i) "Greatest challenge in indexing content or creating metadata?"
Response: I will cite two, equally challenging issues in this regard. First, the esoteric nature of the digitized textual objects required that I utilize assistance from a linguistic to be able to create detailed, accurate content descriptions. Also, certain specialized font characters required for proper grammatical expression added a technical problem, since CONTENT could not transpose these characters into HTML. Second, the inadequacy of CONTENT to provide a usable vocabulary of browse search terms required extensive use of hidden but searchable fields in tandem with non-searchable display fields.
j) "Greatest challenge in scanning objects?"
Response: The inability of the overhead scanner to capture legible digitized text from some materials was the source of several related problems. Considerable time and effort were required for digital editing, which prompted questions about appropriate time management per item and concerns about loss of authenticity. Two other challenges are worth mentioning, since both impacted our productivity. First, our training did not distinguish clearly enough the difference between image size and file size. Consequently, quite far into the project we discovered the requirement to keep our file sizes at less than 150K, and so most needed to be re-scanned and re-edited. Second, we discovered how vulnerable our project was to intranet instability and downtime.
k) "Problems purchasing or installing software or equipment?"
Response: A 5% price increase was applied by the manufacturer to the scanner we intended to purchase, but after our budget was submitted, and this increased our uncompensated cost by $858. Miscommunication, particularly between ourselves and the hardware vendor also led to additional uncompensated costs, such as the need to purchase an Adobe Photoshop application.
l) "Scanned objects available on the Web?"
Response: Yes. See: http://content.wsulibs.wsu.edu/ , accessed via the HTML client. Our databases are titled "GU Production" with three subgroups, "Textual Portion," "Images Portion," and "Comparisons."
m) "Planning another digital images project in the next two year? Will this involve CONTENT software?"
Response: This has been discussed, and interest remains high. Access to the Alaska Native Missions materials within the Jesuit Oregon Province Archives is particularly urgent, especially by the Native communities themselves. A digitization project focused on this need could bring a very important expansion of our services. A decision regarding the use of CONTENT has not been made. Any final decision will have to include consideration of the image digitization capabilities of "Endeavor," the online library catalog product which is replacing our current system.
n) "What would be done differently?"
Response: I would try to plan the timing of the project better. Rather than expecting to be able to accomplish project objectives on a steady, ongoing basis, I would try to coordinate it with other significant projects. It could then be my designated high priority for a prescribed length of time.
o) "Willing to participate on a panel discussion?"
Response: Yes. Contact Name: David Kingma kingma@its.gonzaga.edu

Addendum

The questions above did not request information about time requirements for project administration. This component, in our experience, involved approximately 30 hours, or 12% of the total.

The following information outlines time utilization statistics for the project.

Component Time Expenditures (# Hours)

Staff Project Manager TOTAL

Preparation and
Handling Collections 5 (3%) 8 (7%) 13 (5%)

Scanning Processes 92 (63%) 14 (12%) 106 (41%)

Indexing Processes 38 (26%) 49 (43%) 87 (33%)

Training 8 (6%) 16 (14%) 24 (9%)

Administration 3 (2%) 27 (24%) 30 (12%)

TOTAL 146 Hrs 114 Hrs 260 Hrs