Regarding bibliographic databases, many
commented on being part of state or national initia-
tives, such as Online Archive of California, Archives
Grid, and Archives USA. One respondent declared
that databases are “becoming less significant as the
volume of finding aids available increases and search-
ing mechanisms are refined.” As for databases created
for access to collections, other respondents (8 or 15%)
reported that they created databases that were “uti-
lized internally” and not for “public access.” Some
noted plans to make these available online or to con-
solidate internal databases and that use of access da-
tabases meant item-level description, better searching
capability, and better access for users to specific collec-
tions, such as photograph collections.
Impact of Archival Management Software
As for the impact of Archival Management Software,
respondents agreed that this did not affect processing
workflow. Some of the respondents (22 or 44%) are
currently investigating or in the trial stages of using
these types of software.
Impact of Digitization Projects
In 2000, Peter Hirtle stated, “The biggest single benefit
that has arisen from our pioneering digitization efforts
has been a tremendous increase in the use of digi-
tized material. If you make special collections materi-
als available via the Web with appropriate metadata
and software, preferably for free, they will be used.”5
When asked about the effect of digitization projects,
one respondent agreed with Hirtle, “Put it up and
they will come.” Several others also agreed that digi-
tization increase the use of collections. Additionally,
some respondents (12 or 18%) were concerned that
such projects would require item-level digitizing and
description, thus requiring more resources and time.
Some respondents also commented that digitization
has had significant impact on processing, such as a
greater need to include item-level description and
metadata creation, and a change in how they deter-
mine processing priorities and level of processing.
has impacted processing decisions, one respondent
claimed, “Use of EAD has forced greater consistency
in processing practices” while another noted that, “We
adjusted some processing policies to conform to EAD
structure and online searching.” Other comments
ranged from “Does not impact processing decisions”
to “There has been a steep ‘learning curve’ in training
varied staff and building the technical infrastructure
to deliver EAD records.” Not all respondents (7 or
10%) are encoding in EAD and a couple comment-
ed that they have adopted DACS as a result of EAD
implementation.
Among those hosting finding aids on the Web,
whether in EAD or other format, many commented
on the increase in research queries. One respondent
commented that putting finding aids online “helped
us determine which collections are used and impacts
what we process.” Another interesting comment from
the survey discussed the advantage of making collec-
tions available in this environment, “With minimal
processing, we’ve gone with the idea that some info
is better than none and having any information on
the Web will enhance access. Finding aids for full,
minimally, or preliminary processed collections are
posted. Ability to keyword search has probably made
it easier to accept minimal processing as adequate
for a collection ever to receive.” There is a downside
to online guides, as one respondent said, “Some re-
searchers, seeing the online finding aid, expect the
materials to be digitized as well.”
Impact of Using Web 2.0 Applications
Using Web 2.0 applications and social software such
as Facebook, Flickr, etc., does not seem to have much
impact on processing goals at this point. One respon-
dent commented, “2.0 tech has contributed very little
of value to our collection descriptions, even though
we employ these technologies as vehicles.” Most of the
respondents (32 or 64%) who employ 2.0 applications
indicated that this does not impact processing deci-
sions and many have “only begun to experiment with
this.” Other respondents (18 or 36%) are not currently
involved in 2.0 applications.
Impact of Providing Access through Databases
Once again, the majority of respondents felt that the
impact of providing access through databases was
not a factor. Regarding bibliographic databases, many
commented on being part of state or national initia-
tives, such as Online Archive of California, Archives
Grid, and Archives USA. One respondent declared
that databases are “becoming less significant as the
volume of finding aids available increases and search-
ing mechanisms are refined.” As for databases created
for access to collections, other respondents (8 or 15%)
reported that they created databases that were “uti-
lized internally” and not for “public access.” Some
noted plans to make these available online or to con-
solidate internal databases and that use of access da-
tabases meant item-level description, better searching
capability, and better access for users to specific collec-
tions, such as photograph collections.
Impact of Archival Management Software
As for the impact of Archival Management Software,
respondents agreed that this did not affect processing
workflow. Some of the respondents (22 or 44%) are
currently investigating or in the trial stages of using
these types of software.
Impact of Digitization Projects
In 2000, Peter Hirtle stated, “The biggest single benefit
that has arisen from our pioneering digitization efforts
has been a tremendous increase in the use of digi-
tized material. If you make special collections materi-
als available via the Web with appropriate metadata
and software, preferably for free, they will be used.”5
When asked about the effect of digitization projects,
one respondent agreed with Hirtle, “Put it up and
they will come.” Several others also agreed that digi-
tization increase the use of collections. Additionally,
some respondents (12 or 18%) were concerned that
such projects would require item-level digitizing and
description, thus requiring more resources and time.
Some respondents also commented that digitization
has had significant impact on processing, such as a
greater need to include item-level description and
metadata creation, and a change in how they deter-
mine processing priorities and level of processing.
