The first of three studies is underway

Jenny Bunn of UCL provided excellent commentary on the draft Introduction and Methodology sections of the IV in PIM paper, and consequently I have completely revised the methodology [IV in PIM, 20Jan2014 – v0.3]. In summary, the approach I will take is to conduct three studies of retain/destroy decision making using two separate collections – a Job Documents collection and a collection of Mementos. For the first study (using the Job Documents collection), a previous categorisation of ‘Reasons for not destroying the paper’ (RFND criteria), made before I was aware of the NARS Intrinsic Value report, will be compared with the NARS Intrinsic Value (IV) characteristics, and a draft set of PIM Retention Criteria (PIMRC) will be derived from the results. The second study will try out and refine the draft PIMRC in the course of digitising those items in the Job Documents collection that have not already been digitised; and the third study will try out and refine the draft PIMRC by reviewing the retain/destroy decisions that have already been made when digitising the Mementos collection. The knowledge gained in each of the second and third studies will then be combined to produce a final set of PIMRC.

I have already started work on the first study and aim to have completed it, and to have derived the draft PIMRC, by the end of this week.

Ideas for exploring Intrinsic Value

In December 2013, Jenny Bunn of UCL’s Department of Information Studies, alerted me to work in the Archival domain on the Intrinsic Value of documents. In particular, the US National Archives and Records Service (NARS) produced an influential report in 1980 titled “Intrinsic Value in Archival Information” which defined nine criteria for retaining an item in its original form after it had been digitised. It immediately occurred to me that my Document collection and Memento collection could be used to establish if the NARS Intrinsic Value (IV) criteria are applicable to Personal Information Management (PIM) practices. So, I defined three research studies in the form of Introduction and Methodology sections of a journal paper and sent them to three people for comment: Ann O’Brien (University of Loughborough), Jenny Bunn (University College London), and William Jones (University of Washington). William Jones has already responded and I have taken his comments into account in the latest draft of the paper – IV in PIM, 05Jan2014 – v0.2. Once I get the remaining two responses and take any feedback into account, I shall start work on the studies.

Intrinsic Value of Artefacts

One of the people Neil Beagrie suggested I get in touch with was Elizabeth Shepherd, an Archivist and Records Management specialist in UCL’s Department of Information Studies. I duly emailed her early in Dec2013 and she asked Jenny Bunn, a Lecturer in the Department who is initiating a new teaching module on Digital Curation in January 2014, to contact me. Since then, Jenny and I have had a number of exchanges and we have agreed that there is potential for her students to make use of my document collection as a resource – though there is too little time to sandwich it into the early 2014 syllabus. Instead, I may go down to speak with her students in February or March.

Jenny also alerted me to a report on the Intrinsic Value of documents produced by the US National Archives and Records Service (NARS) in 1980. This is highly relevant to the work I am doing on the artefact in the digital age. So much so, that it has inspired me to define a clear set of research activities to establish if the NARS Intrinsic Value characteristics are relevant in Personal Information Management practices. Since this is now a distinct piece of work with clear objectives I shall continue to report on it under the separate heading of Digital Age Artefacts.

New Scanner – Canon DR2020U

Last Friday my new scanner – a Canon DR-2020U ADF + Flatbed – was delivered, and I have spent the last few days trying to integrate it into my system and exploring its functions. I ordered it through Tradescanners who have an excellent web site enabling comparisons to be made between a wide range of products. The scanner arrived within 24 hours of me placing the order which was excellent. Unfortunately, I’ve experienced two different sets of problems – first my BT Digital Vault software seems to interrupt the scanner software significantly (a problem widely reported on the net – the underlying software, FSHosting, just hogs the CPU); and secondly my existing scanner and Document Management software, which could use an ISIS driver but doesn’t because I haven’t got one for it, seems to interfere with the ISIS driver that came with the Canon scanner. Other than that, the new scanner seems to do everything its supposed to – full duplex scanning of both sides of the paper as it goes through, paper size detection, blank page detection and elimination, and saving to PDF, JPG or TIF as required. I’m pleased – but am having to work through the problems.

