AMICO Users & Uses Committee
AMICO User Committee
Focus Groups Studying Users and Uses of The AMICO LibraryAppendix IV: Art Museum Image Consortium Moderatorsâ Guide for Focus Groups
December 1998 Draft
(under discussion with AMICO Users and Uses Committee
and qualitative research specialists)Back to Focus Groups document
Contents:
1. Format of the Groups 1. Format of the Groups
2. The Research Questions
2.1 Introductory Session
2.2 Content of The AMICO Library
2.3 Rights
2.4 Delivery Service
2.5 Tools and Future Uses
2.6 Expectations, Experiences, Opportunities and BarriersTwo focus groups, of Art Historians/Researchers and Visual Resource professionals for 3 hours. During this time, 10-12 individuals will engage in a discussion that will be structured and directed (through suggestion) by the moderators. A structured methodology is essential to ensure that the group addresses each of identified research areas. Prior focus groups on this subject have been far less structured. As a result, while they provide general insights into positions and attitudes, they did not yield the concrete information needed to help AMICO direct the development of its programs.
Prior to each Section of the discussion, each member of the group will individually complete a set of survey questions on that topic. This will both provide the researchers with an additional data source that can be correlated with the opinions expressed in the group (providing a check on group dynamics that might lead the discussion). It has also been cited as a way to help focus participants and improve involvement and motivation. Open discussion on the more general topic will then follow, with the survey questions serving as a guide for the moderator to topics they would like to see covered.
A significant amount of time, at the end of each session, will be provided for a more free-wheeling discussion that is led, or directed by the participants. We want to facilitate the introduction of new ideas and perspectives, and provide an open environment within which experiences, ideas or concerns can be raised, discussed and explored by the group.
2. The Research QuestionsThe discussion will be organized into four broad sections, each of which explores particular themes and issues in the creation and use of The AMICO Library.
- Participants and MANAGEMENT Introductions
- A Brief Introduction to what The AMICO Library is...
- multimedia information about works of art in collections of member institutions
- A collection growing in breadth, depth and richness of indexing in response to user needs
- Content delivered by annual subscription to different users, by different distributors
and isn't...
- An online slide library - it contains important definitive and interpretive text and multimedia
- A directory of where images are or where to obtain rights - it comes with rights
- An encyclopedia or Art 101 text - it can help illustrate these with examples
- An exhibition or piece of courseware - the focus is on individual works
- A biographical/bibliographical reference tool - it is not comprehensive
- A specific set of software functions - these differ by distributor, and will develop, we hope
- AMICO and The AMICO Library
Using the Research Libraries Group (RLG) delivery service, we will explore the AMICO testbed library and explain its purposes and the functions of the RLG delivery service.
- Conclusion of Section 1: General Discussion of AMICO
2.2 Content of The AMICO Library
Overall framing - AMICO needs to make numerous decisions about collections development and documentation for The AMICO Library, almost all of which have financial consequences and require time commitments. Understanding the relative importance of possible choices to our users is, therefore, critical to improving the Library in ways that will be valued. A schema illustrating the content of the testbed library, the content of the 1999-2000 year library, and plans for future growth will be shared with participants.
- Collections development - Genre Balance
Framing: AMICO currently includes works in any medium held by member institutions which are largely fine arts museums. By changing membership criteria or pursuing other options for contribution of content, AMICO could extend to other media.
Options: Please indicate the percentage of works in each genre that you would consider ideal:
- Painting
- Prints and Drawings
- Photography
- Sculpture
- Decorative Art & Design
- Architecture
- photographs
- drawings- Other, please elaborate
- Collections Development ö Sources
Framing: AMICO members are non-profit institutions with collections of art - principally museums. Other sources could be pursued.
Options (ranked with 1 as highest):
Area
Rank
archives
libraries
Private collectors
contemporary artists
outdoor sculpture
public architecture
other, please elaborate
- Collections Development - Cultural Balance
Framing: Members of AMICO choose the works contributed to The AMICO Library. This may result in cultural bias, especially in early years while the collection is growing. Ideally, what do you think the proper balance should be?
Options: Indicate percentage of works from::
Area
Percentage
Europe
- Northern
- Southern
North America
- Canada
- US
- Mexico
Latin & South America
Africa
- Sub-Saharan
- Saharan
Asia
- Middle East
- Far East
- Indian Sub-Continent
Oceania & Australia
D. Collections Development - Historical Balance
Framing: The distribution of works by date raises the same kinds of balance issues as the distribution by geography, but it also raises issues about the kinds of museums that should be encouraged to participate in AMICO, the kinds of documentation they will create, and the nature of AMICO's program, particularly with respect to modern and contemporary works.
