Allerton 95
Wrap-Up Session
Discussion notes
Bishop 1/15/96

--One future goal is to keep the big, "unclosed" questions alive and open
	--Like the issues arising out of Session 5 on Users, Diversity,
	and Change
	--That way we can begin to develop a research community of people
	interested in those issues

--Let's structure our web site info; should classify the various types of
contributions, like discussion papers, demos, etc.


--Any important issues we didn't get a chance to discuss? Yes:
	--Content provision (copyright, intellectual property) hurdles
	impair DL usability
	--Common conception of technology as answer to problems... the
	nature and image of libraries
	--Effects of/methods for charging and cost recovery: what are the
	effects on users' behavior?

	--Politics: users vs. funders; funders as "invisible users"
	--Need some focus on the PRODUCERS of documents in SGML, etc.
	--Time as a factor in cost/price
	--Providing guidance to authors regarding their rights in
	electronic vs. print realms
		--Abstracting and indexing material is a grey area

	--Common view of information technology as having monetary value,
	while "information" is free. Where should money be invested?
		--Access should be free
	--Institutional subscriptions should be explored as a charging approach

--Major ideas or recommendations arising from Allerton?
	--We should pursue as a community the relationship between
	existing research results on OPACs, searching, etc. and research in the
	world of DLs

	--An important area needing further research is the effects of
	technologies on social structures (e.g., how do they affect tenure
	--We're still struggling to define this thing called "digital library"
	--How can we de-marginalize evaluation work vis a vis system
	development work?
		--At the next joint meeting of the NSF/ARPA/NASA DLI
		projects, all of the user study teams should work on a joint

		--Participating in other technology-dominated groups and
		committees might help
		--We should pay attention to the meaning of the words we use:
		"evaluation" implies a passive role and we should be proactive
		--For future work: shall we "do social science" on the targets
		of the technology? on the organizational nature of DL projects?
		--Returning to the point about what words mean: we should look
		for an alternative to the DL label, one that emphasizes the
		social and creative nature of interactions with technology
		--We shouldn't forget about the 100+ DL projects around the
		world (beyond the six NSF/ARPA/NASA DLI projects) as we try
		to build a research community and understand DL use
			--We should identify other projects to fund focused on
			the issues we've raised here
		--Changes in computer science education might bring about
		changes in how developers relate to the social context of use
		--A major theme at Allerton seemed to be the effects of DL on
		work settings of all kinds
		--There seems to be consensus that evaluation must precede
		design and development
		--Evaluation is both formative and summative. It's not a
		bad term to use

		--We should identify problems/issues we have in common with
		computer science and technology development types: what do
		these two communities have in common?
		--An important issue regarding the marginalization of social
		issues is how institutional processes (RFPs and proposals,
		etc.) cement the marginalization

--Venues for future meetings and discussion on user-centered DL research?
	--Sessions at DL96 [panels and a workshop were in fact subsequently
	proposed by Allerton participants and accepted]
	--Distribution list should be set up for Allerton participants
	[this was also done]
	--Participatory Design conference (Nov. 13-15, 1996, in Boston)
	--Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference (March 1996, in Boston)
	--Text retrieval conference
	--Information Society is a journal geared to the kinds of issues
	discussed at Allerton; people are encouraged to submit papers
	--We should also think about writing for audiences beyond other DL
	researchers. If we want to make an impact in addressing social issues,
	we should write for the Chronicle of Higher Education, newspapers, and
	trade publications in Computer Science and Library and Information