The field has exploded in the last 15 years

In an effort to understand what is going on in the world of Personal Electronic Filing, a few weeks ago I emailed some people I had identified from papers and web searches. The results have been very rewarding.

It is now clear to me that what was a niche area in the 1990s has expanded hugely to become a topic in its own right with a large body of literature and a worldwide community of interest. The rise of personal computing, email, social media and the mobile phone has effectively made most individuals – whether they know it or not – personal information managers; personal information is now considered to extend to photos, calendar entries, text messages, social media material etc.;  and the ubiquity of electronic media has necessitated the development of the field of data forensics to capture and identify evidence. The field of Data Preservation is of particular interest to Libraries and Museums which are grappling with the practical problems of curating collections which include digital material. There appear to be many initiatives underway in all these areas, of which various EEC-funded projects, the UK Data Preservation Coalition, the US Library of Congress guidance notes, and William Jones’ Personal Information Management workshops are probably just the tip of the iceberg. I’m grateful to Neil Beagrie for linking me into much of this material.

With this new awareness I have begun to try and understand the role that my personal collection might have. In particular, I’m wondering if it could become a Test Set for exploring Data Preservation issues rather than the original aim of being a Test Set for Personal Indexing and Retrieval (an objective which seems to have become defunct since the rise of the Search Engine). This could be a useful focal point in my continuing search to find people to collaborate with.

 

Personal vs Provided Systems

Today I tried to deal with three email alerts for BIT papers – two for new journal issues (Oct and Nov 2013) and one with some newly received papers. I had previously inspected the papers on my iPhone – a practice which I’m getting used to and finding quite feasible and effective. This despite the back arrows on the Taylor & Francis App no longer working reliably, requiring me to exit the App and re-enter to move to another paper – I shall have to seek advice from the T&F Help Desk for that. When I read a paper on the iPhone, if I decide I want to include it in my filing index, I mark it as a favourite in the App with a view to updating my index when I’m sitting at my PC.  So, today, going through the emails, I was checking the paper titles in the emails against the papers I’d marked as favourites in the iPhone, and I encountered two significant problems:

a)      For one of the papers I had mistakenly made two provisional entries in my index – I must have received two alerts for it at different stages in the acceptance process and when I received the second alert I hadn’t realised that there was already a provisional entry in my index for it. For this to have happened I must have failed to check for an entry in the Favourites section of the App – or maybe I had forgotten to put an entry in the Favourites section when I first saw the paper. This problem is due to the disconnect between the information sent in the emails and the information provided in the iPhone App. Ideally, I’d like to be able to include some information with each paper as it enters the acceptance process – and for that information to be shown presented every time I receive an email about the paper or when I look at the paper in the iPhone App.

b)      I’m finding it very difficult to match the papers in the emails to my index entries. This is because I haven’t been putting the exact title of the paper in the index – my practice up to now has been to put whatever text I want in the index to describe the item concerned. I’ve decided that in future I’m going to have to include the exact title otherwise the whole process is going to be too difficult and time consuming.

These two problems are symptomatic of the two systems (mine and the T&F alerting and App systems) having been designed independently and consequently being highly incompatible with one another. Of course, other users of the T&F system almost certainly operate in different ways and therefore the T&F system is likely to be incompable with many other personal systems. I contend that the best way to address this discrepancy would be to include some general purpose capability that can be moulded in different ways by different users. One such general purpose capability might be to enable each user to attach some personal annotations to each paper and for that private annotation to be presented each time the user sees the title or contents of the paper – regardless whether that is in an email or in the App. Of course there’s no guarantee that such a  solution would work for everyone – or in fact for anyone other than myself. The only way to be sure would be to investigate what all or some real users actually do. I wonder to what extent T&F performed  such a study.

Having completed the exercise of going through the two new issues of the journal, getting my index up to date, downloading copies of the papers for which I’ve made an entry in my index, deleting entries in the ‘Latest’ section of the App, etc., I feel a little exhausted. It was not a quick or pleasant experience – especially when having to deal with two new issues all at once. Overall, the switch from a paper version of BIT to an electronic version is, so far, taking up a lot more of my time and involving me in a lot of extra nugatory work.

