Fun with sticky scrolling

For the past several weeks I’ve had the great fortune to help contribute to our new archival finding aid interface, based on the Stanford ArcLight project. My coworker Sean Aery, is a contributor to that project as well as being the lead developer for Duke University Libraries’ implementation.

The new site is set to launch next week (July 1st) and we are all very excited about it. You can read a teaser post about it written by the product owner, Noah Huffman.

Last week we were trying to work out a thorny issue with the overall interface. There was a feature request from the product owner team to make a section of the navigation ‘sticky’ while allowing other parts of the interface to scroll normally. We have a similar setup for viewing results in our catalog, but that was implemented in an ‘older’ way using extra markup and javascript. Support for position:sticky; across the major browsers is now at point that we could try implementing this feature in a much more simple way, so that’s what we did!

Video of scrolling behavior (with scroll bars showing)

Everything was working great with our implementation, except I really wanted to figure out a way to hide the scroll bars when they weren’t being used — but the most reliable way to do so seemed to involve some flavor of third-party javascript library and I didn’t want to go down that road. In chatting with Sean about it over Slack, he wasn’t seeing the scroll bar problems that I was. I was completely flummoxed! Our development environments are more or less identical. He’s running on a newer version of MacOS than me, but our browser versions are the same. I just couldn’t wrap my head around why I was seeing different behavior with the scroll bars.

However, some googling revealed that there was a setting in macOS for the scroll bars which I was completely unfamiliar with:

screenshot of scrollbar settings
Screenshot of the scroll bar settings options in macOS

I didn’t recall having ever changed that in the past, so I checked with Sean and his was set the same as mine. This felt like the right track, but I still couldn’t imagine what was going on.

Sean also mentioned he was using a trackpad to browse, whereas I have an external mouse attached to my machine. On a whim I tried unhooking the mouse and restarting my computer — and sure enough, that did the trick!

 

See the Pen
MWKvmbV
by Michael Daul (@mikedaul)
on CodePen.

Set the zoom level of the embedded view above to 0.5x to play with the scrolling

 

So the lesson of this story is… if you ever encounter unexpected behavior with scroll bars while doing development work on your Mac, make sure to check your settings and/or account for your use of an external mouse!

Casting a Critical Eye on the Hayti-Elizabeth Street Renewal Area Maps

In 2019, one of the digital collections we made available to the public was a small set of architectural maps and plans titled the ‘Hayti-Elizabeth Street Renewal Area’. The short description of the maps indicates they ‘depict existing and proposed structures and modifications to the Hayti neighborhood in Durham, NC.’ Sounds pretty benign, right? Perhaps even kind of hopeful, given the word ‘renewal’?

Hayti-Elizabeth Street Renewal Area, Existing Land Use Map

Nope. This anodyne description does not tell the story of the harm caused by the Durham Urban Renewal project of the 1960s and 1970s. The Durham Redevelopment Commission intended to eliminate ‘urban blight’ via this project, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of more than 4,000 households and 500 businesses in predominantly African American areas of the city. The Hayti District, once a flourishing and self-sufficient neighborhood filled with Black-owned businesses, was largely demolished, divided, and effectively severed from what is now downtown Durham by the construction of NC Highway 147. 

Bull City 150, a “public history, geography and community engagement project” based here at Duke University, hosts a suite of excellent multi-media public history exhibitions about housing inequality in Durham on its website. One of these is Dismantling Hayti, which focuses in particular on the effects of urban renewal on the neighborhood and the city.

Dismantling Hayti, Bull City 150

But this story of so-called urban renewal is not just about Durham – it’s about the United States as a whole. From the 1950s to the 1980s, municipalities across the country demolished roughly 7.5 million dwelling units, with a vastly disproportionate impact on Black and low-income neighborhoods, in the name of revitalization. Bulldozing for highway corridors was frequently a part of urban renewal projects, happening in San Francisco, Memphis, Boston, Atlanta, Syracuse, Baltimore, everywhere in the country – the list goes on and on. And it includes Saint Paul, Minnesota, the city where, mourning and protesting the killing of yet another Black person at the hands of a white police officer, thousands of people occupied Interstate 94 in recent weeks, marching from the state capitol to Minneapolis, over a highway that was once the African American neighborhood of Rondo.  

Urban renewal projects led to what social psychiatrist Dr. Mindy Fulilove refers to as root shock – “a traumatic stress reaction related to the destruction of one’s emotional ecosystem”. This is but one thread in the fabric of white supremacy out of which our country was woven, among other twentieth century practices of redlining, discriminatory mortgage lending practices, denial of access to unemployment benefits, and rampant Jim Crow laws, which are still causing harm today. This is why it is important to interrogate the historical context of resources like the Hayti-Elizabeth Street Renewal Area maps – we should all accept the invitation extended on the Bull City 150 website to Durhamites to “reckon with the racial and economic injustices of the past 150 years and commit to building a more equitable future”.

