Documentation and the users of digital resources in the humanities

Abstract

Documentation and the users of Digital Resources in the Humanities Abstract PurposeThis article discusses the importance of documentation for digital humanities resources. This includes technical documentation of textual markup or database construction, and procedural documentation about resource construction. MethodologyWe present a case study of an attempt to re-use electronic text to create a digital library for humanities users, as part of the UCIS project. We discuss the results of qualitative research by the LAIRAH study on provision of procedural documentation, and user perception of the purpose, construction and usability of resources collected using semi-structured interviews and user workshops. FindingsIn the absence of technical documentation, it was impossible to reuse text files with inconsistent markup (COCOA and XML) in a Digital Library. Also, although users require procedural documentation, about the status and completeness of sources, and selection methods, this is often difficult to locate. Practical implicationsCreators of digital humanities resources should provide both technical and procedural documentation and make it easy to find, ideally from the project website. To ensure that documentation is provided, research councils could make documentation a project deliverable. This will be even more vital once the AHDS is no longer funded to help ensure good practice in digital resource creation Originality/value 3 Previous work has argued that documentation is important. However, this paper presents actual evidence of the problems caused by a lack of documentation and shows that this makes reuse of digital resources almost impossible. This is intended to persuade project creators who wish resources to be reused to provide documentation about its contents and technical specifications.

Information technology and the humanities scholar: Documenting digital research practices

“…Overall, humanities scholars are not satisfied with stand‐alone, single‐purpose tools; they want tools that can be integrated, working together in a cohesive environment. These types of tools require coordination, adherence to standards, and forward planning to gauge how others might use the tools (Warwick et al, ). The affordances of digital tools have created new methodologies, not only requiring new training and institutional support, but also choices to be made about what types of outputs are most useful for analysis and writing.…”

Scientific information discovery and access: A bibliographic review

“…This knowledge is greater in the academic sector and in richer nations where more information literacy work is carried out, and there is a greater range of discovery options (Rodríguez-Bravo et al, 2017). Warwick et al (2009), in their longitudinal study on university students, showed that students have a marked preference for using the Internet as a source of information with respect to the use of more complex library tools to undertake academic tasks. Moreover, students show their satisfaction reproducing search strategies that have been adequate before because they have provided them with enough information for their needs in a short time, and they are unwilling to develop their information search skills beyond what they consider strictly necessary -as long as they are not required by a specific task.…”

Digitization of Vilnius University Library Collection GDL Court Books: From Production of Images to Creation of a Research Tool

“…Istorinių tekstų publikavimo situacija yra labai įvairi, todėl sudėtinga kalbėti apie vienodus principus. Pavyzdžiui, Lietuvos Metrikos dokumentų tekstai yra skirtingai perteikiami Lietuvoje ir užsienyje parengtuose leidiniuose 26 originalus teksto variantas, surinktas vadovaujantis lingvistinio rankraščių leidimo taisyklėmis, ir jo pagrindu parengti (vieną arba kelis) paprastesnės ortografijos variantus. Tokia praktika jau taikoma 27 , tačiau tai galėtų būti atskiro didelio projekto uždavinys.…”