18 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
Assessment
Most of the responding libraries (48, or 60%) do per-
form regular assessment activities on the use of digital
image collections. The most common form of assess-
ment is the collection of usage statistics (46, or 96%),
presumably on commercially licensed collections such
as ARTstor. Collection of informal feedback from users
is also widely employed (34, or 71%). Formal surveys/
feedback are employed less frequently.
At the majority of responding libraries, subject
librarians and electronic resources librarians are pri-
marily responsible for selecting and evaluating digital
image resources for acquisition and/or renewal. To a
lesser degree visual resources staff are also involved
in these processes (26, or 35%).
Faculty demand was the factor ranked high in im-
portance most frequently when it comes to evaluating
image databases for acquisition. However, more than
half of the respondents also ranked most of the other
criteria as highly important, including frequency of
use, image resolution/quality, cost, subject area, and
having cleared copyright permissions. The only cri-
terion that was not ranked high in importance was
accessibility of the images. Only 40% of respondents
reported that commercial products are evaluated for
accessibility by disabled users, and only 16% rated ac-
cessibility as highly important in their decision mak-
ing. These responses, along with those about adding
alt text to locally created images, reveals that there is
much that needs to be done to ensure that the needs of
users with disabilities are kept at the forefront when
it comes to the acquisition of digital image content.
The two most important characteristics of digital
image collections for teaching, learning, and research
is having access to a large database of images and ease
of use (i.e., incorporating images into presentations,
course websites, etc.) Having rights to use images in
websites, course sites, etc. was a more distant third.
Half of the respondents ranked having image alt text
or captions to provide accessibility as of low impor-
tance. In the additional responses, quality metadata
to accompany images was cited as a critical factor,
highlighting the use of standards for description to
facilitate search and retrieval of images.
Conclusion
In general, while it seems clear that there is a great
deal of activity taking place in the digital image realm
both in terms of creation and use, there is a parallel
sense that the diversity of the activity and also the
disciplines in which that activity is taking place makes
it especially challenging to monitor campus-wide
developments:
“It’s difficult to know the larger image environ-
ment on campus. We know that other projects are
happening and we hear of other repositories on
campus, but building a 1-stop source for all cam-
pus images eludes us. Other entities on campus
seem determined to go it alone. Increasingly our
faculty undertake image searching, retrieval and
production on their own.”
The complexity of this landscape is further called
out by this contributor:
“Creation/acquisition, use, and management of
digital images are so integrated with other types
of collections and services that it is quite difficult to
pull this apart and speak exclusively about digital
image collections and services. Furthermore, for
better or worse, there are very different practices
and services, and completely different staff in-
volved with managing licensed vs. locally created
digital collections.”
The survey findings reveal the critical role played
by digital images and services in relation to the teach-
ing, learning, and research missions of ARL member
institutions. Increasingly, digital image collections
and initiatives are being used to enhance the profile
of these institutions. However, the findings also dem-
onstrate the need for increased understanding of the
activities relating to the creation and management
of digital images currently taking place across units
within institutions. In addition, there is a need for
better coordination and integration of these activities
at the institutional level. The development of over-
arching digital management asset plans that provide
Assessment
Most of the responding libraries (48, or 60%) do per-
form regular assessment activities on the use of digital
image collections. The most common form of assess-
ment is the collection of usage statistics (46, or 96%),
presumably on commercially licensed collections such
as ARTstor. Collection of informal feedback from users
is also widely employed (34, or 71%). Formal surveys/
feedback are employed less frequently.
At the majority of responding libraries, subject
librarians and electronic resources librarians are pri-
marily responsible for selecting and evaluating digital
image resources for acquisition and/or renewal. To a
lesser degree visual resources staff are also involved
in these processes (26, or 35%).
Faculty demand was the factor ranked high in im-
portance most frequently when it comes to evaluating
image databases for acquisition. However, more than
half of the respondents also ranked most of the other
criteria as highly important, including frequency of
use, image resolution/quality, cost, subject area, and
having cleared copyright permissions. The only cri-
terion that was not ranked high in importance was
accessibility of the images. Only 40% of respondents
reported that commercial products are evaluated for
accessibility by disabled users, and only 16% rated ac-
cessibility as highly important in their decision mak-
ing. These responses, along with those about adding
alt text to locally created images, reveals that there is
much that needs to be done to ensure that the needs of
users with disabilities are kept at the forefront when
it comes to the acquisition of digital image content.
The two most important characteristics of digital
image collections for teaching, learning, and research
is having access to a large database of images and ease
of use (i.e., incorporating images into presentations,
course websites, etc.) Having rights to use images in
websites, course sites, etc. was a more distant third.
Half of the respondents ranked having image alt text
or captions to provide accessibility as of low impor-
tance. In the additional responses, quality metadata
to accompany images was cited as a critical factor,
highlighting the use of standards for description to
facilitate search and retrieval of images.
Conclusion
In general, while it seems clear that there is a great
deal of activity taking place in the digital image realm
both in terms of creation and use, there is a parallel
sense that the diversity of the activity and also the
disciplines in which that activity is taking place makes
it especially challenging to monitor campus-wide
developments:
“It’s difficult to know the larger image environ-
ment on campus. We know that other projects are
happening and we hear of other repositories on
campus, but building a 1-stop source for all cam-
pus images eludes us. Other entities on campus
seem determined to go it alone. Increasingly our
faculty undertake image searching, retrieval and
production on their own.”
The complexity of this landscape is further called
out by this contributor:
“Creation/acquisition, use, and management of
digital images are so integrated with other types
of collections and services that it is quite difficult to
pull this apart and speak exclusively about digital
image collections and services. Furthermore, for
better or worse, there are very different practices
and services, and completely different staff in-
volved with managing licensed vs. locally created
digital collections.”
The survey findings reveal the critical role played
by digital images and services in relation to the teach-
ing, learning, and research missions of ARL member
institutions. Increasingly, digital image collections
and initiatives are being used to enhance the profile
of these institutions. However, the findings also dem-
onstrate the need for increased understanding of the
activities relating to the creation and management
of digital images currently taking place across units
within institutions. In addition, there is a need for
better coordination and integration of these activities
at the institutional level. The development of over-
arching digital management asset plans that provide