MorphoSource: Features in Development

For the last two years, developers in Software Services and Duke’s department of Evolutionary Anthropology have been working to rebuild MorphoSource, a repository for 3D research data representing physical objects, primarily biological specimens. MorphoSource 2.0 is being built using Hyrax, an open-source digital repository application widely implemented by libraries to manage digital repositories and collections. While Hyrax already provided much of the core functionality needed for management, access, and preservation of our data, the MorphoSource team has been customizing the application and adding additional features to tailor it to the needs of our users.

As a preview, here are some of the features we’re developing for the MorphoSource community:

Guided Submission Process

MorphoSource is open to subject experts, collection curators, and the public to submit their data and make it accessible to others. The MorphoSource submission process will guide users in entering metadata that provides additional description and context for the files being uploaded. Users will be able to save information about the specimen that was scanned, the equipment that was used to capture the 3d data, the data capture process, and related media in MorphoSource. The form is multi-step and nested, with different fields available or data pre-filled in depending on what the user has already entered in earlier sections of the form. The user also has opportunities to search for related organizations, devices, specimens, and media to link to their submission. Once the submission process is complete,  depositors are able to return to their data page to edit  metadata and redefine relationships to other MorphoSource records.

Morphosource data submission screenshots
A user proceeds through the MorphoSource media submission process.

In the gif above, a MorphoSource user proceeds through the submission process. If the media being uploaded (such as an image stack or 3d mesh) is a derivative of another object that is already in MorphoSource, the user can search for that media and link it to their submission, whereupon related metadata will be auto-filled for them. If it is a totally new submission, the user will proceed from filling in information about the object that was scanned (ownership, taxonomy, and descriptive details) to devices and processing steps used before attaching their files. This ability to nest, search and associate metadata from the organization level all the way down to an individual object component in a single interface is unique to MorphoSource and is a substantial addition to Hyrax’s code.

Displaying and Updating Media Records

Screenshot of a Media Record in MorphoSource
A media record in MorphoSource.

Following submission, the depositor can view their completed media record, as shown above. Data owners (and other users who have been granted edit permissions by the data owner) have the ability to freely edit their submissions at any time. The edit view (below) allows the user to move between tabs to update metadata or change links to other records in MorphoSource. These tabs  offer a fast summary of the types of associated data that are typically collected for complex objects and digitization strategies. This system is also designed to encourage best practices in project and object documentation by reminding the user of critical metadata categories.

Editing a record in MorphoSource

3D Viewer

Through a collaboration with Mnemoscene, MorphoSource has created Aleph, a web viewer for 3D models and volumes that can be used by itself or as an extension to the popular library document viewer Universal Viewer. A live example of a specimen in the viewer is below. You can rotate the object by clicking and dragging inside the frame, or switch between slices and volume view by changing the mode under tools.

The Media Cart and Restricted Downloads

A media depositor can choose from several different publication statuses for their data, allowing the data owner to retain different levels of control of both their data sets and the metadata record describing their deposit. While some may choose to publish both their metadata and data sets with an open status, allowing other users to freely view and download them, it is also possible for depositors to restrict either their records or data to other users or organizations, or require that a user is granted permission before they are permitted to download data.

When data owners choose to publish using restricted download, other users are able to view metadata and preview the 3D data in the Aleph viewer, but can’t download the data set until they are granted permission by the data owner, and are required to fill out a request including the manner they intend to use the data. Data owners can easily review and manage these download requests from their user dashboard.

Screenshot of MorphoSource media cartAbove is a view of a user’s media cart, where they collect media they intend to download. The top section has media items the user is free to download, either because the media was published with an open publication status or because the user was approved to download by the media owner. Users can download any or all of these items at one time. The bottom section of the page contains items with a restricted download publication status, and allows the user to request these items individually or as a group. Users can also track the status of their request from this page.

Screenshot showing request management

In the next image, a data owner views requests to download their media. Requests are grouped by requesting user and then the intended use of the data. Data owners can approve, deny, or clear any or all of the requests. When approving a request, the data owner specifies the amount of time that the media will be available for the requester to download. This person can also clear a request if they want more information from the requester before they approve the download. Requests that have already been decided are available for review in the Previous Requests tab.

Organizational Teams

Organizational teams are the final substantial addition to the new MorphoSource. Any organization, such as a university, museum, or department, can create an organizational team that stores metadata about the team and assigns roles to individual members. Members of the organizational team can also curate team projects, grant other users access to the team’s media, edit the organization’s metadata, and view any media created from objects in their collections. Below is the public view of one of our first sample organizational teams, the Nasher Museum.

Screenshot of an Organizational Team in MorphoSource
An organization page in MorphoSource. Image via Boyer, Silverton, and Winchester, 2020. MorphoSource: Creating a 3D web repository capable of archiving complex workflows and providing novel viewing experiences

The MorphoSource team is looking forward to unveiling the beta version of MorphoSource 2.0 later this year. In the meantime, please visit the current repository at www.morphosource.org. For further reading, check out the recent EuropeanaTech article MorphoSource: Creating a 3D web repository capable of archiving complex workflows and providing novel viewing experiences.

Assessment in Enhanced Imaging of Cultural Heritage

In what now seems like the way distant past, just before the library building closed, Ryan Baumann and I virtually presented on DUL’s work with multispectral imaging at the More than Meets the Eye conference, hosted by the University of Iowa. The three-day conference was a wonderful opportunity to hear examples from around the world on the application of enhanced digital imaging technologies in research on cultural heritage.

