User Advisory Group Minutes
Title:
User Advisory Group
Date of Meeting:
18 June 2013
Location:
The National Archives
Attendees:
Staff
Mary Gledhill, Chair (MG) – Commercial Director
Lee Oliver (LMO) - Head of Public Services Development
Sarah Leggett (SL) – Marketing Manager
Nick Kingsley (NK) – Head of Archives Sector Development
Jonathan Cates (JC) – Collections Information and Systems Manager
Roger Kershaw (RK) – Head of Military, Maritime, Transport and Family History
Emma Bayne (EB) – Head of Systems Development
James Lawson (JL) – Customer Intelligence Manager
Guy Grannum (GG) – Discovery Product Manager
Corinne Harrison (CH) - Reader Adviser
Mark Jones (MJ) – Customer Intelligence Assistant
Foluke Abiona (FA) – Customer Intelligence Officer
Joanna Robinson (JR) – Customer Intelligence Assistant (Minutes)
Delegates
Professor Anne Laurence (AL) – Academic users
Gillian Stevens (GS) – Onsite personal interest users
Graham Woolgar (GW) – Onsite personal interest users
Professor Grace Ioppolo (GI) – Academic users
Bob O’Hara (BO’H) – Independent Researchers
Susan Moore (SM) – Map Room Users
Margaret O’Sullivan (MO’S) - County/external archives
Nell Darby (ND) - Student users
Andrew Chapman (AC) – Online users
Apologies
Else Churchill (EC) - Family History Societies
Patrick Vernon (PV) - Diversity/inclusion
Dr Nicola Phillips (NP) – Map Room Users
Dr Paul Dryburgh (PD) – County/external archives
Dr Julie Anderson (JA) – Diversity/inclusion
Item
Action
1.
Minutes and Matters Arising
1.1
(Item 1.1 19/03) JL said that AC’s picture would be taken following today’s meeting
Page 1 of 6
for inclusion on the UAG delegates’ web page. Post meeting update: the
photographs and details of new delegates are now on the web page:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/get-involved/uag-delegates.htm
1.2
1.3
(Item 1.3 19/03) Post meeting note: The Extraordinary User Forum held on 24 May
2013 at which members of staff from the Information Management and Practice
department were present, was set up in order to answer questions on the Records
Decision Panel that GW and Richard Bateson had. The extensive questions and
answers will be published as soon as possible.
GW suggested an annual report on reclosures stating: Total number of pieces
closed, this then to be ‘broken down’ by type of complainant (e.g. relative, other
individual, TNA, other government department), and type of complaint e.g. would
cause personal anguish, released from department in error etc.
MG agreed to consider this suggestion.
1.4
(Item 1.4 19/03) LMO advised that the UAG delegates’ travel expenses form has
now been reworded to state that claims for mileage from non-Blue Badge holders
will be considered on a case by case basis. The forms will be provided at future
meetings for delegates to submit claims.
It was also noted that all future UAG meetings will now begin at 12 noon.
1.5
(Item 1.6 19/03) GW suggested that a future discussion on the matter of public
consultation regarding digitisation of records had been implied in a response to an
email he had sent in earlier in the year. He requested that a member of staff be
delegated to talk on this subject and to cover issues surrounding quality control of
imagery and transcription. MG agreed to pick up these items in future UAG
agendas.
Post meeting note: We have scheduled a discussion on digitisation strategy and
processes for the September UAG meeting and OCR / transcription / QC for the
December meeting. It would be helpful if UAG members could advise us before
the meetings if there are particular issues associated with each topic that they
would like us to cover.
1.6
(Item 2.1 19/03) GI suggested that the 450th anniversary in 2014 of Shakespeare’s
birth should be added to the list of forthcoming major historical anniversaries to be
marked by TNA between 2014 and 2019. SL agreed to follow this up.
1.7
(Item 4.1 19/03) A post meeting update was provided in the previous minutes.
1.8
(Item 5.3 19/03) GG said that following further investigation it has been concluded
that the location of the ‘details’ link (in the bottom right-hand corner of a series
description when in ‘browse’) on Discovery is considered prominent enough for the
majority of users and would not be revised.
1.9
(Item 5.5 19/03) GG stated that there were mixed views on the matter of refining
search results by date in Discovery. We are working to gradually remove undated
results as the best overall solution. However, GG agreed to investigate the matter
further following a clarification from SM that her concern was about date ranges
rather than undated results.
