Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Sherwood

Sherwood Callaway & Carolyn Raihala

HIS 245, Digital Archive Assessment

Although we had completed it on time, I accidentally forgot to post our assessment online on Thursday. I take full responsibility; Carolyn was not implicated at all! So without further ado…

Introduction

  • This archive is a collaboration between the Library of Congress and other historical or research-based institutions across the nation, such as libraries, museums, historical societies, and archival institutions.
  • The mission of American Memory is to provide online access to the “nation’s memory,” or the history of the country contained in documents, moving images, sound recordings, and print and photographic media.
  • Though broad in scope and rich in content, the combination of poor structural design and an overambitious, all-inclusive approach toward subject matter makes this digital archive difficult to navigate and even harder to use for research.

Functionality

  • The most glaring issue with the American Memory digital archive is the absence of an advanced search feature spanning all collections. Items are indexed by only their titles and the collections they belong to. Users can not search for everything written by a specific author, for example. They are forced to use keywords instead. However, once within individual collections, it is possible for to perform advanced searches of the items therein.
  • It may add to the user’s difficulty in finding a source that the rule governing which items are grouped together varies by collection. In other words, items are combined based on their original format, or subject, or by their creator, owner, or donor to the Library of Congress.
  • In the absence of an advanced search option, which would allow users to filter their search before they enter the archive, there is a “Browse” tab, which serves a similar, if far weaker, function. This allows the user view collections specific to a topic, time period, format, or geographical location.
  • The confusing and inconsistent formatting of individual collections also detracts from functionality of this particular digital archive. There are two different recurring layouts. The first uses styling that is consistent with the main theme, and preserves the archive header for easy backwards navigation. The second employs stripped-down old-school HTML and CSS formatting, and lacks any apparent association with the parent archive. Not knowing which layout one will encounter adds a degree of unwelcome unpredictability to the research process.
  • A seemingly trivial complaint, the unnecessarily high number of clicks required to reach a specific collection or item from the index page makes navigating American Memory a disorienting and painstaking experience. Furthermore, each click triggers another HTTP request, which could frustrate users with poor internet connection.
  • One strength of the American Memory digital archive are the brief descriptions associated with each individual collection. These descriptions are well written. They help users determine whether or not the collection will suit their needs, thereby mitigating frustration and wasted time.

Content

  • American Memory offers users a huge amount of content to explore. Unfortunately, discovering the perfect primary source can be likened to finding the needle in a hay stack. This problem is exacerbated by poor appellation. More specifically, the names of collections are too broad and frequently mislead users.
  • The content is diverse not just temporarily but culturally. This archive includes artifacts from a variety of demographic groups such as the Spanish-speaking residents of rural Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado and Chinese immigrants in the early twentieth century. This diversity is only appropriate for a database that aims to capture the “memory” of an entire nation. However, the section devoted to Native American history is pitifully slim, and one of the two collections features a white man, Edward S. Curtis, as the centerpiece because of his photography of Native Americans.
  • The difficult task of effectively naming these collections–there are over 100 of them–suggests a more fundamental problem with American Memory. Namely, is there too much simply content contained within the archive? Attempting to compile and categorize the entirety of the American experience, which spans more than 250 years, may have been too ambitious.

Utility

  • Because of its general nature, only someone with plenty of time and varied interests would find American Memory fascinating.
  • The initial goal of the digital archive was to digitize historical resources for the millennial generation. It isn’t geared towards a particular degree of education, but could be useful to high-schoolers, undergraduates and graduate students.
  • The diverse collections contained within American Memory make it relevant to many subjects. It also includes multiple historical perspectives, despite a dearth of Native American history, which allows a wider demographic to identify with the history being represented.

Conclusion

  • The strengths of American Memory are obvious. It contains a vast amount of content and is extremely diverse. Unfortunately, the digital archive suffers from poor functionality. However, its modularity allows for collections to be easily added and removed, which archivists surely appreciate.