16-20 June 2008

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Helpful as references. This material changes so rapidly that printed material is most useful as reference material. 2: Good background to the topic. 3: Very useful. They contained the bulk of the technical (as opposed to practical and institutional) knowledge we learned. 4: The XML readings were very useful. The NARA guidelines [Technical Guidelines for Digitizing Archival Materials for Electronic Access], not so much. 5: The pre-course readings helped to orient me (and I assume others) to the technical content of the course. 6: Very useful. Although we did not directly go over the readings in class, prior familiarity with the subject matter was helpful in following the content and language of the course. 7: Somewhat useful, but very hard going; the presentation was very technical. However, I didn’t find this a hindrance for the start of the course. 8: The readings were very helpful in giving an overall sense of the scope of the course. It was helpful to have an introduction to the material; if anything, I would have enjoyed more reading. 9: Very helpful, and not too daunting.

2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: Yes. I will continue learning from them for months to come, there is much still to learn. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, very handy, especially DS’s short introduction to XML. 4: Absolutely. I will also be blogging my notes and project. 5: The materials provided a basic introduction to digital archiving and text encoding; as such I will refer to them again as a core bibliography. 6: Yes, extremely useful. DS provided a website with useful links and resources, and sent a ZIP file to us with the files we completed in class. I will consult the materials in the future. 7: Yes. I expect to use them as a reference in the future. 8: The “resources” section was (and will be) especially helpful in directing any future use of what I learned. 9: Extremely useful, and will be as a constant reference source from now on.

3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?

1: Stylesheet design and use was most relevant and needed. The “big picture” of how it (XML) all connects, and why, gradually emerged. Challenging material; the difficult parts weren’t ignored, we learned it all. 2: TEI markup. 3: The technical knowledge was of higher interest, but the greatest value came from DS’s recounting of his experiences using the technologies on large-scale projects. 4: TEI/XML/XSLT. I had a great time with these. I think it helped to have experience with XHTML/CSS already, since the goal is different but the syntax is the same. 5: I am an experienced programmer, so the technical components of the course were not geared to my skill level. I am, however, new to working with rare books, and I learned a great deal about how librarians and curators use the covered technologies. 6: The actual TEI mark-up of the documents, and learning how to render the physical object and content matter of a manuscript in Oxygen. 7: I expected both this historical and conceptual overview, and the hands-on practice time. Intellectual level was appropriate, and the instuctor was readily available for more in-depth discussions, further explanation, &c. 8: This course provided an excellent introduction to XML and its uses in the library world. Ideas about storing images and metadata were especially relevant to my work. 9: All useful; perfect beginners’ guide to electronic texts and images.

