SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 83
This is not applicable to us at the present time.
This mainly concerns our digital collections programs.
We are considering using Flickr to mount some photographic archival material, but have not yet gone live.
We are interesting in exploring these applications. We are creating libguides that facilitate the use of RSS feeds,
widgets, blogs, etc.
We are not currently using Web 2.0 applications and social software except for Facebook, which thus far has been used
only to promote collection openings and other special collections-related events.
We are only beginning to use Web 2.0 applications. We do not anticipate that it will affect decisions about which
collections to process or the level of processing. We have some photographs in Flickr. We put in Flickr photographs
which have been digitized and have item-level description.
We are using Flickr. This is too new to evaluate.
We aren’t yet using these tools, but we are considering it.
We do not use Web 2.0 applications and social software.
We don’t use any of these tools.
We have a blog with Google analytics on it. I run quarterly reports and the results have been terrific. We don’t spend a
terrible amount of time on it and thus far it has been a fun way to share things with the community.
We have no plans at this time to use these for Manuscript Division collection descriptions.
We have not had time to do much of this yet.
We have only begun to experiment with this again our current html structure does not facilitate this, another reason we
want to move “content” to a database structure.
We have put some things on YouTube with links back to our Web site. Some of the comments have been very helpful,
others are just inane. I would like to enable tagging on some of our databases we just haven’t gotten that far yet.
We hope to eventually enable tagging for our digitized collections to allow users to submit additional identifying info/
metadata but we have not started that yet. We do have a Facebook page that promotes our collections.
We’re just starting to experiment with this no conclusions yet. We have three blogs in process (Columbia Curators’
Choices Adventures in Processing and Notes from 2M11). All have been very successful in terms of directing people our
way. I don’t care if only two people see it—that’s two more than before.
Web 2.0 apps and social software do not impact how we process.
When we make processing decisions, this is not important in our decisionmaking.
Impact of providing access to collections through databases N=55
Access via a database is under development.
All of our finding aids are available through one search interface. That access hasn’t affected our processing decisions.
Bibliographic records in OPAC originally had high impact on usage and hence in processing, but the impact is not as
great now. We do not generally know if researchers find records in the OPAC database or on the Web site. Archives &
Manuscripts Department materials are not yet available through our institutional repository (IR).
This is not applicable to us at the present time.
This mainly concerns our digital collections programs.
We are considering using Flickr to mount some photographic archival material, but have not yet gone live.
We are interesting in exploring these applications. We are creating libguides that facilitate the use of RSS feeds,
widgets, blogs, etc.
We are not currently using Web 2.0 applications and social software except for Facebook, which thus far has been used
only to promote collection openings and other special collections-related events.
We are only beginning to use Web 2.0 applications. We do not anticipate that it will affect decisions about which
collections to process or the level of processing. We have some photographs in Flickr. We put in Flickr photographs
which have been digitized and have item-level description.
We are using Flickr. This is too new to evaluate.
We aren’t yet using these tools, but we are considering it.
We do not use Web 2.0 applications and social software.
We don’t use any of these tools.
We have a blog with Google analytics on it. I run quarterly reports and the results have been terrific. We don’t spend a
terrible amount of time on it and thus far it has been a fun way to share things with the community.
We have no plans at this time to use these for Manuscript Division collection descriptions.
We have not had time to do much of this yet.
We have only begun to experiment with this again our current html structure does not facilitate this, another reason we
want to move “content” to a database structure.
We have put some things on YouTube with links back to our Web site. Some of the comments have been very helpful,
others are just inane. I would like to enable tagging on some of our databases we just haven’t gotten that far yet.
We hope to eventually enable tagging for our digitized collections to allow users to submit additional identifying info/
metadata but we have not started that yet. We do have a Facebook page that promotes our collections.
We’re just starting to experiment with this no conclusions yet. We have three blogs in process (Columbia Curators’
Choices Adventures in Processing and Notes from 2M11). All have been very successful in terms of directing people our
way. I don’t care if only two people see it—that’s two more than before.
Web 2.0 apps and social software do not impact how we process.
When we make processing decisions, this is not important in our decisionmaking.
Impact of providing access to collections through databases N=55
Access via a database is under development.
All of our finding aids are available through one search interface. That access hasn’t affected our processing decisions.
Bibliographic records in OPAC originally had high impact on usage and hence in processing, but the impact is not as
great now. We do not generally know if researchers find records in the OPAC database or on the Web site. Archives &
Manuscripts Department materials are not yet available through our institutional repository (IR).