This month the library kicked off a weekly “Lunch & Learn” series, in which library staff give short (~20 min) presentations about their recent work or research interests. It provides an additional opportunity to connect with our colleagues and learn something new each week.  Since I already had my slides from the Iowa conference, I volunteered to present in the first session, and today I would like to share those slides with Bitstreams readers:

Assessment in Enhanced Imaging of Cultural Heritage

I’ve included my script in the notes for each slide, so you can get the full context. There are also links to other talks the MSI team has done over the years and other work in enhanced imaging from my colleagues.

Have a safe Memorial Day weekend!

Learning from Our Students

Every other year, the Duke University Libraries survey our patrons to learn more about their opinions about library spaces, services, and materials. Our biennial satisfaction survey for 2020 targeted our student patrons (both undergraduate and graduate) and covered topics from navigation of our buildings to website features to access to electronic materials.

Earlier this year, the survey was sent to a sample of 4,000 of our undergraduate and graduate students and was also linked from the library homepage for other students to complete. Almost 2,800 students participated in the survey, about half of whom were undergraduates (spread fairly evenly across all four years of study, except for an overrepresentation of first-year students).

While we will spend several more months reviewing the results and identifying opportunities to improve our services, we have completed our initial analysis of both the fixed choice and free text questions. The following high-level takeaways represent the major themes that emerged across the survey responses.

  1. Students feel safe and welcome in our libraries.
  2. Students cherish the support from library and security staff.
  3. Our Top Textbook initiative has had a huge impact on students.
  4. We need better communication of our norms and enforcement of our policies.
  5. Individuals and small groups have trouble locating private places to work.
  6. Students want better lighting and access to greenery and outdoor spaces.

1. Students feel safe and welcome in our libraries.

This year, we asked students how much they agree with the following statement: “I feel safe from discrimination, harassment, and emotional and physical harm at… Duke University/Duke Libraries.”

The results show that for Duke University, 90% of students at least somewhat agree. For Duke Libraries, 95% of students at least somewhat agree with the statement, and 83% strongly agree. (Note: we asked a similar question in 2018 and saw a similar pattern, but the results aren’t directly comparable because we changed question and the response options.)

Another way we measure how students feel about the library is to ask about their agreement with an additional statement: “For me, the library is a welcoming place.”

Student agreement with this statement was quite high, especially among international and graduate students.

A quote from a response to one of our free-text questions nicely captures some of these reflections from students:

“I generally feel safe and included at the Duke libraries – I particularly like the diverse/inclusive the art installations in the front entrance and at the back of the first floor. These make me feel more included and I wish there were more of them!”

Duke Libraries’ response to this finding:

2. Students cherish the support from library and security staff.

Our survey didn’t specifically ask students if they are satisfied with library staff. This message, however, came through loud and clear in our qualitative comments.

After asking students about whether they feel safe at Duke and at Duke Libraries, we offered them the opportunity to explain with a free-text question (“Please describe your response and your experience with the Duke University Libraries in this context.”).  Of the 260 responses to this question that mentioned library staff, 246 responses (or 95%) were compliments of the staff.

“I appreciate that the Duke Librarians, more than anyone else, go out of their way to make visible their commitment to allyship and inclusivity.”

“Duke libraries staff are extremely kind and caring. They have not judged me for who I am or what I need help with.”

“Everyone I’ve interacted with at the Library has been absolutely wonderful – from folks at the reference desk to the Center for Data and Visualization Sciences staff.”

Other questions were phrased to encourage critiques or requests, but even those questions included staff compliments.

“Keep hiring helpful and kind staff.”

“Great staff! I’ve always found everyone at Duke Libraries very friendly and helpful whenever I run into a library problem I can’t figure out.”

Our Libraries have several groups of staff that interact directly and regularly with our students. We were delighted to see that an important part of our staff family, the security guards, were complimented very explicitly by survey participants.

“The ample lighting and security presence makes me feel that I can be at Duke even when it is late.”

“I feel very safe at the Library knowing that there is always a guard making his/her way around the library and looking out for students. It has been one of my favorite places to work in the University.”

Duke Libraries’ response to this finding:

  • Began work on improvements to security guard training to emphasize the impact of smiling and greetings on student feelings of safety and welcome
  • Provided optional buttons to all staff: pronouns, the trans flag and the LGBTQ flag with the DUL reading devil overlay
  • Encouraged staff to attend Ally/PRIDE trainings and then display their certifications on their staff directory pages
  • Shared DUL User Service Philosophy with all new DUL staff and students

3. Our Top Textbook initiative has had a huge impact on students.

The Libraries currently make textbooks available for short-term loan for the top 100 courses each semester (by enrollment). When asked about services that are important to them, 39% of undergraduates* list this “Top Textbooks” program as important, which means the service ranks right below core library services like ePrint, reservable rooms, and drop-in assistance at a service desk.

“I often take out textbooks for classes on reserve, have taken out a few books, and often study there.”

