Given the size of many archival collections, only the most important materials can be described at item-level
This made me wonder how archives decide what’s “important.” She says only “important” items get detailed descriptions. That means archivists decide what gets more attention. If something isn’t described well, people might never find it.
Who is this for?,
I like this question, because it makes me think about the fact htat archival rules seem designed to make institutions run smoothly, not necessarily to help the communities represented in the records.
If everything is digitized, regardless of metadata or image quality, the resulting hoard would solve a host of issues.
She’s questioning the idea that putting things online automatically fixes access problems. Just uploading images doesn’t fix things like racism or bad systems.
The top four were all musicians whodied
There’s clearly a pattern between unexpected deaths and attention spikes in media. But the article doesn’t really explain why that happens , it just shows the trend. Definitely makes you realise how shock and tragedy keep people engaged in the media longer.
the spike in pageviews after a celebrity’s death can often overshadow that of other major events, even a presidential inauguration
This just claims celebrity deaths can take over public attention even more than political events. That shows a lot about what people prioritize in media and it really makes me question what drives public attention.
Let’s look at the percent increase in pageviews compared to a typical day.
Using percent increase makes the increase look a lot more more dramatic. Someone with low usual traffic(Roy Halladay, etc) could look huge just because their baseline was small and thisshapes how we interpret actual impact.
Spaces :
The issue with spaces is a good example of how a normal human habit like just using spaces becomes a technical problem. Something that comes so naturally to us when naming a file turns into extra work in command-line environments, which j shows a big difference between human language and systems.
So here is my list of things that should not appear in file names:
The goal of this piece is defintiely more practical than academic. It works like informal documentation meant to help readers toward better file-naming practices.
On most days I move between Mac OS X (HFS+), Windows XP (mostly NTFS, some FAT32), Windows 2003 (NTFS), FreeBSD (UFS/UFS2) and Linux (pick one).
The author baiscally supports his point by describing his experience working across many operating systems. This shows that the issues he mentions come from actual technical experience.
Okay, all kidding aside, having goofy file names can make life miserable.
The author’s main argument is that file naming is not just a personal preference. Poor file names create like actual technical problems, especially when files are shared or moved between different systems.
Thus users might search and find relevant works, but not be able to view them.
This shows how early digital library design ignored user experience, making access frustrating instead of helpful, as it hsould actually be.
These six well-funded projects helped set in motion the popular definition of a "digital library." These projects were computer science experiments, primarily in the areas of architecture and information retrieval.
Early digital libraries were primarily defined by technological experiments rather than by actual library needs. They prioritized system development over user support, research usability, and protecting information over time.
But it would be a mistake to see digital libraries as primarily providing ways to access material more quickly or more easily, without having to visit a repository across the country.
Besser argues that digital libraries are about new possibilities, not just things like speed or convenience.