TUG Report
The Alexandria Digital Library project is designed to serve the
needs of a broad spectrum of user groups from the Geographic Information
System specialist to the Earth Science researcher to the teacher
in the classroom. It is designed to be a library in the traditional
sense where materials at all levels of sophistication are in the
collection and the search and retrieval services that provide
access to those materials is useable by the diverse customer base
of the library. The challenge is to reach this goal in an electronic
environment where the traditional reference librarian is not present
and where the range of materials extends to complex geospatial
entities: aerial photos, remote sensing images, digital maps,
etc.
In the beginning of the development of the ADL, the focus was
on taking what the librarians and developers knew about geospatial
information and information systems and building an online library
to store and provide access to this information. A rapid prototype
system was built, followed by a World Wide Web interface. Both
of these efforts served to address many of the technical issues
of presentation, access, storage, and retrieval. User comments
were collected through questionnaires, surveys, and online feedback.
This feedback was directed to the interface, the collection, and
the functions of the system. Through this time, there was no coordinated
effort to find out from potential users what they would expect
a system like ADL to do for them.
In the summer of 1996, the ADL web interface was out for beta
testing. The development team was aware that a fundamental re-engineering
of the system architecture needed to be addressed to provide a
more effective set of capabilities for users and to support goals
of scalability and interoperability. ADL users needed to be given
a sense of understanding and control over their use of the system
for their own purposes while still giving them access to distributed,
heterogeneous collections of information with complex search,
retrieval and processing capabilities.
To find out what potential ADL users would expect the system to
do for them, three target user groups were established. They were
(1) Earth Scientists, (2) Information Intermediaries, and (3)
Educators. Three individuals for each group were identified and
invited to participate by ADL staff. These individuals had to
be local to the UCSB area and available to attend two meetings
during August.
On August 12, 1996, an introductory meeting was held to initiate
a process of obtaining user requirements from these target user
groups. The goal of the meeting was stated as
To inaugurate three formal user groups to advise the Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project on system design. At the end of the meeting, participants should have an introductory understanding of the ADL Project goals and the design issues in four areas, be able to use the current ADL web interface, and be aware of similar services on the web that can inform ADL design. This meeting will be followed by an all-day working session on August 23rd.
The agenda for the two-hour introductory meeting included an overview
of ADL, a short demo of the web interface, the presentation of
the status and issues for four requirement areas: content, search,
retrieval,
and processing,
and the presentation of a set of user scenarios that had been
contributed by the participants before the meeting and gleaned
from earlier ADL documents and other sources. The participants
were given a set of URLs for web-based systems that they were
encouraged to visit to get ideas about how the ADL interface might
develop and they were encouraged to use the ADL interface itself
before our next meeting.
The next meeting was an all-day session on August 23rd.
The goal of the meeting was stated as:
To develop three initial views of ADL content and functionality for educational, information intermediary, and earth science user groups. Near-term and long-term research and operational goals will be identified for the design of ADL from the users' perspective.
The agenda for the all day session started with an introduction and instructions on what to do in the small group sessions. The target groups then met separately, with an ADL leader, to generate and rate requirements for content, searching, retrieval, and processing functions. The instructions given to the groups were as follows:
Charge to the Groups
For 3-6, rate each recommendation according to importance and
timing using a 1 to 5 numbering scale. An importance of 1 would
be of the highest importance. A timing of 1 would mean that it
should be one of the first things done.
Ideas of the types of recommendations that could be made:
Content
Search
Retrieval
Processing
They each started off their sessions choosing the scenarios that
best represented their user environments. Using those as guidance,
they created requirement statements and rated them in terms of
their importance and when they should be implemented (now or later).
Interface and navigation issues were added as a fifth category
since comments about the interface kept coming up. The requirement
statements and ratings were captured on sheets of paper that were
hung up around the room.
After lunch, the group was shown a short video of two innovative
interface approaches: PAD++ and Magic Lens. This was intend to
expand their vision of what is possible for the ADL interface.
This was followed by an hour and a half discussion of all participants
where the major points from each discussion was presented and
discussed. The result was a combined list of requirement statements
and the choice of scenarios that represented each group.