Furthermore, perhaps thanks to increased marketing efforts following our 2018 survey, only 7% of undergraduates report that they are unaware of the service. About 52% of undergraduates have given some response about how well it meets their needs, suggesting they have some experience using the service.

While this program seems to have had success for outreach and use, students still have some unmet needs in this area. When we ask about the services we should be expanding, just over 50% of undergraduates report that expansions to the textbook program would improve their experience a lot.

“Have more copies of textbooks (I really do enjoy the ones they do have – thanks!!).”

“In a perfect world, the Library [would have] multiple copies of most of the textbooks used by professors. While the inventory of books is huge, the library is missing the ones we actually use in the Econ department.”

* – Note: this question was only shown to students who selected our main West and East Campus libraries as their primary libraries, which comprises only about 92% of undergraduates who identified a primary library.

Duke Libraries’ response to this finding:

  • Increased outreach around this program by targeting faculty teaching supported courses and asking them to advertise program in syllabi
  • Increased physical signage about program around library buildings
  • Note: result of marketing efforts was 150% increase in use of program between spring 2019 and fall 2019

4. We need better communication of our norms and enforcement of our policies.

Unfortunately, students do also experience frustrations in our spaces. One example is the navigation of our spaces, especially the three connected West Campus libraries: Rubenstein, Perkins, and Bostock. On this survey, we asked if students feel confident locating a print book in the library. This question received the second lowest average agreement score of the options presented, for both undergraduates and graduates. Overall, about 23% of students lack confidence in their ability to locate a print book.

As you might expect when a large group of people shares a limited resource, students often struggle to negotiate the use of our study spaces. One area of great importance for effective studying is noise level. Some prefer absolute quiet, some prefer a low-level murmur, and others need to be able to converse freely with friends and project teammates. The Libraries have established noise norms for the various study zones in our libraries, but survey comments suggest that these norms are unclear or not always followed.

“[The Libraries should] separate talking zone and quiet zone more precisely. Someone may chat in considerate quiet zone for a long time, which is annoying.”

Furthermore, over the course of the last few years, we have seen a growth in reports of social groups that “take over” spaces and violate, especially, the noise norms of those spaces. While this stresses already taxed resources by using up seats in study spaces for social activities, it is also regularly mentioned as behavior that harms the welcoming and inclusive atmosphere of the library.

“Do away with the ‘assigned’ seating based on group membership!”

“I feel like groups of people frequent the library and there is no space for inclusion or initiatives to get people going to the library that look like me.”

“I don’t know how this would be done, but I would feel more comfortable in the libraries if undergraduate students didn’t claim and allocate spaces for themselves according to their social groups. As a graduate student of color, I don’t feel comfortable in those spaces.

“I think having the library as ‘satellite sections’ for some Greek organizations can make the library feel daunting. If there is a way to do away with this that would be great.”

Duke Libraries’ response to this finding:

Along with the previously mentioned diversity and inclusion activities, the Libraries are exploring ways of improving the communication of norms and enforcing policies.

  • Began working with Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek and other Student Affairs administrators to address the issues students experience in the Libraries
  • Developed and distributed new signage around finding books in the library, including instructions about how to read a Library of Congress call number
  • Initiated a redesign of our noise norm signage
  • Proposed new furniture arrangements for large, quiet study spaces that discourage conversation and group congregation
  • Began work on improvements to security guard training to empower them to identify and address policy violations and promote a more inclusive environment

5. Individuals and small groups have trouble locating private places to work.

Identifying the best furniture for different study spaces is a constant challenge. On this survey, we asked students about expanded services that improve their experience of the library. Out of 18 options covering furniture, spaces, and other services, the top request for both undergraduate and graduate students was individual desks, with 64% of students responding that they would improve the library experience “a lot.”

“I think some more individual study spaces would be very welcome. I prefer to work on the fourth floor because the desks with dividers are very useful in separating you from others so that you can concentrate on your work and not be bothered by anyone. There are few spaces like this, except for study rooms. Perhaps some more desks with dividers or separate spaces for individual work can help people to have a safe space where they will be free from others attempting to make them feel unsafe.”

Some students report frustration that resources like individual desks aren’t always being used as efficiently as possible. While the Libraries have a policy that belongings should not be used to “reserve” a study space for longer than 15 minutes, this policy is difficult to enforce, leading to spaces that are unusable for long periods of time.

“More individual study rooms and carrels. More seating in general. Somehow stop people from reserving carrels and tables by leaving their belongings there while being away for long periods of time. (Sometimes I am looking for an individual place to sit and it seems like half of the carrels have just belongings left there.) The reservable study rooms seem to all get booked quickly during the finals period, which is disappointing because they are very good to use for working on group final projects.”

Private spaces like  group study rooms and interview rooms are extremely popular among students, consistently ranking in the top 5 for important services and the bottom 5 for how well services are meeting students’ needs, as well as being highly ranked among services that should be expanded. As with desk space, these resources can be informally reserved by leaving belongings in an empty room, leading to frustration when a group needing study space cannot find an empty room. Policies like limits on the amount of time a group can reserve a room and a requirement that rooms be used for group work (or interviews) attempt to make sure these rooms serve their intended purpose, but it is very difficult to enforce those policies.

