...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Alessandra Luciano (Luxembourg), Mon 4 Nov
Link to recording
Key takeaways (UX)
She could see using it as a dashboard as well as a presentation/advocacy tool.
To advocate for more funding.
To inspire a bit of competition in the data providers!
User expected to be able to navigate to her country page via the map/country list on the main dashboard - she tried to do this twice!
She did not find ‘Country Pages’ tab until prompted.
She had difficulty finding Luxembourg in the Country Pages dropdown.*
The top section of the country page (3D/HQ/All cards) are very useful; they clearly show the current and target states of the data.
The user navigated back to the main dashboard several times, and did not understand the difference between the two without explanation.
She requested an easier-to-find explanation of data tiers, as she could not recall what they meant from memory.
Data Progression table is too complex*; she avoided interacting with it until prompted. She preferred comparing countries on the main dashboard page. She didn’t realise how to get the hover effect on the line chart until prompted. Once she realised, she found it quite useful to compare countries.
The function of the squiggly lines to ‘zoom-in’ on the Content Type bar chart near the bottom of the country page was not clear to her.*
User requested a high-level entry landing page/section to her own country page; she doesn’t think it makes sense to have the main dashboard is the entry point for member states - they want to see their own country first.
*The styling of components would be clearer if they used more common patterns (e.g. https://styleguide.europeana.eu/#/Style/Bootstrap%20Vue?id=dropdown )
Key takeaways (data)
?
<<RAW NOTES BELOW>>
Discovery questions: about her role and day-to-day
...
Their institutions need to feel like the process is easy - having to reconfigure their whole data to fit the data space is a barrier; they want to be ae to use whatever they’re already doing; more of a drag and rop experience would be ideal, and they’d be far more likely to share more; 5-10 year long progression curve so they can see their efforts would be great; but the non-ease of it is the major challenge - the aggregation process is not the smoothest for them, and that’s where most of the barriers lie; otherwise they’re happy to comply;
They work through domain aggregators; interested in finding other ways of aggregating; they dont like how it has to be ‘dumbed down’ to fit into europeana
She needs to explain what the data space is to both her cabinet and her data providers; how do we aggregate, and what is that process like, is there a new way we can do it and can they be a pilot for it? Because they are small and they are willing
Being discoverable on Europeana is not interesting enough on it’s own for CHIs,
they have their own platforms and networks, that are keeping them busy;
more interested in being part of the community around testing tools and technologies like IIIF projects where they codevelop or codesign new data schemes that would ofc work better for them;
levelling up competencies is really what it’s about ;
the activities are alway an excuse for the bottom line which is building competencies and future-proofing - that’s the philosophy is being structured
Tonny Skovgård Jensen (Denmark), Thu 7 Nov
Key takeaways (UX)
...
Most text-based items (which is most of their collection) are probably only most interesting for Danes