...
- MD: We tested all first-time users, from all across CHF, selected 10 out of 15 broad demographic, reseasrchersresearchers, general public, the uninitateduninitiated
- Gave them a few tasks, screencast, took notes, got lots of data out of it that is informing how we're changing layout, some design stuff, and some stuff to discuss with the committee
- In soft launch - discoverable, not indexed in Google yet, slowly happening, such as unexpected Beckaman stuff
- Ppl Users are diverse and international (i.e. coming from Malta and South Korea, etc.)
- Not linking to main CHF website, and not promoting yet
- Good news is stabilityservers and web service stable so far!
- Metadata - subjects/topics
- Thinking of putting subjects higher than description, would need subjects to be "aboutness"Users searched for a topic and were confused by search results.
- Proposed fix is to rank Subjects higher than Description in relevancy ranking.
- Reminder: subject cataloging should follow "about-ness" (not tagging for "of-ness" – that info can be in description)
- Rights Statement
- Users find RS.org to be confusing - the problem is they click on the rights statement and they don't understand what they're reading, much more used to CC PD license
- We added a PD Public Domain checkbox under search
- No known copyright Known Copyright and No copyright Copyright US not discoverable currently - is that okay? How to address?
- AA: If someone wants PD, they just want to search very quickly
- GM/HK: more research focused users may know more about navigating rights, or would contact R&R
- LB: No Copyright-US, as a blogger am I meant to walk away with the expectation that I can use that image?
- HK: Risk tolerance about being reasonably sure that a No-C-US can be labeled PD instead
- GM: What about taking a more conversational approach in the page design with RS.org statements/icons. Such as: "can i use this? yes! probably, etc."
- RB: Going with PD checkbox seems a decent start, can see how things go
- MD: Try this, but using admin notes to work with PD stuff, and let us know if other concerns come upGoing forward, curators might reconsider No Known Copyright and No Copyright US on a case-by-case basis and put Public Domain if reasonably sure. Use admin notes field with more details. Curators can do this knowing they have DCC support, and if potential copyright holder contacted us we would immediately take it down.
- Language
- German/Latin long titles , whether to flip translated titles?that confused users, partly because they couldn't read the language.
- Do we flip current standard and put English as primary title and original language as alternative title? Could help general public.
- Concerns: CHF has an international audience; Researchers could be more confused if they're looking for a title that they know exists in a different language; Not comfortable advocating for English-first as an institution
- RB: Still in discovery phase, need more researchers (particularly those who work with these materials); let's wait and see if we get pushbackpush-back
- MD: File it for more user testing
- ; follow-up with JV to discuss manuscripts such as Newton that may be causing unique problems
- Preview of redesigned show page on staging
- Lots of oohs and aahs!
Timeline to hard launch and priorities
- Told to hard launch with the rebrand - don't know what it meansdetails yet
- Color and styling will be the same as new website, institutional titles will be changed, not sure where it will sit on the webpage
- Have 108 open issue tickets, now with Anna gone and just Jonathan, so we'll be prioritizing the issues; no new feature requests
- Would want links in OPAC to records around following hard launch - integrations, talk to Andrea
- AA: Can we tell fellows to use it yet?
- MD: Not yet, partly bc because we want to user test it with them
...
- Right now it's "Courtesy of CHF Collections"
- Need to recommend to Communications team with new Science History Institute name
- GM: Do we really need "Courtesy of?" Most agreed yes, particularly EM.
- RB: Feeling fine about dropping the "Collections" part because the assumption is there, okay with that at least for now
- Additional Credit Line : field required for things like Neville?
- RB: Dont recall ever seeing formal documentation, knows it was agreed upon, but will look into that with Suzanne to see if we are bound to that
- May come up in the future with March of Dimes. Can add it then. Museum had no other use case for this field at the moment.
- GM/SL: Want to consider Eddleman and Fisher
- PS: Credit line is different than citations, some of this only comes up for citations. Requests for the citation to be displayed in records – future consideration
- Provenance for museum field can be put in the future
- Agreed that new credit line is "Courtesy of Science History Institute"
Review new procedure for on-demand photography (R&R)
...