1.10
(Item 7.1 19/03) MG said that TNA had considered the concerns of some UAG
members regarding the use of Wikipedia and Quick Response (QR) codes in the
Keeper’s Gallery. Some of the QR codes do take visitors directly to pages on the
TNA website, including the new Keeper’s Gallery page. There are several reasons
why linking visitors to Wikipedia is useful: it provides the opportunity for the public
to add comments and links to other information and it offers content in different
Page 2 of 6
LMO/CH
MG
MG
SL
GG
languages. MG pointed out that TNA can reach more people by using Wikipedia
and that it is suitable for a general audience. AC assured the delegates that
Wikipedia is effectively moderated. AL and GI felt that TNA’s expert knowledge
should be utilised in some way. They encouraged TNA to use more links to
material originating from TNA staff as this would provide trusted information about
sources that visitors can access themselves at TNA.
2.
Finding Archives project
2.1
NK gave a presentation on the Finding Archives project. He stated that existing
software cannot be maintained indefinitely. He discussed the challenges involved
in streamlining the use of various datasets which hold different types of information
and which also have different data structures. NK said that TNA is satisfied that
Discovery has the capacity to accommodate these different types of data. He
stated that no existing system will be turned off until TNA is comfortable that the
data and functionality offered in Discovery meet our needs. NK described the
research and development involved in moving the Finding Archives project
forward, and provided a demonstration of how the new system will look and work.
NK noted that for the first time collections information held by National Register of
Archives (NRA) will be searchable and that TNA is planning to encourage
contributors to update information in A2A. He then discussed the next steps in
Finding Archives including: gathering feedback from stakeholders and scoping the
contributor layer of Discovery, which will allow archives to provide content for
inclusion in Discovery. A workshop demonstrating in more detail how Finding
Archives will function immediately followed the UAG meeting.
2.2
SM queried how much consultation had taken place in preparation for the Finding
Archives Project.
NK said that there were extensive consultations both internally and externally
during 2011. SL directed the UAG delegates to the following link for a breakdown
of the consultation process: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archivessector/finding-archives.htm.
2.3
MO’S noted that she was not aware of any follow up to the 2011 consultation
process.
NK advised that work had been going on within TNA to develop the new system
and we are now starting to embark on the next stage of communication with
archives.
2.4
SM asked what the proposed timescale was for the Finding Archives Project.
NK advised that there would be a two stage release during the course of this
financial year. NRA and Archive Online (Archon) data will initially go live on the
website, probably via Labs, later in this financial year.
2.5
AC asked why, as it is out of date, there was a need to keep A2A and why not use
Computerisation for Archives Libraries and Museums (CALM) systems instead?
NK said that although it is closed, A2A still holds value and is very user friendly.
He stated that an estimated 80 – 90% of data in A2A is still valid. The valid data
now needs to be identified to provide the opportunity to input updated information
drawn from archives’ new catalogues into A2A. He also pointed out that not all
archives have online catalogues and A2A is often the only route available.
Page 3 of 6
2.6
GS enquired if there will be a way to inform people about what is and is not held
on the system.
2.7
NK said that there will have to be information provided advising which repositories
are included and how much of a given collection is included. He noted that NRA is
more difficult as we do not know how comprehensive their collections are and TNA
will depend on them supplying us with information about their holdings.
2.8
MO’S pointed out that encouraging archives to keep TNA updated was going to be
a big challenge.
NK said that TNA will be working hard to find ways to collaborate with the various
sources from which this information can be drawn. He also advised the UAG that
TNA needs to find ways to interact with archives which operate with less up to date
formats. He advised that manual intervention is needed in these cases.
2.9
MO’S said it was clear that the accreditation process can highlight strengths and
weaknesses in repositories, and asked how this could help with what is available
at TNA.
NK advised her that TNA has not used that information so far, but he agreed to
take it away and look into it.
2.10
SM asked if TNA will be keeping Archon reference numbers.
NK said that we would.
3.
Delegate submitted items
3.1
AL asked if TNA is proposing to make a submission for the Research Excellence
Framework (REF), especially as this may have implications for the ability of staff
members to apply for funding from the UK Research Councils [national grant
funding bodies, especially the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and
the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)], for the supervision of
collaborative doctoral awards and for the whole matter of funding academic
publication in the light of the discussions about open access. Is a collaboration
such as took place for the Old Bailey online going to be possible in the future or
are all digitisation projects going to have to be undertaken with commercial
partners? Are the people with real archives expertise going to be marginalised
from academic publication in the light of the radical changes that are taking place
in academic publication and the funding of research? Are they increasingly going
to have to inhabit the twilight world of ‘impact’? What will this mean for the careers
of archivists?