The discussion continued after an afternoon break. An attempt
was made to prioritize the importance of each statement. However,
eventually only one rating parameter was used. Independent ratings
on both importance and timing proved to be too difficult to implement.
An evaluation form was filled out by the participants before they
left. It had only three questions. Here are the questions and
the responses:
What did we learn about the Target Groups: How can we characterize them individually?
Earth Scientists
The Earth Scientist (ES) Group will look to ADL as a source of data for their research and development activities. They are interested in access to better technology as well as access to available data sets so that they can do better science.
ES works in a high-tech environment and is interested in speed and the capability of handling large data sets. They want to perform more complex analyses and integrate disparate data sets. They want to develop models of complex systems and be able to visualize the results.
ES will have very specific search criteria in terms of level of detail, source and nature of the data, and data quality. They are likely to need to obtain copies of the data set for use with their own software.
The ES Group would like for ADL to provide a working environment where they can find and manipulate spatial data sets and related georeferenced data and information that are related to particular research problems.
The Earth Scientist Group chose the following scenarios as best representing their activities:
11. Environmental data: I am a Ph.D. student in the chemical engineering. I am currently working on an environmental partition model that will be used to calculate risk indicies for use in preliminary industrial design. Some of the parameters for the model includes, the plant areal density, (kg plants/m^2), and fraction organic carbon content of the soil and sediment. We are looking for region specific data, (i.e. midwest, southwest, east coast, west coast, etc...). I realize this data varies greatly over any region specified as large as this, however, in a more general sense the data will, for example, vary from southwest to midwest. I am told that studies such as this have been conducted and would like to know if you have access to this data or know of a source where I could find it. Any help is greatly appreciated.
15. Basemaps: The most important use that I have had for spatial data has been in the acquisition of digital basemaps. For example, DLG files or Census tiger files for various areas about the United States.
16. Aerial photography: From Blue Oak Project. This project required identifying available historical aerial coverage between 1938 and 1950 at scales of either 1:20,000 or 1:24,000 for 150 site locations throughout California's vast Blue Oak Woodland habitat areas. Sites were identified by lat./long. coordinates. Also, roll and frame identification for the same 150 sites from recent NAPP coverage at 1:40,000 was needed.
17. Aerial photography: From recent searches in preparation for pending litigation stemming from the La Conchita landslide, Ventura Co., CA. All available coverage from aircraft platforms of La Conchita regardless of scale, film type, date, or perspective (vertical and oblique). Stereo coverage preferred. Since site is located near Ventura/Santa Barbara counties border, it is necessary to search existing analog record (organized by county) under both counties since coverage often slops over county boundaries. A subset of this search (and one more common to our usual requests) would be to search for best (most detailed) stereo coverage of site at as close to 5 year intervals as possible from earliest to present.
18. LANDSAT search: Identify Landsat scene ID's for coverage of Beijing, China area (Landsat 1 to 3 Path/Row's: P132/R32 & P133/R32) within MIL's holding parameters. Cloud cover limit: 20% or less. Quality limit: 5 or 8. Holding dates: Landsat 1 between 7/72 and 11/75; Landsat 2 between 1/75 and 10/78.
19. Aerial photos and remote sensing: Researcher wants to know the available air photo and remote sensing coverage for a region. And what is available in the library. More specifically, the researcher might want to find out what the earliest photo available is and the latest photo and what photos are available with scales greater than xxx.
25. Environmental monitoring over time: Environmental change research tied to specific locations. Examples: habitat loss, landscape changes following development, flood and fire events, regional biodiversity.
31. GIS analysis: Find a map, at a scale no smaller than 1 in 200,000 that: covers any part of the Mississippi Valley; shows a town with a population of over 500,000 people; shows roads; is within a 30 minute drive of some Indian burial sites for which the library has nineteenth century photographs in digital form.