Duke Libraries’ response to this finding:

  • Created and improved documentation of room policies
  • Began work on new signage for group study rooms to reinforce policies and empower students to push back on inappropriate usages of the spaces
  • Made recommendations for new furniture purchases in line with student needs and desires
  • Proposed new furniture arrangements for large, quiet study spaces that discourage conversation and group congregation
  • Proposed new signage and directories throughout the library to make it easier for students to locate study spaces
  • Enhanced the Find Library Spaces portal page to help students identify spaces appropriate for the type of work they need to do

6. Students want better lighting and access to greenery and outdoor spaces.

A final growing trend among students is the request for spaces that take better advantage of nature. In additional to several free-text comments that mentioned outdoor spaces, outdoor library spaces ranked second in the list of requests for expanded services.

“Incorporate more outdoor study spaces around the library and adding more areas to study with lots of windows and natural light.”

“be a space for a spectrum of socialization and quiet studying, with outdoor space and natural lighting (design for wellness)”

“More plants and green space. This is something I would love to help organize and coordinate.”

This single comment seems to capture all major trends we found in our initial analysis:

“Improve signage to reduce the chaotic feel of navigating the library, create a clearer, less confusing, and more welcoming library layout, increase rooms available for reservation for study or meetings, provide more and more comfortable quiet section seating, improve natural lighting, generally improve the library interiors to match the attractiveness of their facades, provide more printers.”

Duke Libraries’ response to this finding:

    • Refreshed paint, lighting, and carpet in key areas of the library
    • Installed new LED lights throughout the building
    • Advocated for more live plants in the building
    • Proposed outdoor spaces for future renovations
    • Enhanced WIFI access on the patio outside Bostock Library

Next Steps

Our biennial satisfaction surveys offer a high-level view of patron satisfaction and give us a lot of actionable information. The surveys can’t answer every question, however, and often don’t provide enough detail to make specific recommendations. Our complete assessment program elaborates on these results with in-depth user studies, feedback from our student advisory boards, focus groups, and other smaller studies. Over the next two years, we will blend these results with additional data, identify and prioritize projects, and make improvements to our spaces and services.

Credit to UC Berkeley Library for the inspiration for this post.

Videotelephony, Better Late than Never

A technology allowing most of us to keep working effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic is called “videotelephony,” which is real-time, simultaneous audio-visual communication between two or more users. Right now, millions of workers and families are using Zoom, FaceTime, WhatsApp, WebEx, Skype and other software to see and hear each other live, using the built-in microphones and video cameras on our computers, tablets and mobile phones.

We take this capability for granted now, but it’s actually been over a century in the making. Generations of trial and error, billions in spent capital, technical brick walls and failed business models have paved the way to this morning’s Zoom meeting with your work team. You might want to change out of your pajamas, by the way.

AT&T’s Picturephone (Model 1) was introduced at the 1964 World’s Fair.

Alexander Graham Bell famously patented the telephone in 1876. Shortly after, the concept of not only hearing the person you are talking to, but also seeing them simultaneously, stirred the imagination of inventors, writers and artists. It seemed like a reasonably-attainable next step. Early terms for a hypothetical device that could accomplish this included the “Telephonoscope” and the “Telectroscope

Mr. Bell himself conceived of a device called an “electrical radiophone,” and predicted “the day would come when the man at the telephone would be able to see the distant person to whom he was speaking.” But that day would not come until long after Bell’s death in 1922.

The problem was, the transmission of moving images was a lot more complicated than transmitting audio. Motion picture film, also introduced in the late 1800s, was brought to life by chemicals reacting to silver-halide crystals in a darkroom, but unlike the telephone, electricity played no part in film’s construction or dissemination.

The telephone converted sound waves to electrical signals, as did radio station towers. Neither could transmit without electricity. And a telephone is “full-duplex,” meaning the data is transmitted in both directions, simultaneously, on a single carrier. The next challenge was to somehow electrify moving images, make them full-duplex, and accommodate their exponentially larger bandwidth.

The Picturephone (Model 2). Only a few hundred were sold in the 1970s.

It wasn’t until the late 1930s that cathode-ray-tube television sets were introduced to the world, and the concept of analog video began to gain traction. Unlike motion picture film, video is an electronic medium. Now that moving images were utilizing electricity, they could be transmitted to others, using antennas.

After World War II ended, and Americans had more spending money, black & white television sets became popular household items in the 1950s. But unlike the telephone, communication was still one way. It wasn’t full-duplex. You could see “The Honeymooners,” but they couldn’t see you, and it wasn’t live.  Live television broadcasts were rare, and still in the experimental phase.

In 1964, AT&T’s Bell Labs (originally founded by Alexander Graham Bell), introduced the “Picturephone” at the New York World’s Fair and at Disneyland, demonstrating a video call between the two locales. Later, AT&T introduced public videophone booths in New York City, Chicago and Washington, DC. If you were in the New York videophone booth, you could see and hear someone in the Chicago videophone booth, in real time, and it was two-way communication.