What Museums and Galleries are up to

Since my last entry five weeks ago, I’ve been consumed by digitising the Year files and am glad to say I’m almost up to 1978. However, this has been to the exclusion of most other things, so today I decided to release my brain a little and explore what museums have been doing on the net. It was a Guardian article on Gallery websites on 09Apr2013 that prompted me, and I’m very glad that I followed it up. Museums and Galleries have cottoned on in a big way that the net is another, most important, way to reach their audience. And they are exploring a variety of different ways of doing so. I was impressed by the ability to view, full screen, a huge selection of the Tate’s painting; by the Louvre’s simple and brief explanation of paintings, by a miniature avatar man (and by the fact that it was all in English); and by the Taipei’s National Palace Museum’s 3D displays of pottery which you can turn round and upside down at will. I’ve come away thinking that the ability to enlarge pictures and objects really makes a difference, and that it’s important not to overface the viewer with too much at once – give a little AND let the viewer seek more seems to work very well.  I have perceived that, once I’ve finished digitising all these year files – and family photos – and the remainder of the work-related files – once all that’s done, the real fun of exploring how to make it all come to life will begin. This initial exploration of some museums and galleries will feed my thinking for how to do that.

A Second Column for Facets

I’ve been giving the Excel Index that I developed last year a lot of use – mainly for the Memento Management  activity – and I’ve decided that having just one column for Facet is not enough. Inevitably there are cases where you want to specify two facets (for example, Loughborough and Rugby) and this is easily done by just putting one after the other with a comma between in the single Excel cell. The trouble is that Excel’s filter facility lists things alphabetically so, in the example above, if you look for Loughborough the entry “Loughborough, Rugby” appears in the appropriate position. However, if you are looking up “Rugby” the “Loughborough, Rugby” entry does not appear in that position so you may miss that particular item related to Rugby.

I’ve addressed the problem by including a second column for Facet, and by including both entries in both columns but with one in reverse order to the other, for example, in Column 1 “Loughborough, Rugby” and in column 2 “Rugby, Loughborough”. This ensures that, provided a search is done in both columns for a particular facet, you will find every instance of that facet and all secondary facets used with the facet being searched for.

Update to the Wish Table Template

As I continue to deal with the Year Files (I’m up to 1972 now), I’m finding a number of ways to improve the Wish Table. So, today, I’ve completed an update [Wish Table Template v3.0 – 21Sep2013] in order to a) improve the categories of reasons for keeping things, b) include columns to specify that an item is being got rid of and why, and c) improve the layout for completing and printing the table. This will make it easier to fill in, and much easier to analyse the results – which is one the main reasons for recording  what I’m doing in the Wish Table. The original aim of the Wish Table (as described in the entry of 03Apr2013) was to help me decide what to do with each item. I can now see that the information it is recording could be analysed to contribute to our understanding of why people keep things and what they like to keep. It’s also beginning to dawn on me that the Wish Table might be useful to my family when they inherit these things from me. [NB. A further update to Wish Table Template v4.0 was produced on 18Aug2016]

All set to go with the new T&F App

Yesterday I finally got the Taylor & Francis App working on my iPhone after being advised I needed to delete all the history and the cookies in my iPhone browser. It looks as though it could be very useful as it will very quickly display the full text of all the latest articles that are published on the main website prior to final versions being produced and included in the Journal proper. Therefore, I will be alerted to new articles by email (which I can pick up on the iPhone) and should be able to quickly scan through them on the iPhone to see if they are of interest. For papers that I’m interested in, I make an entry in my filing index, so there will be a disconnect at that point when I will have to revert to the laptop. However, the ease of access to the papers and the easy-to-use facilities available to navigate through them, promise to make the whole business of initial scanning/reading of the paper a much quicker and easier process.

Another major issue I’ve had is to distinguish between papers I have already looked at and those I haven’t, when the email alerts come in. This is because the papers go through several stages before being included in the journal proper – and as they progress through each stage they are included in alert messages. The iPhone App may resolve this problem because it separates papers into two categories – Latest Articles and Accepted Author Versions. I’m hoping that I can restrict my viewing to just the Latest Articles section – though I’m not really clear on what is included under that heading – I need to try it out a little bit and will provide a further report when I’ve done so.