I suppose this is also also a repository spotlight, but it is also a plug for a friend's institution. A friend of mine works as the cataloger at the Academy of Natural Science's library. She forwarded me the link to their digital collections today, and I really love the design of the site. They don't necessarily have a lot of their digitization work up there, but what they do have up there is colorful, bright and well-layed out. I would love to be able to click on a picture to get the full information, but it does a wonderful job of placing images in context and explaining what they are. Its quality of content over quantity, and I think in my heart that's what I'm feeling with all my introspection on design. I would go back to the site simply because it has beautiful vibrant images, and I can recall what the site made me feel after I leave it.
They, from what I know, don't have an internet access system, such as ContentDM or DigiTool or the other ones that I'm looking at. They rely on just solid design that integrates tightly and seemlessly into the Academy's website. The other sites that have content in an out-of-the-box looking DAM just don't give you the feeling of a) the institution's values; b) the richness of the materials; c) the method and rationale for digitization; d) connection to the rest of the institution.
Thanks, ANS -- I think you got it goin' on.
http://www.ansp.org/museum/digital_collections/
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Repository spotlight: Joan Flasch Artist's Book Collection
http://digital-libraries.saic.edu/cdm4/index_jfabc.php?CISOROOT=/jfabc
I just got back to the office from ALA's midwinter meeting, and will be sharing my notes about the conference over the course of the next few weeks.
I did want to make a note of the School of the Art Institute's Joan Flasch Artist's Book Collection, as design-wise it's one of the first ContentDM sites that I have seen that looks like it has transcended the look and structure that ContentDM gives you right out of the box. I thought this was notable, given my last posting. I like the interface -- Simple, straightforward, unintimidating and unique.
I got the impression that they are using ContentDM because it is available, rather than having chosen that for themselves. They are using simple Dublin Core for their metadata, as that is what the software supports. Their ILS is Voyager and they use OCLC Connexion to push a MARC record into ContentDM. The woman presenting this collection ended with plea: "Ask OCLC to use METS and MODS *please!*"
I just got back to the office from ALA's midwinter meeting, and will be sharing my notes about the conference over the course of the next few weeks.
I did want to make a note of the School of the Art Institute's Joan Flasch Artist's Book Collection, as design-wise it's one of the first ContentDM sites that I have seen that looks like it has transcended the look and structure that ContentDM gives you right out of the box. I thought this was notable, given my last posting. I like the interface -- Simple, straightforward, unintimidating and unique.
I got the impression that they are using ContentDM because it is available, rather than having chosen that for themselves. They are using simple Dublin Core for their metadata, as that is what the software supports. Their ILS is Voyager and they use OCLC Connexion to push a MARC record into ContentDM. The woman presenting this collection ended with plea: "Ask OCLC to use METS and MODS *please!*"
Monday, January 7, 2008
Starting off the new year...
So, we are pretty much at the same place as we were in the middle of December. I got myself lost in a bunch of Cascading Style Sheets and PhotoShop tutorials and have recently reemerged with nothing really to show for my time. I do feel very confident in my CSS skills, which I believe will be of great help in the long run.
What I have noticed is that I am fixated on design over content right now. I don't know if that is where I really should be, but I do think there is merit to fretting over how something looks. I am a fully aesthetic person, and I feel like I don't go back to a digital library site unless it looks good to me. So many sites I have checked out may have great content, but if the design looks like a DAM system right out of the box, I turn off to it.
Allowing the content only to fuel a site is good for researchers, yes, as (hopefully) they can get on and find what they need in the most efficient manner. La Salle's Connelly Library, it has been noted by my director, is not a research library, nor will it most likely ever be. The Special Collections are strong and relatively comprehensive -- thought my director has also pointed out that he's not sure the research value in our bible collection, nor is our Viet Nam collection a "traditional" collection, as it is based somewhat in popular culture.
What I am getting at here is that I am rather unconvinced that the strength of our content alone would allow for us to slack off on design. I want my DAM to look awesome, so that repeat visitors will be coming back for both the content and the design of the site. Whichever DAM I choose will integrate itself back and forth between our library website and its special collections pages. I want our DAM to look first like La Salle University's digital collections, rather than firstly like just another university digital collections site.
What I have noticed is that I am fixated on design over content right now. I don't know if that is where I really should be, but I do think there is merit to fretting over how something looks. I am a fully aesthetic person, and I feel like I don't go back to a digital library site unless it looks good to me. So many sites I have checked out may have great content, but if the design looks like a DAM system right out of the box, I turn off to it.
Allowing the content only to fuel a site is good for researchers, yes, as (hopefully) they can get on and find what they need in the most efficient manner. La Salle's Connelly Library, it has been noted by my director, is not a research library, nor will it most likely ever be. The Special Collections are strong and relatively comprehensive -- thought my director has also pointed out that he's not sure the research value in our bible collection, nor is our Viet Nam collection a "traditional" collection, as it is based somewhat in popular culture.
What I am getting at here is that I am rather unconvinced that the strength of our content alone would allow for us to slack off on design. I want my DAM to look awesome, so that repeat visitors will be coming back for both the content and the design of the site. Whichever DAM I choose will integrate itself back and forth between our library website and its special collections pages. I want our DAM to look first like La Salle University's digital collections, rather than firstly like just another university digital collections site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)