The problem was, it was outrageously expensive. A three-minute call cost $225 in today’s money. The technology was finally here, but who could afford it? AT&T poured billions into this concept for years, manufacturing “PicturePhones” and “VideoPhones” for home and office, all the way through 1995, but they were always hampered by the limitations of low-bandwidth telephone lines and very high prices, making them not worth it for the consumer, and never widely adopted.

AT&T’s VideoPhone 2500, released in 1992, priced at $1599.99.

It wasn’t until broadband internet, and high-compression video codecs became widespread in the new millennium, that videotelephony finally became practical, affordable and thus marketable. In recent years, electronics manufacturers began to include video cameras and microphones as a standard feature in CPUs, tablets and mobile phones, making external webcams obsolete. Services like Skype, FaceTime and WebEx were introduced, and later WhatsApp, Zoom and numerous others.

Now it’s simple, and basically free, to have a high-quality, full-color video chat with your friend, partner or co-worker, and a company like Zoom has a net worth of 40 billion. It’s amazing that it took more than 100 years since the invention of the telephone to get here. And just in time for a global pandemic requiring strict physical distancing. Don’t forget to update your clever background image!

ArcLight Migration: A Status Update After Three Months of Work

On January 20, 2020, we kicked off our first development sprint for implementing ArcLight at Duke as our new finding aids / collection guides platform. We thought our project charter was solid: thorough, well-vetted, with a reasonable set of goals. In the plan was a roadmap identifying a July 1, 2020 launch date and a list of nineteen high-level requirements. There was nary a hint of an impending global pandemic that could upend absolutely everything.

The work wasn’t supposed to look like this, carried out by zooming virtually into each other’s living rooms every day. Code sessions and meetings now require navigating around child supervision shifts and schooling-from-home responsibilities. Our new young office-mates occasionally dance into view or within earshot during our calls. Still, we acknowledge and are grateful for the privilege afforded by this profession to continue to do our work remotely from safe distance.

So, a major shoutout is due to my colleagues in the trenches of this work overcoming the new unforeseen constraints around it, especially Noah Huffman, David Chandek-Stark, and Michael Daul. Our progress to date has only been possible through resilience, collaboration, and willingness to keep pushing ahead together.

Three months after we started the project, we remain on track for a summer 2020 launch.

As a reminder, we began with the core open-source ArcLight platform (demo available) and have been building extensions and modifications in our local application in order to accommodate Duke needs and preferences. With the caveat that there’ll be more changes coming over the next couple months before launch, I want to provide a summary of what we have been able to accomplish so far and some issues we have encountered along the way. Duke staff may access our demo app (IP-restricted) for an up-to-date look at our work in progress.

Homepage

Homepage design for Duke’s ArcLight finding aids site.
  • Duke Branding. Aimed to make an inviting front door to the finding aids consistent with other modern Duke interfaces, similar to–yet distinguished enough from–other resources like the catalog, digital collections, or Rubenstein Library website.
  • Featured Items. Built a configurable set of featured items from the collections (with captions), to be displayed randomly (actual selections still in progress).
  • Dynamic Content. Provided a live count of collections; we might add more indicators for types/counts of materials represented.

Layout

A collection homepage with a sidebar for context navigation.
  • Sidebar. Replaced the single-column tabbed layout with a sidebar + main content area.
  • Persistent Collection Info. Made collection & component views more consistent; kept collection links (Summary, Background, etc.) visible/available from component pages.
  • Width. Widened the largest breakpoint. We wanted to make full use of the screen real estate, especially to make room for potentially lengthy sidebar text.

Navigation

Component pages contextualized through a sidebar navigator and breadcrumb above the main title.
  • Hierarchical Navigation. Restyled & moved the hierarchical tree navigation into the sidebar. This worked well functionally in ArcLight core, but we felt it would be more effective as a navigational aid when presented beside rather than below the content.
  • Tooltips & Popovers. Provided some additional context on mouseovers for some navigational elements.

    Mouseover context in navigation.
  • List Child Components. Added a direct-child list in the main content for any series or other component. This makes for a clear navigable table of what’s in the current series / folder / etc. Paginating it helps with performance in cases where we might have 1,000+ sibling components to load.
  • Breadcrumb Refactor. Emphasized the collection title. Kept some indentation, but aimed for page alignment/legibility plus a balance of emphasis between current component title and collection title.

    Breadcrumb trail to show the current component’s nesting.

Search Results

Search results grouped by collection, with keyword highlighting.
  • “Group by Collection” as the default. Our stakeholders were confused by atomized components as search results outside of the context of their collections, so we tried to emphasize that context in the default search.
  • Revised search result display. Added keyword highlighting within result titles in Grouped or All view. Made Grouped results display checkboxes for bookmarking & digitized content indicators.
  • Advanced Search. Kept the global search box simple but added a modal Advanced search option that adds fielded search and some additional filters.

Digital Objects Integration

Digital objects from the Duke Digital Repository are presented inline in the finding aid component page.
  • DAO Roles. Indexed the @role attribute for <dao> elements; we used that to call templates for different kinds of digital content
  • Embedded Object Viewers. Used the Duke Digital Repository’s embed feature, which renders <iframe>s for images and AV.

