Page Comparison

Present: Ashley Augustyniak, Lee Berry, Ron Brashear, David Caruso, Michelle DiMeo, Anna Headley, Hillary Kativa, Stephanie Lampkin, Cat Lu, Gillian Maguire, Erin McLeary, Sarah Newhouse, Daniel Sanford, Patrick Shea, Jim Voelkel

Absent: Andrea Tomlinson

Overview:

• Soft launch target is summer 2017, roughly the 3 year mark from the project start.
  • We are not waiting for rebranding due to the long timeline.
  • The hard launch can wait for the rebranding.
  • When the soft launch happens the name hydra will be replaced with a more meaningful one. This involves talking with Chuck and Ponce.
• Currently there are still have many unknowns with website integration. The goal is to hammer these out in meetings with 2010.
• According to what people understand, content on the website now will remain up until Hydra launches then go down.
  • It is unclear exactly what that means. The sideshow will still be there but other images may be taken down.

• For the soft launch there will be a number of changes to Hydra as it currently is
  • Facet browsing will be improved prior to launch (More facet info)
  • Search functionality will be extended to additional fields
  • The display snippet will be adjusted to show different fields. Creator will always show regardless of the creator term(s) chosen.
  • Blank/unused fields in an item will be collapsed/hidden
  • Sufia will be upgraded from 6.5 to 7 to support multi-item works
    • Currently Anna is working on building a migration path for 6.5 to 7
  • The lightbox display tool will be used for the soft launch, but there is a goal to move to a IIIF compliant viewer.
  • Once a Sufia 7 migration is completed training on the new workflow for it will be done.

Questions:

• What is the timeline for the Sufia 7 migration?
  • The aim is November but there are still issues to be worked out before a hard date can be given.
• Will content that goes down on the website be directly mirrored by content in Hydra or will it be taken down without necessarily having the same images in Hydra yet?
  • It is unclear if this will be a 1-1 switch or not, but general consensus seems to be that it will not be a 1-1 mirroring of data.
  • Sloan has discussed points of integration but these are still unclear in details.
  • One potential method that was brought up by the website team was to have a search box in each section of the website that searches only items matching the section (rare books, archives, museum, etc).
    • This is based off user interviews the website team has done with Night Kitchen but we have not seen those yet.
  • The current understanding is that the website's basic structure will remain unchanged and Hydra will be added into that.
  • A warning that the website tried to mirror images from Othmeralia but formatting issues caused problems. It would be worthwhile to avoid that for Hydra.
    • IIIF image viewer may allow that to be automated in the future to make such formatting more viable.
  • Generally speaking most website issues are TBD until a meeting with 2010 and further details are available.

Design and Collections:

• The goal of the soft launch is have to something representative of the different sections of the CHF.
• The soft launch won't be limited to access on site, but it will not be announced and it will have the beta tag.
• The initial plan was to handle 3 broad themes to build the initial digital collection around.
  • This has been challenging due to limits such as Works (multi-page objects) and photography limitations.
  • As a result curators have branched out into other themes as well.
    
    • This is not negative, many of the content found this way has been very exciting. (Second Skin and the Stamp collections were specifically mentioned)
• With the soft launch coming, what should be in Hydra and what would be a problem if it was missing?
  • Archives: Works is currently limiting content, but there are no major missing areas.
  • Photographs: There are no major missing areas
  • Rare Books: Some major acquisitions that had a high profile should be included in Hydra. The Newton manuscript and the Rittman Manuscripts were mentioned.
    • Rittman is not yet cataloged, which needs to be done before it is in Hydra.
  • Museum: Chemistry sets are a priority, then glassware, and finally electrochemistry, Given the soft launch date, material from the Decay exhibit should be included.
    • Pulling some objects for quick photography sessions is a possible idea.
    • Objects in the exhibits may be on loan, which was an appeal of Spotlight to allow linking the objects from the home institution.
    • For Stretch, there are objects on the mannequin which can be done prior to the final dressing on Monday.
      • The full sized adult mannequin will require some setup in another room.
      • Standards for mannequin shots are needed. 
    • An exhibit field would be useful to track what digital objects have been in an exhibit.
      • How should staff curated exhibits made via Exhibit Labs be treated? Will they need an entry in the exhibit field?
  • Oral History: Currently waiting on Works to add objects.
    • There are still questions on viewers for both pdf transcripts and audio recordings.
  • Modern Library: Things look good.
    • A suggestion was given to include scans from recent donor collections. The Flavor Chemists was mentioned specifically as one to include.
  • Generally speaking an eclectic collection was not seen as a flaw as long as some key areas are covered.

Workflow and Processes:

• Archives: Workflow is working well.
• Is a another curation across collection meeting needed, or can curators just check Hydra to see what is currently in and adjust their plans based on that?
  • No replies. Michelle noted this idea posed by Michelle was good.
• Should people be allowed to download images? If so what quality do we want to provide?
  • At the start of the project there was excitement about a more open access goal.
    • Rights and Reproduction (R&R) tends to cost more in salary than is gained from fees.
  • Jim asked about embedding metadata in the photos with notes about the CHF being the creator if the image was used widely.
    
    • It was asked how likely users would be to check this
    • Another issue brought up was how many online tools strip said metadata.
  • Hillary mentioned an intermediary step to have users check a box to acknowledged the R&R  terms and details
    • This was mentioned due to scholars and publishers often contacting R&R to confirm the permissions. This might be something they can point to.
      • JSTOR was specifically mentioned as an example.
    • Public domain works should be clear that they do not need any permissions
    • Should R&R data be copied into Hydra or linked to the website?
    • Anna mentioned that the rights metadata could be there and a link be placed to full R&R data on another page.
    • Sarah brought up the difference between the legal requirements and the best practice ethical goals when dealing with this issue and that is a good idea to distinguish between them.
    • A broad concern was to make sure that the user understands what their rights are in regard to the image, be as clear as possible what they can do.
      • An example was mentioned by Jim about another library adding a copyright warning on public domain works. (I forgot to type the full name of the University library in question -Dan)
    • A citation link/page/object was mentioned as a way to make things easier. (Not sure how this compares to the current citation tool export links. -Dan)
• A desire for analytics about downloads and other use was brought up.
  • Some of this is possible in Google Analytics, other parts may use the Sufia reporting tools.
• Cat gave a list of current goals for

  Anchor
  facetbrowsing facetbrowsing

  • Subject/Topic
  • Maker/Creator
  • Genre
  • Type
  • Division
  • Date
  • Rights
  • Lower priority facets were listed as
    • Language
    • Place
    • Medium
    • Collection
  • A date slider was mentioned as a desired tool for the date facet.
    
    • Date boxes would also be included.
    • Anna explained how fuzzy dates are handled in the index (1910s indexes as 1910, 1911, etc in the index)
• Do we need to bring content from the current website collections into Hydra?
  • Archives: No
  • Photos: No
  • Museum: No
  • Modern Library: No
• Moving forward there will be user groups for the linked data work.
• When Sufia 7 is ready there will be workflow training on the new aspects.
• Oral histories will wait until after the soft launch for integration.
• A second developer is in the works thanks to Gore fund and board money. They might work on oral histories.