4) If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

1: Yes. The tour of electronic publishing at Special Collections was very informative, I only wish they’d been digitizing a book then. Or – if we’d been trained/allowed to use some of the equipment – like taking a digital image. 2: Yes, we made a field trip to the digitization lab and got to see the equipment and discuss process with the staff. 3: The visit to the SC digitization facility really solidified and brought together what we had learned so far about equipment, practices, and workflow. 4: It was, although I was less interested in the imaging/collections portion of the class. The scanning/photo equipment was impressive. 5: We went to see the SC digitization operation. This was a reasonable overview of operations, but I would have appreciated a detailed look at work processes and technical tools. 6: Yes, we took an extremely informative “field trip” to the digital lab in SC, where the staff kindly showed us their equipment and spent their time to answer our limitless stream of questions! 7: Yes, but because of some HVAC problems in the SC digitization lab it was uncomfortable. 8: Yes, perhaps more to me than to others. We visited the digital area of SC, where I was able to glean knowledge about image creation and storage methods. 9: Yes. We went to SC digital services and I learned a lot.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: The teacher, who brought incomparable experience and knowledge to the course. He was the reason I chose RBS as my place to learn TEI this summer, and that was definitely the right decision! 2: Hands-on markup project. 3: DS taught very well how you use the technologies (TEI, XSLT, digital images) in large-scale projects; why you do things this way or that under given circumstances. He made sure that people understood what he was saying – one great strength is his ability to explain. 4: Geeking out. Also, in general I found that the class sparked a great many ideas for future projects. I came away every day feeling filled up with stimulating content. DS is an exceptionally well-paced and patient teacher. 5: I most appreciated the opportunity to work with library and book professionals, and learn about their interests. 6: I enjoyed working with actual civil war documents. Being able to hold the original letters in your hand while making up the content is exciting and a great way to learn to use TEI in scholarship. 7: I came away with a much deeper understanding of the subject matter. The subject matter is technical, dry and potentially intimidating, but the course provided me with a basic skill set to get me started. 8: I enjoyed the broad scope and fast pace. 9: DS made technical stuff interesting as well as clear.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: More time on stylesheets would have helped me. 2: It was a good introduction to the field. The course did a good job of covering what it said it would. 3: On the first day, have us compose an XML file in notepad and view the document tree in a browser. This would show quickly just how simple everything is underneath. 4: I would like to have spent some time going over database implementation possibilities. Also, Namespaces; still a complete mystery! 5: The course was quite good, but I would have liked to do more hands-on work with the XML tools. 6: Perhaps if we had the opportunity to do a markup for more than one document. I know there are time constraints, however I feel I would have gotten a better familiarity with Oxygen if I had marked up more than one letter. 7: It’s hard to stare at a computer screen for so long each day. This is necessary for the subject matter, but taking more frequent breaks would have helped. 8: Perhaps more time could be spent on XML’s use for storing bibliographic and file information, and less on its use for tagging manuscript text. 9: I can’t think of anything, except perhaps when discussing hardware (devices and shell), a general survey not as useful as asking class what types of hardware they were going to use, planning on using for what projects, and discussing pro’s and con’s of selection.

7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa’s Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?

1: Seemed fine. 3: The handling was fine. 4: I was a little nervous handling the letters, but I’m not sure there’s much to be done – they’re really not “clean room” documents. 5: N/A. 6: None. The materials were handled with care. 7: None. 8: The materials were handled well. 9: All’s well.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Couldn’t attend many. 2: Yes. 3: Absolutely. 4: N/A. 5: The Monday lecture on the Archimedes project [No. 507] was especially worthwhile; William Noel was both entertaining and informative. 6: Yes. I particularly enjoyed the Monday night lecture on the Archimedes project; incredibly interesting. Guest lecturers are an added bonus to the course. I also enjoyed the film on Tuesday night on New York City booksellers. 7: Yes. 9: Yes.

9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: Yes. Exactly what I wanted, and much more than I knew to want. 2: Yes. Thanks! 3: You must take this course! The tools you learn about made it possible to do some things that might seem prohibitively expensive with great ease. 4: Absolutely. I’d love to come back for a follow-up class. Read the XML introduction before you come to class! 5: I absolutely felt my time was well spent. I do not know, however, that future attendance would be beneficial. 6: Yes! Accommodation was great; really enjoyed the Lawn. RBS staff made sure the students were comfortable, &c. DS is a phenomenal teacher – he is the sole reason to take the course. 7: This week was like summer camp for book geeks. 8: This course was well worth the trip! I will return with fresh ideas, and the foundation for implementing those ideas. I plan to continue learning more about the subject as it pertains to me and my work. 9: Certainly. It is a wonderful introduction to electronic texts and images, that takes you from the compilation of individual files, to their association and presentation on the web. Zero to sixty in five days.

Number of respondents: 9

PERCENTAGES

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

44% 33% 67% 44%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel

11% 22% 22% 22%

N/A: self-                    N/A: Self-                   N/A: stayed                N/A: lived
employed, re-            employed,                  with friends               nearby
tired, or had              retired, or                  or lived at
summers off               scholarship                home

44% 44% 11% 33%

There were 2 museum employees (22%); 1 archivist/manuscript librarian (11%); 1 teacher/professor (11%); 1 full-time student (11%); 1 digital librarian (11%); 1 computer programmer (11%); 1 IT Consultant (11%); and 1 digitizer of rare books (11%).