Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives, SPEC Kit 314 (November 2009)

Hackbart-Dean, Pam; Slomba, Elizabeth

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 81
RBSC: all fonds have online access to finding aids. This requires a higher standard of finding aids as well.
See above. Has allowed us to create much more basic OCLC records that link to the EAD.
See above. I’m unclear what you are asking: mark up is a means to an end and ensues from a processing decision, not
vice versa.
See above. We have become more aware of the need to describe contents in more detail, using more keywords and
proper names.
Since 1995, the impact has been enormous, making online finding aids the chief access tool for manuscript collections.
World-wide reference requests reflect usefulness of specificity of information at the folder and item level.
The use of the Web and EADs to make finding aids available required that we re-examine processing policies and
workflows. This led to a broader utilization of graduate students and paraprofessional staff to process collections.
Patrons are able to find our collections on the Web.
This has become a requirement for archives today if they want to meet researchers “where they are,” i.e., online and for
their collection to be located and used. If a researcher finds a collection online and requests it, the collection is bumped
up in terms of processing priority.
We are moving toward eliminating paper finding aids, which reduces our costs. Reference is more efficient when
patrons bring in call #s, Box and Folder #s or finding aids.
We are not hosting as yet. See TARO.
We do host finding aids online and have found them very helpful for our researchers. Whenever we can put an inventory
list online we do.
We do this all the time. This is expected of us. The size of the finding aid and level of description do not hinder us from
posting finding aids on the Web.
We expect greater scrutiny of our online finding aids, and are also aware that users’ ability to word search within a
finding aid offers additional means of access not dependent on browse order. We also make sure that researchers are
directed to consult with reference staff within the finding aid itself, as many come directly to the finding aid through a
Web search rather than through the Library’s Web site. Our processing decisions have not been appreciably affected,
however. Regarding the timing of online access to information about the division’s material, a minimal-level catalog
record of newly received collections is created at the time of accessioning and made available in the OPAC information
about additions to an existing collection, processed, unprocessed, or partially processed, is incorporated in the catalog
record of that collection at the time of accessioning.
We have descriptive information about collections on our Web site, but finding aids generally appear in Online Archive
of California. Anything on the Web site greatly enhances its visibility and use.
We have some finding aids on the Web, but only because they were fully processed in the past and we receive funds to
send them out for EAD-encoding.
We mount our finding aids as PDF files linked to collection level MARC records in the OPAC. The visibility of our finding
aids has resulted in a marked increase in use, and in reference queries. We converted legacy finding aids to PDF to
enhance access, even if they do not fully comply with current processing guidelines.
We try to create description that is useful in a searchable environment and viewable on the screen. We emphasize
names and subjects useful in keyword searches we eliminate repetitive description that might cause a user to scroll too
much. We describe materials for the Web, so we consciously create description with the availability and searchability of

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

Extracted Text (may have errors)

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 81
RBSC: all fonds have online access to finding aids. This requires a higher standard of finding aids as well.
See above. Has allowed us to create much more basic OCLC records that link to the EAD.
See above. I’m unclear what you are asking: mark up is a means to an end and ensues from a processing decision, not
vice versa.
See above. We have become more aware of the need to describe contents in more detail, using more keywords and
proper names.
Since 1995, the impact has been enormous, making online finding aids the chief access tool for manuscript collections.
World-wide reference requests reflect usefulness of specificity of information at the folder and item level.
The use of the Web and EADs to make finding aids available required that we re-examine processing policies and
workflows. This led to a broader utilization of graduate students and paraprofessional staff to process collections.
Patrons are able to find our collections on the Web.
This has become a requirement for archives today if they want to meet researchers “where they are,” i.e., online and for
their collection to be located and used. If a researcher finds a collection online and requests it, the collection is bumped
up in terms of processing priority.
We are moving toward eliminating paper finding aids, which reduces our costs. Reference is more efficient when
patrons bring in call #s, Box and Folder #s or finding aids.
We are not hosting as yet. See TARO.
We do host finding aids online and have found them very helpful for our researchers. Whenever we can put an inventory
list online we do.
We do this all the time. This is expected of us. The size of the finding aid and level of description do not hinder us from
posting finding aids on the Web.
We expect greater scrutiny of our online finding aids, and are also aware that users’ ability to word search within a
finding aid offers additional means of access not dependent on browse order. We also make sure that researchers are
directed to consult with reference staff within the finding aid itself, as many come directly to the finding aid through a
Web search rather than through the Library’s Web site. Our processing decisions have not been appreciably affected,
however. Regarding the timing of online access to information about the division’s material, a minimal-level catalog
record of newly received collections is created at the time of accessioning and made available in the OPAC information
about additions to an existing collection, processed, unprocessed, or partially processed, is incorporated in the catalog
record of that collection at the time of accessioning.
We have descriptive information about collections on our Web site, but finding aids generally appear in Online Archive
of California. Anything on the Web site greatly enhances its visibility and use.
We have some finding aids on the Web, but only because they were fully processed in the past and we receive funds to
send them out for EAD-encoding.
We mount our finding aids as PDF files linked to collection level MARC records in the OPAC. The visibility of our finding
aids has resulted in a marked increase in use, and in reference queries. We converted legacy finding aids to PDF to
enhance access, even if they do not fully comply with current processing guidelines.
We try to create description that is useful in a searchable environment and viewable on the screen. We emphasize
names and subjects useful in keyword searches we eliminate repetitive description that might cause a user to scroll too
much. We describe materials for the Web, so we consciously create description with the availability and searchability of

