Creating a well-used resource for the arts and humanities

Log Analysis of Internet Resources in the Arts and Humanities (LAIRAH) was ‘a study to discover what influences the long-term sustainability and use of digital resources in the humanities’ based at University College London’s School of Library Archive and Information Studies. It undertook deep log analysis of the resources made available through Intute (previously Humbul and Artifact), as well as the Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS) portal. One of the key findings that drew my attention was that the title of the resource is important in take up, that it should be clear and unambiguous, and that the scope and content of resources must be made very clear. (And so say all of us on the Archives Hub team). Whatever the context, titles are absolutely crucial, and maybe becoming more so, as there is so much information out there and users will often use the title as the only indication of whether the resource is worth actually looking at. There was evidence that user testing is highly valuable, with the most well-used projects often being those that carried out user testing, as well as ensuring that there was effective dissemination of information about the resource. It is surprising how few projects carry out systematic user testing and surveys. Maybe this is largely a problem of a lack of resources, as it would seem likely that most information professionals would want to ensure that their users are fully on board and consulted. But maybe it is partly an indication that we can easily get bound up with our own plans and priorities, and become less user-focused. I also can’t help thinking that attempts at user surveys often fail because it is difficult to actually get people to participate in them. The fact that ‘few projects realised the importance of ensuring their resource remained sustainable’ is maybe surprising. I was under the impression that sustainability was moving more towards the forefront of thinking when setting up projects, but maybe not…and maybe this is largely down to the fact that sustainable projects require a funding model that has long term maintenance and updating built in, which is not the norm. It may be that the AHDS was seen as a safe home for the future of many resources, but the fact that the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is ceasing funding for the AHDS illustrates one of the problems of preservation for the long-term. (AHDS are currently looking to ‘to develop a strategy for the future direction…that ensures this expertise remains available…for the long-term’.) The findings of the project suggested that around 30% of digital resources remain unused, which is disappointingly high, though apparently comparable to the number of scientific articles that remain un-cited. The recommendations of the report are well worth reading, particularly the recommendations listing the components of a well-used resource, which act like a checklist, and if more widely adhered to may help to increase use of said under-used resources. As well as said titles, user testing and dissemination, there is the importance of making server logs available (subject to confidentiality), keeping full documentation, having an interface that is designed for a wide variety of users and is actively maintained and updated, having staff with subject expertise and having good technical support. Ending my blog on a positive note, the report makes the point that information resources, including libraries, archives and research centres ‘have not been replaced by digital resources’ and that both require continued funding.