Options: What percentage of Western art works do you think should come from::
Period
Percentage
Pre -history
Ancient World
Early Christian era
Middle ages
Renaissance
16th&17th c.
18th c.
19th c.
20th c.
E. Collections Development Depth vs. Breadth
Framing: Different types of courses and research require different degrees of depth and breadth. AMICO member institutions find themselves asking whether to document several hundred works by the same artist, or works by several hundred artists; whether to provide multiple impressions of prints and photographs supplied also by other AMICO members or drawings related to paintings already in the Library.
Options: . For the next two years there will be 50-100,000 works in The AMICO Library. Given this:
1a) AMICO should aim to build depth (>1000) works for particular:
- artists
- school
- style/period
1b) If so, which?
2) AMICO should encourage multiple impressions of a print/photograph? Yes / No
F. Collections Development - Museum Representation
Framing: AMICO was formed by North American museums. Its membership is open to institutions worldwide but bringing such institutions in involves substantial investments in accommodating different legal, linguistic, social and institution traditions, all of which will significantly impact AMICO.
Options (ranked with 1 as highest):
Policy
Rank
Maintain current policy - Encourage institutions worldwide to join if they are prepared to accept terms applied to current members.
Make substantial effort to bring in European museums
Make substantial effort to bring in Asian museums
Make substantial effort to bring in African museums
Make substantial effort to bring in Latin American museums
Make specific effort to bring in the following institution(s):
H. Collections Development - Specific Works/Subjects
Framing: The AMICO Library will grow annually, but at any size it will not have everything that a particular scholar or student might want. Currently the philosophy is to encourage museums to include those works with which they are involved in any given year - new acquisitions, items going on loan or exhibition, items being published or requested photography - on the grounds that these will prove also to be of greatest interest. Other options have been proposed.
Options (ranked with 1 as highest):
Policy
Rank
Continue current practice
Provide mechanisms for users to request specific works as a "popularity" contest only
Provide mechanisms for users to request specific works with payment by the individual to enable the work to be included
Provide mechanisms for users to request more works of a particular sort, topic or artist
Provide mechanisms for users to "seamlessly" incorporate their own content locally
Provide mechanisms for users to "seamlessly" incorporate their own content to contribute content to The AMICO Library for use by other subscribers
other, please elaborate
I. Documentation - Integration
Framing: AMICO data could be tightly linked to other museum data through editorial efforts and tool development. Each of these would doubtless enhance the value of The AMICO Library.
Options (ranked with 1 as highest):
Policy
Rank
Focus on links to more internal museum resources represented in the multimedia in the Library
Enable links to abstracting/indexing of art literature - citation references
Enable links to encyclopedias of art and culture - contextual background
Enable links to full texts of scholarly writing represented in JSTOR etc.
Enable links to textbooks - such as the standard "Art 101' texts
Enable links to internal resources at licensee institutions - local digitized slides, course material
other, please elaborate
J. Documentation - Interactivity
Framing: AMICO data could be a set of loosely linked resources or tightly authored multimedia content. It could be delivered with specific tools for multi-media authoring or without such tools.
Options (ranked with 1 as highest):
Policy
Rank
Keep the collection as independent files of content in various modalities (text, image, sound)
Promote development of integrated multimedia programs as one of the types of content, recognizing that this will reduce the number of independent elements in the Library
Promote delivery of tools for editing multimedia elements into interactives, recognizing that this could add to the cost of delivery
other, please elaborate
K. Documentation - Depth vs. Breadth
Framing: AMICO could encourage, discourage, or even prohibit certain amounts of depth/breadth. Currently the "minimum" contribution of an AMICO member is 500 works of art with at least a catalog record and one image for each. We could, for instance, encourage deeper multi-media documentation of particular works by substituting a minimum contribution of a fixed number of digital "files" for a minimum contribution of a number of "works".
Options: Kinds of multi-media documentation of particular interest (ranked with 1 as highest):
Option
Rank
scholarly essays
curriculum materials from education offices
conservation reports
exhibition and publication texts
interactive programs
L. Documentation - Images
Framing: Providing high resolution images presents a number of technical and social challenges and if certain thresholds of minimum resolution are adopted may keep some works out of The AMICO Library altogether. Some documentation only exist in black and white. There are some works for which it is not possible to obtain rights or create new images. Should minimum thresholds be established? If so, what levels?