Indexing

  • Whitespace compression. Added a step to the pipeline to remove extra whitespace before indexing. This seems to have slightly accelerated our time-to-index rather than slow it down.
  • More text, fewer strings. We encountered cases where note-like fields indexed as strings by ArcLight core (e.g., <scopecontent>) needed to be converted to text because we had more than 32,766 bytes of data (limit for strings) to put in them. In those cases, finding aids were failing to index.
  • Underscores. For the IDs that end up in a URL for a component, we added an underscore between the finding aid slug and the component ID. We felt these URLs would look cleaner and be better for SEO (our slugs often contain names).
  • Dates. Changed the date normalization rules (some dates were being omitted from indexing/display)
  • Bibliographic ID. We succeeded in indexing our bibliographic IDs from our EADs to power a collection-level Request button that leads a user to our homegrown requests system.

Formatting

  • EAD -> HTML. We extended the EAD-to-HTML transformation rules for formatted elements to cover more cases (e.g., links like <extptr> & <extref> or other elements like <archref> & <indexentry>)

    Additional formatting and link render rules applied.
  • Formatting in Titles. We preserved bold or italic formatting in component titles.

ArcLight Core Contributions

  • We have been able to contribute some of our code back to the ArcLight core project to help out other adopters.

Setting the Stage

The behind-the-scenes foundational work deserves mention here — it represents some of the most complex and challenging aspects of the project.  It makes the application development driving the changes I’ve shared above possible.

  • Built separate code repositories for our Duke ArcLight application and our EAD data
  • Gathered a diverse set of 40 representative sample EADs for testing
  • Dockerized our Duke ArcLight app to simplify developer environment setup
  • Provisioned a development/demo server for sharing progress with stakeholders
  • Automated continuous integration and deployment to servers using GitLabCI
  • Performed targeted data cleanup
  • Successfully got all 4,000 of our finding aids indexed in Solr on our demo server

Our team has accomplished a lot in three months, in large part due to the solid foundation the ArcLight core software provides. We’re benefiting from some amazing work done by many, many developers who have contributed their expertise and their code to the Blacklight and ArcLight codebases over the years. It has been a real pleasure to be able to build upon an open source engine– a notable contrast to our previous practice of developing everything in-house for finding aids discovery and access.

Still, much remains to be addressed before we can launch this summer.

The Road Ahead

Here’s a list of big things we still plan to tackle by July (other minor revisions/bugfixes will continue as well)…

  • ASpace -> ArcLight. We need a smoother publication pipeline to regularly get data from ArchivesSpace indexed into ArcLight.
  • Access & Use Statements. We need to revise the existing inheritance rules and make sure these statements are presented clearly. It’s especially important when materials are indeed restricted.
  • Relevance Ranking. We know we need to improve the ranking algorithm to ensure the most relevant results for a query appear first.
  • Analytics. We’ll set up some anonymized tracking to help monitor usage patterns and guide future design decisions.
  • Sitemap/SEO. It remains important that Google and other crawlers index the finding aids so they are discoverable via the open web.
  • Accessibility Testing / Optimization. We aim to comply with WCAG2.0 AA guidelines.
  • Single-Page View. Many of our stakeholders are accustomed to a single-page view of finding aids. There’s no such functionality baked into ArcLight, as its component-by-component views prioritize performance. We might end up providing a downloadable PDF document to meet this need.
  • More Data Cleanup. ArcLight’s feature set (especially around search/browse) reveals more places where we have suboptimal or inconsistent data lurking in our EADs.
  • More Community Contributions. We plan to submit more of our enhancements and bugfixes for consideration to be merged into the core ArcLight software.

If you’re a member of the Duke community, we encourage you to explore our demo and provide feedback. To our fellow future ArcLight adopters, we would love to hear how your implementations or plans are shaping up, and identify any ways we might work together toward common goals.

Stay safe, everyone!

Labor in the Time of Coronavirus

The Coronavirus pandemic has me thinking about labor–as a concept, a social process, a political constituency, and the driving force of our economy–in a way that I haven’t in my lifetime. It’s become alarmingly clear (as if it wasn’t before) that we all need food, supplies, and services to survive past next week, and that there are real human beings out there working to produce and deliver these things. No amount of entrepreneurship, innovation, or financial sleight of hand will help us through the coming months if people are not working to provide the basic requirements for life as we know it.

This blog post draws from  images in our digitized library collections to pay tribute to all of the essential workers who are keeping us afloat during these challenging times. As I browsed these photographs and mused on our current situation, a few important and oft-overlooked questions came to mind.

Who grows our food? Where does it come from and how is it processed? How does it get to us?

Bell pepper pickers, 1984 June. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Prisoners at the county farm killing hogs, 1983 Mar. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Worker atop rail car loading corn from storage tanks, 1991 Sept. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Manuel Molina, mushroom farm worker, Kennett Square, PA 1981. Frank Espada Photographs.

What kind of physical environment do we work in and how does that affect us?

Maids in a room of the Stephen Decatur Hotel shortly before it was torn down, 1970. Paul Kwilecki Photographs
Worker in pit preparing to weld. Southeastern Minerals Co. Bainbridge, 1991 Aug. Paul Kwilecki Photographs
Loggers in the woods near Attapulgus, 1978 Feb. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.

