Cultural Database |
|||||
Projects
Clean Water
|
Introduction | HRAF | Comparison | Findings | |
FindingsRoe found a variation in content of
the paper and web files. Of the samples she analyzed, 23.6% of source documents
in the paper version were not covered on the web and 70.9% of texts were
available in the web version, but not in hard copy. Users were not directed to
source documents available in other version. However, the process of revising
and adding source documents to the web version was on-going. The Memorial Library owned 21.2% of the sample of cultural files that were only available in paper format. The library would gain access to nearly 2600 additional titles with access to the paper files. Responses from the surveys and interviews showed overwhelming support for the web version. This format had easy access and sophisticated search options. In addition, the web version requires less maintenance and physical space. Of survey respondents, 85% preferred the web version for its ease of use. Other respondents preferred microfiche because of its more complete coverage of materials. Roe found that children used HRAF for their school assignments and other purposes. Although HRAF originally targeted professionals, non-scholars have started using the collection because of its convenience. HRAF membership originally consisted of academic research institutions but now museums, colleges, and high schools are taking advantage of the web version as a teaching tool. Roe suggested HRAF could effectively help this new user population by creating interfaces for the web format. Roe also linked HRAF holdings with MSU library catalogs, making them accessible to a wider audience. In 2002 the Memorial Library received HRAF paper files that had been de-accessioned by another institution. The paper and microfiche files for Africa and North America, as well as the complete web version, are currently available. Sources:Bernard, Russell H.
|
|||||
This page was created by Kyoko Soga. Updated by Melissa Lorentz 1/26/08. |
|||||