Options (ranked with 1 as highest): (Y/N)
Y/N
Rank
Establish an absolute minimum resolution below which no image should be included in The AMICO Library:
800x600 dpi
1024x768 dpi (full screen 17" monitor/max for most projectors)
1600x1440 dpi (full screen 19" + monitors)
no minimum, encourage best possible
Encourage contribution of extremely high resolution images (5MB+) in addition to projection
only if not watermarked
even if watermarked
Establish an upper limit for images that can be easily accessed by most browsers and projected by most digital projection equipment. As this standard moves in the coming years, move the bar
Permit black and white photography
Yes?
Never
Only if the original is black & white?
No, unless the existing photography is b/w and it is not possible to obtain other photographs
Permit text only
Yes?
Never?
Only if rights to the image cannot be secured?
M. Documentation ö Language
Framing: As we obtain documentation from museums world-wide, it will necessarily be in numerous languages.
Options (rank preference, recognizing likely cost and or inclusiveness implications):
Option
Rank
Leave all documentation in original languages
Index all documentation in English
Index all documentation in all the languages of contributing institutions
Translate documentation into one of several European languages
Translate documentation into English
N. Conclusion of Section 2: General Discussion of AMICO Content development strategies and documentation requirements
2.3 Rights
Overall Framing: A large part of the value of The AMICO Library to users is that they do not have to research rights for works of art and documentation that they find - they may use the material for education purposes without further permission. The job of obtaining these rights falls on AMICO members. But the nature of rights holding in the contemporary world makes this a difficult job for the museums and various trade-offs are often proposed.
- Uniform rights
Framing: If all items in The AMICO Library are licensed to subscribers with the same rights, then works or documentation for which AMICO members cannot obtain these rights must be excluded from the Library.
Where uniform rights cannot be obtained, should AMICO:
1) exclude the items from the library
2) include them in a special subset of the library for which there are different restrictions
3) document rights at the item level, restricting tools/views as appropriate for the specific rights that have been obtained
4) other, please elaborate
- Additional rights
Framing: While the AMICO license provides substantial educational use rights (far beyond those permitted under fair use), it excludes commercial uses and republication. Ease of acquiring these and other rights is something that AMICO could assist with, though it involves implementing systems (human and machine) and resource commitments.
On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is absolutely critical and 10 is of no importance, how important is it to you that AMICO help you acquire these additional rights? On a scale in which the cost to the additional subscribing institution is in parentheses, indicate the added amount you would be willing to pay p.a..
1. provide name/address of rights holders and electronic link/mail-to if known $100
$200
$500
$1000
$2000
Other:
2. provide link to in on-line form agreements, if they exist $100
$200
$500
$1000
$2000
Other:
3. provide standard forms of agreements $100
$200
$500
$1000
$2000
Other:
4. provide standard pricing $100
$200
$500
$1000
$2000
Other:
5. administer standards pricing and agreements $100
$200
$500
$1000
$2000
Other:
- Contemporary and Modern Art
Framing: Much of the art of the twentieth century is covered by copyright owned by artists and their estates rather than by the museums which own the physical works. Museums would like to make these works available in The AMICO Library but they often have to pay royalties to the copyright owners on an annual basis to do so. Should The AMICO Library contain works licensed from contemporary artists and their estates?
How much additional cost for including your preferred ratio of works of the twentieth century (indicated in answer to Collections Development earlier), would you consider a good investment?
None
5%
10%
20%
50%
- User Community
Framing: The broader, or more loosely defined, the user community which is permitted to access The AMICO Library, the more difficult it is to persuade rights holders to provide AMICO with the right to relicense their works for educational uses. Recognizing that the consequences could be the withdrawal of some works, which if any of the following groups of users beyond the currently Designated Users (enrolled in/employed by educational institutions) do you feel are:
Essential to include among AMICO Designated Users
Desirable to include among AMICO Designated Users
Optional to include among AMICO Designated Users
Options, please rank in order of desirability/importance:
Rank
1. Walk-in visitors to the University/school library Essential
Desirable
Optional
2. Families of the designated users Essential
Desirable
Optional
3. Alumni of schools (which are subscribing institutions) Essential
Desirable
Optional
4. Members of museum (which are subscribing institutions) Essential
Desirable
Optional
5. Non-degree students Essential
Desirable
Optional
6. Students in distance education or life-long learning programs Essential
Desirable
Optional
7. Any public library cardholder, through their public library Essential
Desirable
Optional
8. Other, please elaborate Essential
Desirable
Optional
- Uses During the License Period
Framing: Some practices are permitted and others prohibited under the terms of the current AMICO license. These are always enumerated explicitly so that the boundaries are clearly understood by all parties. Sometimes rights holders turn down requests from AMICO to include works to which they hold rights because AMICO permits uses to which the rights holder objects.