3.2
MG said that due to TNA’s status as an Independent Research Organisation (IRO)
rather than a Higher Education Institution (HEI), TNA will not be making a
submission to the REF. We are confident that the new system will have little or no
direct impact on TNA or on our staff involvement in research projects. When it
comes to the wider impact of changes to the world of academic publication our
Head of Research, Val Johnson, is keeping a watching brief on the situation.
3.3
SM stated that there is a lot of ill feeling amongst archivists about Discovery. She
suggested that funding for Finding Archives be withdrawn and the budget
reallocated for the purpose of improving Discovery.
Page 4 of 6
NK
EB said that we are aware that not all users like Discovery even though user
centred design has been central to its development. The feedback that we receive
from users includes both very positive and very negative comments. EB said that
we have a Discovery enhancement board that will continue to look for
improvements. She emphasised that TNA relies on specific feedback from users of
Discovery if we are to progress with resolving issues of user dissatisfaction.
3.4
GW stated that the search engine is clearly problematic, and expressed concern
that a novice user may miss additional information. He suggested that if expert
users are unable to satisfactorily use Discovery, the experience will be more
difficult for those who have no knowledge of Discovery.
GG pointed out that all catalogues require a degree of familiarity with the content
and search function in order to interrogate them thoroughly. MG noted that TNA is
still accepting feedback and asked that specific examples of any problems with
using Discovery are sent to discovery@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk for them to
be added to the issues log for investigation and consideration.
The Discovery team agreed to provide an update on our priorities for
improvements to Discovery at the next meeting.
4.
The Red List Project
4.1
RK provided an update on the Red Lists project, which concerns the removal from
open access of paper lists that are small in size and low in usage. The project has
now been in operation for six months. RK informed UAG that since the programme
started, there has been only one request to bring back a list that had been
removed. This was RG 6 (General Register Office: Society of Friends’ Registers,
Notes and Certificates of Births, Marriages and Burials) which should not have
been removed as part of the project as it did not fall within the removal criteria.
4.2
GW asked how the request for the replacement of RG 6 was initiated.
RK said that the reader who identified that RG 6 was not accessible approached a
member of staff at one of the enquiry desks in the open reading room. The Enquiry
Service Manager was called to speak with the reader and realised that RG 6 had
been incorrectly removed. The matter was assessed by Audrey Collins, Family
History Records Specialist, who confirmed that an error had been made in the
case of the removal of RG 6.
4.3
GS enquired how the mistake had been made.
RK said that the RG 6 paper list contains a finding aid to search by chapel: this
fact was missed. This information is not available to search on Discovery.
4.4
SM asked if the removal of the paper lists from open access was due to a shortage
of shelving space.
RK informed her that this was not the case, and that the Red List Project is not
connected to any issues with shelving space.
4.5
GS enquired if staff members are using Discovery exclusively or whether they still
consult the paper lists themselves.
Page 5 of 6
EB
RK said that staff members are using the online catalogue. He added that any
members of staff who wish to consult the Red Lists need to follow the same
procedure as readers and make a request to view them.
RK will provide an update at December’s UAG.
5.
Equality and Diversity Update
Public Services Update
Cataloguing Update
Digitisation Update
5.1
The group was directed to the paper updates which had been distributed in
advance and were invited to email any queries they had about them.
5.2
GW enquired whether the RN record cards be included in ADM 188 (Admiralty:
Royal Navy Registers of Seaman’s Services) as the vast majority of them will be
continuations of service records already held in that class?
Post meeting update: the additional registers will remain part of the same series. It
is likely that the cards will become a new series although this decision is not yet
finalised – we should to be able to confirm at the September meeting.
5.3
RK
MG
SM requested that there were fewer acronyms included in future Digitisation
updates.
MG said that as staff members also use the updates that are provided to the UAG
delegates, these live documents will continue to contain acronyms. SL agreed to
look into creating a glossary for UAG delegates that can be included with future
updates.
6.
Any other business
6.1
Next meeting 17 September 2013
Page 6 of 6
SL