Information Intermediaries
What sets apart the Information Intermediary (II) Group: Seeking information for others rather than for personal information needs. Therefore, IIs will see a wide range of information needs, not just specifically geared to a certain age or subject and will have to know at least a little bit about many information contexts. This group will not necessarily use the found information, but pass it on or point someone to it. This group acts as a guide, directing seekers to appropriate sources for their information needs. This group acts as a filter: digesting and understanding a user's query. In order to point, however, this group must have some rudimentary hands-on skills. Knowing how things like ADL, ftp, and Arc/Info work, helps the search and retrieval process. Knowing what can and can't be done (yet) also helps. This group does not necessarily produce a final product like the Earth Science group. This group will not necessarily walk users through the process from start to finish (finding the information, collecting it, manipulating it, producing a report) like the Education group will with their students. This group may, depending on their mission, offer training and introductory classes, but this is not often done by general reference intermediaries, but by special agents like Map Librarians and GIS Information Intermediaries. This group spends more time with the information system to find and retrieve data/information and therefore can learn and use more sophisticated (complicated) functions. This group will be more likely to handle "difficult" search and retrieval tasks. This group will handle multiple queries in one session for different people. For example, using ADL to do a search for a student and then starting a completely new search for a faculty member.
The II group would like ADL to help them do their job of identifying and making available information resources that meet the needs of their clientele for spatial and georeferenced information.
The Information Intermediary Group chose the following scenarios
as best representing their activities:
1.Locate named place: Student wants to know location of river, or land feature, described in a paper.
2.Location of place with uncertain spelling: I'm looking for a small town in GermAny, I don't know if it's east or west Germany. It's called Heidebring, or Hiedebring, or something like that. I'm not sure of the spelling.
3.Locate spatial location and find associated terminology: An indexer (cataloger) has a document about a lake in East Africa. The name of the lake cannot be found in the list of valid (authorized) terms for indexing (cataloging) and the author of the document includes only the latitude and longitude coordinates and the country in which the lake is located, but not the region or geological provinces of which it is a part. The indexer needs to find by spatial reference (the lat-long coordinates available) the appropriate regional terms to add to the indexing (cataloging) record.
5.Text and image search: At ten year or less intervals, find all documents describing Mascalitan island and images with a resolution more than 2 meters during summer periods and maps prior to 1930 at a scale greater than 1:24,000. Mascalitan island is a landlocked feature in Santa Barbara County.
7.Country-related information: What do you have about the political regions of Brazil as well as data you have for concerning the country's infrastructure in all the main built-up areas of Brazil's municpios.
16.Aerial photography: From Blue Oak Project. This project required identifying available historical aerial coverage between 1938 and 1950 at scales of either 1:20,000 or 1:24,000 for 150 site locations throughout California's vast Blue Oak Woodland habitat areas. Sites were identified by lat./long. coordinates. Also, roll and frame identification for the same 150 sites from recent NAPP coverage at 1:40,000 was needed.
17.Aerial photography: From recent searches in preparation for pending litigation stemming from the La Conchita landslide, Ventura Co., CA. All available coverage from aircraft platforms of La Conchita regardless of scale, film type, date, or perspective (vertical and oblique). Stereo coverage preferred. Since site is located near Ventura/Santa Barbara counties border, it is necessary to search existing analog record (organized by county) under both counties since coverage often slops over county boundaries. A subset of this search (and one more common to our usual requests) would be to search for best (most detailed) stereo coverage of site at as close to 5 year intervals as possible from earliest to present.
Educators
The Educators Group is interested in incorporating technology and resources into their classroom activities. They put a high value on creating environments where students have the opportunity to think critically and where they have access to powerful information resources they can use to address real-world concerns. They would like for students to be able to use resources to get data they can manipulate to generate their own "products" - charts, maps, and essays based on what they learn.
The work environment for education is significantly different from that of the other target groups. If there is a computer in the classroom it may be the only one, and very likely it does not have a fast processor or a lot of memory. Most schools still have the most of their computers in computer labs and teachers are still working out ways to develop curriculum to use them effectively. There are classrooms with several computer workstations where the curriculum is focused on collaborative learning. In such cases, teachers may want to know how ADL can be a resource for group activities. Connectivity at the T1 level is coming to public schools but is not currently present in all locations.
Primarily, education is going to be interested in knowing how to teach the system itself and what it offers and then how to use ADL as a resource to teach other concepts.
The Educator Group chose the following scenarios as best representing their activities:
35.Classroom: Students using historical maps and photographs for research projects on their own communities . (We have a "County Connections" Internet project where students are researching their own community, and then creating a web page with pictures, interviews, etc.)
36.Classroom: Several schools are participating in a field test of the Magellan maps database which has current maps and satellite images.
37.Classroom: In science, students would be looking for weather patterns, erosion patterns, geologic formations, etc.
New scenarios from the Educator Group:
Foreign language class report: French class report
on culture. Where do I begin. They speak French in France? [ADL
should provide choice by country]
Earth Science class exercise: A computer tells us there is an earthquake today in Lodi.
Research local history class exercise: County Connections
Project, Elementary to High School: research local history,
resources, etc. and create a web page with maps, pictures, interviews,
etc.
Family Trees: tracing "roots" and culture.
GLOBE Project: measuring temperatures and all sorts of characteristics of a plot of ground.
Recommendations from the large and small group discussions
The following recommendations are reported first from the large group discussions and then by each small group. Numbering is used for the lists from the large group discussions; the numbers do not necessarily indicate priority - it is the order in which the points were made during the large group discussion. The small group recommendations are not numbered but carry with them the priorities set by the group. Numbers following the item in the lists are priority rankings for "Importance, Timing", each on a scale of 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest).
Content
CONTENT & DATA SETS to be loaded in order:
Comments directly from Target Group discussions:
Earth Science (other than what appears above)
Information Intermediaries
Education
Search
Comments directly from Target Group discussions:
Earth Science
Information Intermediaries
Retrieval
Comments directly from Target Group discussions:
Earth Science
Information Intermediaries
Education
Processing
Comments directly from Target Group discussions:
Earth Science
Information Intermediaries
Education
Interface and Navigation; Other
Comments directly from Target Group discussions:
Information Intermediaries
Education
Results of the Target User Group Sessions
Summary of Discussions - What did we learn?
An overall summary of the discussions will be useful perhaps to give a high-level view of what we learned as a result of these session. However, any summary will lose the richness of the actual scenarios and requirement statements which were the most important products from this activity. These will form the nucleus of our future discussions with other user groups to obtain a richer picture of what ADL users expect the system to do.
For content, each target group had a different selection of resources that they would like to see in ADL. Historical coverage was mentioned in some way in each group. Aerial photographs were mentioned by both the Earth Scientists and the Information Intermediaries. The Education Group, who didn't know as much about what is available, mentioned less technical sets of information. The content list of the Earth Scientist group confirmed the choice of sets to add to the library already made by the ADL staff.
There were many good ideas for enhanced search capability and search help that came from the groups. They requested more support in terms of customized screens, query examples, canned queries, intelligent assistance, and more explicit directions about what to do next. The idea that the system needs to be backed up by personal attention to help users work through their problems received general support. Simpler search methods (natural language searching and the use of icons for types of data) were requested. They ask for the ability to sort the result sets and to have support for iterative searching - that is, moving easily from a previous query to a new one.
Ideas for retrieval functions focused on the delivery of an end product to users (printed copies and electronic copies); on the ranking of retrieved sets by some parameter; on being able to use the results of previous searches to build new queries or combine result sets; and on being able to visualize the result sets and browsing items in the sets.
The discussion on processing focused on various customization capabilities, such as extracting portions of an image or combining information from various sources to build a map; on the availability of GIS functionality and modeling software; on format conversion; and on the architectural design problem of where this type of software should "live" - at the server, at the client, or at a third-party vendor.
The interface ideas that came up (even though it wasn't a specific topic scheduled for discussion) covered ideas for a future interface as well as reactions to the current Web beta interface. Reactions to the current interface led to requests for better tutorials, better ability to track where you are in the system, better quality control of the metadata, and simplified pages - especially the first page. Ideas for the future included user profiles, applet forms, context notes, and query by example.
What didn't work well
What did work well
Next Steps
Since the Target User Group Sessions, the UIE Team has worked with the set of Requirement Statements and manipulated them in various ways. First, we went through a process of sorting them into categories as individuals and then using these various sorts to create a categorization scheme for each set of statements. This activity focused attention on the relationship of the statements to design and implementation decisions. With this structure, it was possible to see which statements were redundant - spoke to the same issue - and that there were obvious gaps where user input would be welcome. The statements were also edited for clarity. The intention is to use the statements with the same Target User Groups and with additional groups where users will be asked to rate and rank the statements according to the importance they have to them. Users will also continue to be asked for additional scenarios and for additional requirement statements.