96 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
Time to create records. At this point, no ability to search across
collections other than a database
that includes only a portion of our
collections.
Time, labour, and money. Backlog of described collections. Backlog of undescribed collections.
Time. Staff, but overall we’re well staffed. The
problem is the amount of retrospective
work left to do.
Keeping up with technology.
Time. I need more time to prepare more
entries for the Web.
Staff. For the past few years I have
been the only person in the department
working on this. A few months ago,
however, a Processing Archivist started
and will soon begin working on the
Web work.
Technology support. Until recently it
was very difficult for me to add new
entries or edit existing ones. Another
person in IT had to do it for me.
We now have a new Web Services
department, and they have created
easy interfaces that allow me to add
materials myself.
Time-consuming to process collections. Need more qualified staff to process
and create finding aids. Although we all
do processing, some of us can devote
very little time to it.
Constant need to update information
on the Web.
Training staff who are hesitant to learn
new technologies.
Consistency. Backlog.
Trying to explain archival functions and
procedures to those not experienced in
the archival profession.
Working with the challenges of XSLT
style sheets.
Uploading from GAMMS takes about
30 minutes per collection.
Staff time is limited.
We have a large number of large
collections with little or no processing.
We have limited staff and technical
resources for the size of the project.
A perceived increase in online reference
requests strains the staff time available
for processing.
We’ve long ago put our finding aids
into electronic form. Our current
challenge is to keep up with creating
EAD finding aids for the volume of
material that we collect. The biggest
challenge to migrating manuscripts
themselves to the Web is deciding
which to digitize.
Time to create records. At this point, no ability to search across
collections other than a database
that includes only a portion of our
collections.
Time, labour, and money. Backlog of described collections. Backlog of undescribed collections.
Time. Staff, but overall we’re well staffed. The
problem is the amount of retrospective
work left to do.
Keeping up with technology.
Time. I need more time to prepare more
entries for the Web.
Staff. For the past few years I have
been the only person in the department
working on this. A few months ago,
however, a Processing Archivist started
and will soon begin working on the
Web work.
Technology support. Until recently it
was very difficult for me to add new
entries or edit existing ones. Another
person in IT had to do it for me.
We now have a new Web Services
department, and they have created
easy interfaces that allow me to add
materials myself.
Time-consuming to process collections. Need more qualified staff to process
and create finding aids. Although we all
do processing, some of us can devote
very little time to it.
Constant need to update information
on the Web.
Training staff who are hesitant to learn
new technologies.
Consistency. Backlog.
Trying to explain archival functions and
procedures to those not experienced in
the archival profession.
Working with the challenges of XSLT
style sheets.
Uploading from GAMMS takes about
30 minutes per collection.
Staff time is limited.
We have a large number of large
collections with little or no processing.
We have limited staff and technical
resources for the size of the project.
A perceived increase in online reference
requests strains the staff time available
for processing.
We’ve long ago put our finding aids
into electronic form. Our current
challenge is to keep up with creating
EAD finding aids for the volume of
material that we collect. The biggest
challenge to migrating manuscripts
themselves to the Web is deciding
which to digitize.