How do we interact with machines and technology in our work? Can our labor be automated or performed remotely?

Worker signaling for more logs. Elberta Crate and Box. Co. Bainbridge, 1991 Sept. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Worker, Williamson-Dickie plant. Bainbridge, 1991 Sept. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Machine operator watching computer controlled lathe, 1991 July. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Worker at her machine. Elberta Crate and Box Co. Bainbridge, 1981 Nov. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.

What equipment and clothing do we need to work safely and productively?

Cotton gin worker wearing safety glass and ear plugs for noise protection. Decatur Gin Co., 1991 Sept. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Worker operating bagging machine. Flint River Mills. Bainbridge, 1991 July. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.
Worker at State Dock, 1992 July. Paul Kwilecki Photographs.

Are we paid fairly for our work? How do relative wages for different types of work reflect what is valued in our society?

No known title. William Gedney Photographs.

How we think about and respond to these questions will inform how we navigate the aftermath of this ongoing crisis and whether or not we thrive into the future. As we celebrate International Workers’ Day on May 1 and beyond, I hope everyone will take some time to think about what labor means to them and to our society as a whole.

In a (Temporary) Time of Remote Work, Duke’s FOLIO Implementation Continues

Duke University is an early adopter for FOLIO, an open source library services platform that will give us tools to better support the information needs of our students, faculty, and staff. A core team in Library Systems and Integration Support began forming in January 2019 to help Duke move to FOLIO. I joined that team in January 2019 and began work as an IT Business Analyst.

In preparation for going-live with FOLIO, we formally kicked off our local implementation effort in January 2020. More than 40 local subject experts have joined small group teams to work on different parts of the FOLIO project. These experts are invaluable to Library IT staff: they know how the library’s work is done, which features need to be prioritized over others, and are committed to figuring out how to transition their work into the FOLIO environment.

If you’re reading this in April 2020 and thinking “wasn’t January ten years ago?” you’re not alone. Because the FOLIO Project is international, with partners all over the world, many of us are used to working via remote tools like Slack, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom. But that is a far cry from doing ALL of our work that way, while also taking care of our families and ourselves. It’s a huge credit to all library staff that while the University was swiftly pivoting to remote work, we were able to keep our implementation work going.

One of the first big, messy areas that we knew we needed to work on was using locations.

Locations are essential to how patrons know where an item is at the Duke Libraries. When you look up a book in our catalog and the system tells you Where to Find It, it’s using location information from our systems. Library staff also use locations to understand how often items are borrowed, decide when to move items to our off-campus storage, and decide when we to buy new items to keep our collections up to date.

A group of FOLIO team members came together from different working areas, including public services, cataloging, acquisitions, digital resources and assessment. I convened those discussions as a lead for our Configurations team. Over the course of late February and March 2020, we met three times as a group using Zoom and delved deep into learning about locations in our current system and how they will work in FOLIO. Staff members shared their knowledge with each other about their functional areas, allowing us to identify potential gaps in FOLIO functionality, as well as things we could improve now, without waiting for FOLIO to deploy.

This team identified two potential paths forward – one that was straightforward, and one that was more creative and would adapt the FOLIO four-level locations in a new way.  In our final meeting – where we had hoped to decide between the two options, our subject experts grappled with the challenges, risks and rewards of the two choices and were able to recommend a path forward together. Ultimately, the team agreed that the creative option was the best choice, but both options would work – and that guidance helped us decide how to make a first pass on configuring locations and move the project forward.

The most important part of these meetings was valuing the expertise of our library staff and working to support them as they decided what would work the best for the library’s needs.  I am deeply appreciative of the staff who committed the time to these discussions while also figuring out how to move their regular jobs to remote work. Our FOLIO implementation is all the better because of their collaborative spirit.

DUCC, TUCC, and the origins of digital computing in North Carolina

The feature image is”Triangle University Computation Center IBM System/370 Hardware Configuration,” from Network Management Survey, published in 1974.

The Cut Study and DUCC

The Fall semester of 1958 saw deep concern among the Duke student body with a pressing issue – cutting class. The Undergraduate Faculty Council Committee had taken up a study of class attendance, and planned to issue recommendations for policies on “absence limitations.” Its chair was John Jay Gergen, who had been on the faculty at Duke more than 20 years at that point, serving most of them as head of the Mathematics Department. In September, the Chronicle urged him to “make a sincere effort to show the students the seriousness of the situation and to explain their findings.” They warned him not to “announce suddenly a new policy to the students,” which would be a form of “[t]actless communication” that might “breed discontent among the students.” By all indications, Gergen ignored them.

While the “Cut Study” may have seemed enormously consequential to the students at the time, Gergen was leading a different effort that would have far more lasting impact at Duke. By at least one account, he was a large and imposing man, which could also describe his influence on campus. He channeled some of that influence into his work as the senior faculty member and administrator who oversaw the effort to bring digital computing to the university. While Gergen acted mainly in an administrative role, it was a protege of his who authored the grants that brought in the funding, and did the legwork on setting up an operational computing center.

Continue reading DUCC, TUCC, and the origins of digital computing in North Carolina

Notes from the Duke University Libraries Digital Projects Team