If you would be willing to see any of the permitted practices prohibited in the future, please rank the top 3 in order of their acceptability to you (1st,2nd,3rd).
Permitted Uses
Rank willingness to prohibit (top 3)
Downloading
Viewing from any place
Placing on (non-public) course web-site
Copying to CD/slides for educational use
Retaining in professional portfolio (CV) for life
Displaying in class/conference papers
Showing artists image with overlays
Incorporating image in work, with credit
Classroom presentation
Use in any research context, with collaborators
Any "fair use" under copyright law
If you would like to see any prohibited practices permitted in the future, rank the top 3 in order of importance to you (1st,2nd,3rd).
Prohibited Uses
Rank desire to Permit (top 3)
Systematic copying
Providing access to non-designated users
Placing on Public Web Site
Reproducing for distribution to non-designated users
Retaining for educational use after license
Publishing in academic journal or online
Reposting modified images
Incorporating image without credit to original
Public exhibition
Use in any fundraising context
Any commercial use
- Practices Permitted with Reporting Only
Framing: Universities in the Museum Educational Site Licensing project report a desire to do some things with digital representations of works of art which made museums very nervous. A compromise was reached to permit universities to engage in these practices in return for their reporting on them annually. This would permit the museums to assess if they really had any reason to fear these practices and give them a basis on which to decide whether to permit them in the future.
If you were making the decision, would you accept the following permissions, assuming the associated reporting burden? (Y/N)
Permission
IF
Reporting Burden
Accept
(yes or no)1) Local Mounting of Records
IF
Annual Report of which records in what applications
2) Copying to CD/other Media
IF
Annual Report of which works/How many CD's, slides, etc. /Uses
3) Modifying/adapting works of art
IF
Annual report of which works/what kind of modification and what educational purpose where served
- After the License Expires
Framing: as long as institutions maintain their subscription to The AMICO Library, Designated Users in those institutions have the rights extended under the license. If the institution ceases to subscribe, certain rights will be taken away, others may be granted in perpetuity.
Please rank how important these extended rights are to you personally.
Rank
1) Students can keep AMICO works referenced in their papers/exams/or own art within their portfolio's, in perpetuity
2) Museums may retain AMICO works in the documentation of related works in their own collections, in perpetuity
3) University subscribers may ask for rights to use works assigned in classes in the first semester following the end of subscription so as not to disrupt class preparations/expectations, without charge
AMICO is considering allowing university subscribers to acquire an unlimited term license to works already mounted locally, for a price ($x per work). Some works, where rights are owned by living artists or their estates, would need to be excluded. What do you believe would be the value (per work) of such a license?
$5
$10
$15
$20
Other:
- Conclusion of Section 3: General Discussion of Intellectual Property and Rights Administration issues.
2.4 Delivery Service
Overall Framing: AMICO has decided that museums are better at creating content than at delivery so it is using existing non-profit and governmental data delivery services to provide subscribers with access to The AMICO Library. In this testbed year, all access to The AMICO Library is provided through the Research Libraries Group (RLG), but in future years we hope to see numerous sources for The AMICO Library. While different services can develop different features for their client communities, we would like your reactions to the RLG service to help rank the features important to you.
- Access/Security
Framing: How users security is administered will determine where users can use the library. Different strategies have different costs, but AMICO can require its distributors to provide methods that will satisfy users needs.
By %, from where do you believe you and your students/clients would want to access the library?
Location
Rank
office
library or VR collection
laboratory
classroom
home
other, please elaborate
- Interface
Framing: Usability of the application depends on its interface.
Please give us your feedback on the following aspects of the RLG Service, ranking your opinion of various features low, medium and high.
- Look and feel (first impressions)
- Location of frames/buttons
Options
(customizing your environment)Maximum image dimensions
- Inspection (640w x 480h pixels)
- Presentation (1024w x 768h pixels)
- Creator
- Title
- Owner
Items in each search result screen
- Five
- Ten
- Fifteen
- Twenty
- Images and text
- Text only
- Images only
- Image borders and menu background
- No borders or background
Other, please elaborate
- Search functionality
Framing: Satisfaction with searches of the database depends on the quality, consistency and depth of the information content and the functionality and ease of use of the searching features.
In each case, identify up to two positive and two negative features. Then rank all features according to importance to you.
Function
Positive?
Negative?