Help

80 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
potential researcher of the precise content of a collection 2) aid the researcher in requesting specific items and 3) aid
staff in the identification of requested items and in the management of reproduction rights.
I cannot think of any processing decisions that have been influenced by our provision of online access.
I don’t really think this affects processing priorities unless we receive additions to a collection already described online.
Increased donor demand to find their collections via Google. One factor for recent policy to catalog accessions as end-
of-year activity. During my tenure we’ve always published truncated accession records to the Web twice a year.
Increased specificity of reference inquiries. Increased publicity, and therefore use by spectrum of researchers, of
materials available.
Increased visibility and use of collections.
Influenced our decision to adopt DACS. Finding aids are placed online after being tagged in EAD.
Key-word searching has to a degree allowed us greater freedom in leaving collections described at the summary
description level as long as proper key words and names are included in the finding aid or the metadata fields.
Migrating collection descriptions from paper to HTML has been the single most important factor in increasing visibility
and use of our collections. At our institution, HTML finding aids came first, and then EAD versions in a union database.
More access.
Mounting finding aids on the Web results in a greater volume of e-mail reference queries, many of them in the
“nuisance” category.
Nil.
No change in processing levels or details of description. Some adjustments in keying in needed data.
No impact on decisions as we go forward. In some units we’ll need to prioritize the order in which we convert old paper
finding aids to Web based.
No significant impact on processing decisions.
Obviously the more we put up, the more people want, so that creates pressure to do more.
Our finding aids are on a consortial site, which is great for access, keeping Kentucky-related materials together, and
outreach. The pages are not currently crawled by Google which severely reduces the possibility of discovery.
Part of the processing workflow—has provided more immediate feedback from researchers and donors, especially with
corrections and increase in use of materials.
Pilot project encoding Special Collections finding aids using OhioLink EAD template running 2008–2011 impact
assessed upon completion.
Protecting privacy by not revealing certain information in the finding aid. Reformatting of folder headings so that each
can be separately interpreted when it stands alone in a search hit list or other display separated from the surrounding
headings.
Providing access to finding aids for partially processed fonds/collections has resulted in increased demand for access to
the unprocessed components.
Put it up and they will come. Doesn’t matter if it’s a scan of a finding aid written in 1970 or the most high-tech digital
component—if no one knows you have it, then why do you?

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

82 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
this information on the Web in mind.
When we post materials on the Web, researchers find them and generate research queries, particularly via e-mail.
While putting finding aids on the Web increases user demand, there is generally little impact on decisions regarding
processing, level, arrangement, and description other than demand being an incentive to make almost all finding aids
available online. Some researchers, seeing the online finding aid, expect the materials to be digitized as well.
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 preliminarily 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.
Also has affected cataloging records since we don’t have to try to jam as much as we can into a MARC record any more
for it to be findable online.
Impact of using Web 2.0 applications and social software, such as Facebook, Flickr, tagging, etc. N=50
2.0 tech has contributed very little of value to our collection descriptions, even though we employ these technologies as
vehicles.
Blog and wiki presence established in 2009 impact to be reported in 2010.
Currently investigating use of these options for outreach and promotion, access to materials, way to engage patrons and
researchers in descriptive processes.
Do not currently use Web 2.0 applications.
Don’t use at present. (7 responses)
General interest comments have come via Flickr. Facebook was implemented in February 2009. The “share” button to
allow researchers to bookmark or e-mail a source are expected to be implemented during mid-2009.
Has no effect. (10 responses)
I cannot think of any processing decisions that have been influenced by our (admittedly very minimal!) use of Web 2.0
applications.
Increased our connections with users the use of Flickr and YouTube have increased our number of requests as well.
Since this work is at the item level, it does sometimes interfere with our processing priorities.
No impact on processing although we now use 2.0 applications for dissemination of information about holdings and
services.
No significant impact. (2 responses)
No time to test, would like to add “collection user” information, need to work on automating output from our systems,
as our collection information is not stable. Also, as we create EAD/xml structured information it enables us to more
easily link to systems.
None—another waste of time in light of the backlog of materials that do not have the basic description noted in
immediately preceding box.
Not using Web 2.0 applications.
Planning to explore.

Previous Page Next Page

Page 7Survey Results click to expand contents

Page 123Representative Documents click to expand contents

Page 125Job Description of Processing Decision Maker click to expand contents

Page 129Job Descriptions of Processing Staff click to expand contents

Page 133Processing Policy click to expand contents

Page 137Processing Procedures Manuals click to expand contents

Page 143Processing Worksheets click to expand contents

Page 151Procedures for Prioritizing Processing click to expand contents

Page 155Collecting Processing Statistics click to expand contents

Page 159Sample Statistics Reports click to expand contents

Page 163Selected Resources click to expand contents

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

All section downloads (PDF)

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources