From Access to Use: the quality

of human-archives interactions
as a research question
Pierluigi Feliciati
University of Macerata (Italy)
Dodson Visiting Professor at UBC iSchool
premise
Barbara Craig, 1998: there is a risk that archives are

“condemned by their own methods to fall short in meeting the needs

of their users […] an updated version of the familiar scenario in which it
is assumed that conflicting demands and distinctions exist between
select services for an elite clientele and popular appeal and services for
the many”.
Access as an archival function
In the life cycle of archives, to perform the functions of creation,
retain, appraisal, preservation and disposition of records (and
information, or data, or metadata), they need to be accessed.
In digital environments, Access is possible mostly through Human-
Computer-Interaction, using ad-hoc interfaces.
The easiness-of-use of interfaces affects the intrinsic and estrinsic
quality of records, in terms of effectiveness of any function related
to their use.
Access as an archival function
The function of Access in digital environments is quite
complex.
It requires linguistic, cognitive, technical and content related
competences, to ensure effective writing, retrieval,
identification, comprehension, and connection into a
knowledge environment.
• So, Access could be configured as a pre-requirement to
perform any Use of Archives.
Archival description
ISAD(G) 2 -1999
Archival description
RiC-CM 0.1-2017
Access in OAIS (ISO 14721)
Access in Interpares 2
Users?
The notion of users should refer not just to final users, but to
any kind of USE (human or not) of records and archives, since
their very creation to their preservation and reading for
cultural purposes.

See: Access privileges

The authority to access a system to compile, classify, register, retrieve,
annotate, read, transfer or destroy records, granted to a person,
position or office within an organization or agency. (IP2 Dictionary)
Users or uses?
According to Beck 1977, information retrievers could be classified
whether they are
• browsers, interested in all the information meeting her criteria, not
concerned with the preciseness of how the material retrieved fits to her
search strategy, conscious that research needs time. Berry-keepers!
• searchers, interested in an exact fit between her information needs,
specifications, and the output that she receives. They are typically in a
hurry!
• reductionists, concerned about the interrelationships between various sets
of information, interested not only in the object under discussion, but also
the actor’s orientation toward that object, the perception that the actor
has of that object, and the intentions of the actor. We, studying
information and users
Users or uses?
• Whether the mission is to give easy access and fair use of
records to all categories of users, we must consider that:
• We can not tailor services on expert use(r)s
• Someone can be or not specialized or interested in deepening
archives provenance, maybe she’s just curious, or looking for
informational evidence of facts.
• An emerging category of users are the Genealogy-makers (Duff-
Johnson 2003), who are typically interested in the information
contained in records, in spite of being strumentally specialized in
the connection between records and in the provenance
Ethics and access to Archives
• ICA Statement of Principles Regarding Archival Description (1992), Preface and
art. 1.
• ICA Code of Ethics (1996), art. 6
• ICA Principles on Access to Archives (2013), art. 1, 3

The so-called «power of archivists» depends above all on the providing

of the widest possible access to trustful archives for everyone. The
principles application is not that granted, in the direct, on-site
mediation with users as well in the development and management of
digital services.
(Horn 1989, Shwatrz-Cook 2002, Robertson 2004, Cook 2006, Greene 2009)
Quality of Use
The Quality of Use depends on “the effectiveness, productivity,
safety or satisfaction with which specified users achieve
specified goals in a specified context of use. [It] depends not
only on the software product, but also on the particular context
in which the product is being used.” (ISO/IEC TR 9126-4:2004).
3 core concepts: 1. the goals/services, 2. the context/users
and 3. the evaluation of quality.
Monitoring the Use – and delivering a quality archival service - includes
evaluating needs, expectations (Goals/User), and UX (Context/Users)
Research lines - 1. content / goal / service
The digital output should be clearly distinguished from the
encoded input (Sheir 2005), to be easily decodable. The
conducted user studies highlighted some typical issues:
• Language: the archival jargon for labels, archival descriptions and search tools
• Structure: the hierarchical browsing not supported is not necessarily intuitive

To be considered new approaches in the abstraction and

representation of archival records (Whitelaw 2009, Duff et al. 2011, Lemieux
2014), and in the activation of participatory functions, from
description to appraisal (Duff, Harris 2002; Shilton, Srinivasan 2007)
Research lines - 2. HCI / Engagement
• Users (in any phase of archives life-cycle) could be unfamiliar
with the context and content domain provided, and not be in
the position to query it effectively (Whitelaw 2009)
• The HCI analysis and advanced solutions, the User
Engagement studies (O’Brien, Toms 2008) and the User-Centred
design should guide the archival displays development.
Visual and cognitive metrics and evidences on quality perception
should drive the conception of archival displays.
Reseach lines - 3. User-based Evaluation
Since 20 years in North-America a debat on the actual satisfaction
against archival finding aids (Yakel, Duff, Lemieux, …) and several
archival user studies were organized and published.
Almost nothing in Europe, where we rather discuss on how to answer
better to «annoying users who do not understand the basics of
archives».
• Nevertheless there are no widely accepted metrics for archival user
studies: no models to base a research on, no benchmarking possible,
every study has just a local relevance
The precious prototype phase - CPA
• Una Città per gli Archivi (A City for Archives – CPA) is a project
supported by two bank foundations, with the collaboration of some
institutions of Bologna (Italy).
• Its mission is to improve the preservation, valorization and full access
for the most important Archives related to the contemporary history
of the city. The huge project started in 2007. 200 archives – with
300.000 photographic and graphic materials, sound and audiovisual
recordings in addition to paper documents – have been arranged and
described. 70 archivists were involved. 200.000 digital objects.
• During the Web portal development, we organized a user-based
evaluation study was organized. https://www.cittadegliarchivi.it/.
The precious prototype phase - CPA
During the formative phase, it is not possible to investigate final
users experience, but precious qualitative data about UX and
expectations could be obtained, in order to assess and improve
the product.
Organized in 2012, on CPA prototype, under my coordination:
• 1 stakeholder’s brainstorming meeting (archivists + ICT staff +
sponsors): +20 people
• 5 focus groups with sample final users (university students, high
schools students, archivists, museum curators, librarians, high
school teachers, general public): +60 people
• Expert evaluation (3 archivists, 3 experts on digital CH, 1 ICT
university professor)
 Evaluation is the key
• There are few reference models for «monitoring access» or, even better, for
developing and testing the quality of archival services. To be quoted just the Archival
Metrics toolkit (Duff et al. 2010), designed to support archivists in conducting user-
based evaluations (for on-site contexts).
• It is desiderable to activate synergies, starting from existing models for DL like the
Tryptich interaction framework (Tsakonas et al. 2007) or the DLRM (2007).
Areas of improvement
1. Improve the informative quality and processing models of records /
information packages (terms, onthologies, categorization, provenance as
a support for understading and trust, not just a searching funnel neck).
2. Improving a user-centric approach in the conception and development of
archival digital environments (information studies, usability, cognitive
psychology)
3. Legitimize a shared authority model (Duff and Harris, 2002) for archival
descriptions, opening e.g. to re-use UX annotations and data mining.
4. Organize user studies to assess finding aids’ systems, digital and not
5. Drive the adoption of disruptive technologies, not just adapt to them:
NLP, AI processing of information, Blockchain…
Possible benefits of user-centric approach

• Improved relationships citizen-government/corporate

• Improved reputation and social and economical impact of
archives (the power of archives: archivists as quality service
providers)
• Positive synergies between information professionals
 Some references
• Beck, C. (1977) Information Systems and Social Sciences, American Behavioral Scientist, 20 (3), 427–448.
• Candela L. et al. (2007), The DELOS Digital Library Reference Model: Foundations for Digital Libraries, [version 0.98],
http://delosw.isti.cnr.it/files/pdf/ReferenceModel/DELOS_DLReferenceModel_096.pdf.
• Chapman, J. C. (2010) Observing Users: an empirical analysis of user interaction with online finding aids, Journal of
Archival Organization, 8: 4–30.
• Craig, B. L. (1998) Old Myths in New Clothes: expectations of archives users, Archivaria, 45: 118–26.
• Duff, W. (2012), User Studies in Archives, in Dobreva, M., O’Dwyer, A. and Feliciati, P. (eds), User Studies for Digital
Library Development, Facet Publishing: 199–206.
• Duff, W. and Harris, V. (2002) Stories and Names: archival description as narrating records and constructing
meanings, Archival Science, 2: 263–285.
• Duff, W., et al. (2010), The Development, Testing, and Evaluation of the Archival Metrics Toolkits. American Archivist
73, no. 2: 569-599.
• Duff W., Monks-Leeson E., Galey A. (2012), Contexts built and found: a pilot study on the process of archival
meaning-making, Archival Science, 12: 69–92.
• Feliciati, P. and Alfier, A. (2014), From Access to Use: premises for a user tested quality model for the development
of archives online, in Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries: TPDL 2013 selected workshops, Springer, 174–179.
• Horn D. E. (1989), The Development of Ethics in Archival Practice, American Archivist, Vol. 52: 64-71.
 Some references
• Lemieux, V. (2014), Toward a “Third Order” Archival Interface: Research Notes on Some Theoretical and Practical
Implications of Visual Explorations in the Canadian Context of Financial Electronic Records, Archivaria, 78: 53–93.
• O’Brien, H.L. & Toms, E.G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user
engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(6): 938-
955.
• Pulido, JRG et al. (2006), Identifying Ontology Components from Digital Archives, Proceedings of the IASTED
Conference, Mexico.
• Scheir W., (2005) First entry: report on a qualitative exploratory study of novice user experience with online
finding aids, «Journal of archival organization», 3, n. 4: 49-85.
• Shilton K. and Srinivasan R. (2007), Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival
Collections, Archivaria, 63: 87-101.
• Tsakonas G. And Papatheodorou (2006), Analysing and evaluating usefulnessand usability in
electronicinformation services, Journal of Information Science, 32 (5): 400–419.
• Yakel, E. (2003) Impact of Internet-Based Discovery Tools on Use and Users of Archives, Comma: 191–200.
• Yakel, E. (2004) Encoded Archival Description: are finding aids boundary spanners or barriers for users?, Journal
of Archival Organization, 2: 63–77.
• Yakel, E. et al. (2012), The Economic Impact of Archives: Surveys of Users of Government Archives in Canadaand
the United States, The American Archivist, Vol. 75, No. 2: 297-325.
Thank you for your
attention

Any questions?

pierluigi.feliciati@unimc.it