Rank
Simple search
Advanced search
Pick lists
Previous searches
Save sets/combine in new query
Save items to Notebook
Other, please elaborate
- Interoperability
Framing: The AMICO Library does not exist in a vacuum and will never be the only resource a student or scholar would need. Given this, there are advantages to sharing information content with other arenas.
Rank the importance to yourself/your users of whether The AMICO Library has:
Dublin Core metadata
MARC compatibility
AAT index terms
Library of Congress Subject terms
ULAN artist names
EAD compatibility
VRA Core metadata
other, please elaborate
- Linkage
Framing: AMICO cannot create links to other local resources, but knowing what kinds of local resources users want to link to could enable us to promote tools that make such linking possible.
Rank the importance of links to the following:
Basic (Art 101) textbook indexes
Course homepages
Encyclopedias (Grove, etc.)
Local library OPAC
Local slide collection
Personal databases
Other, please identify
F: Conclusion of Section 4: General Discussion of Delivery Issues
Overall Framing: Any data will be valuable to the extent that it can be used, and its value will increase to any group of users if the uses they most want to make are easily enabled. Enabling the use of digital information requires software tools. Determining which software tools are most desirable to whom, and finding ways to create tools which are sufficiently general to be used by a variety of users for their purposes while sufficiently specific to support complex and specialized needs, is always a challenge. Needless to say, developing software tools requires investment - in some cases it is preferable to use tools developed for more general purposes in order to save resources to make tools that would otherwise not be available at all.
2.6 Expectations, Experiences, Opportunities and Barriers
- Envisioning The AMICO Library in 2004
Framing: If you are subscribing to The AMICO Library in 2004, when we hope to have 250,000 works of art documented in rich multimedia, what would you imagine would be 5-10 highly desirable functions (by functions, we mean capabilities of a general sort, such as supporting creation and delivery of examinations, supporting dialogue between groups of students engaged in a common assignment, supporting sequenced presentation of works based on instructors curriculum plan, supporting presentation of works in contexts and presentation of works in relation to each other, with appropriate time/space contextualization and sizing, etc.)?
Activity: List (and briefly describe) the desirable characteristics of The AMICO Library in 2004 in the order you think of them.
- Ranking the Processes that The AMICO Library should support
Framing: As a group exercise, we will collate the functions proposed by participants on a white board. We will then classify the functions described into broad categories based on the process (research, teaching, studying, administration, etc.) they support.
Activity: Each individual will be asked to rank the Broad Categories in order of importance to them.
- Ranking functions within processes
Framing: As a Group exercise, we will try to establish relative importance of individual functions within each category. We will use the Delphi method - each individual first raking them for themselves, and the discussing in the group the reasons for the outlying assessments. We will keep track of which features weighed particularly heavily in arriving at any consensus about importance.
- Features of these functions
Framing: Each of the functions we have ranked as significant will have many interrelated features. In your mind's eye, some of these features are being envisioned as essential. For the three functions that are most important to you (not necessarily those ranked by the group), please imagine the three features that would make them really work for you?
Activity: List three key functions and their three key features
Framing: The Focus Group will close with a general discussion of the issues and opportunities facing visual resource curators or art historians as they adopt new technologies for their teaching, research and other professional activities. This section of the Focus Group will be relatively unstructured. Where necessary, the moderators will stimulate the discussion by raising points from the outline below that have not been addressed.
A. Questions put by MESL Cost Assessment Focus Groups (Mellon Study)
Experience & Expectations:
Do you have experience using digital images in teaching/in your visual resource collection?
If yes, answer the following in terms of your experience.
If no, answer in terms of your expectations.
How many slides/digital images would you usually use in a course?
Have you created some digital images yourself?
Have you used digital images:
In classroom projection?
Assigned them for viewing?
Displayed in individual lab setting?
In your experience, which methods of using the digital images are most valuable?
Did you expect anything that didn't occur/did things occur that you did not expect?
What advantages did you anticipate? Were they realized? If not, why?
What disadvantages did you anticipate? Did they come about? If not, do you know why?
Opportunities & Barriers:
What differences do you perceive between digital images and other visual resources?
Advantages/disadvantages of slides
Advantages/disadvantages of books, prints
Advantages/disadvantages of videos, CD's
Advantages/disadvantages of digital images online
Rank the following factors in your decision to use/not use digital images in teaching:
Image selection
Image quality
Text data
Cost of acquiring images
Delivery speed
Equipment/technical support
Tools
Expertise with the technology
Student opinion
Support
Copyright issues
Search functionality
Ease of access
Manipulability
Last modified on October 10, 2001
