Interview 1  

I1: So you can ahead and go through the those first set of tools.

R1: These ones here?

I1: Yeah

R1: Yeah I've already looked at all these so, go ahead.

I1: Okay.  So you're ready for the.

R1: Yeah, yeah.

I1: Okay.

R1: No I've gone through every, I've used everything.  

Author Bio
I1: Okay great. So, the first question is, in what ways if any does having access to the bio statement contribute to your reading of this article?

R1: :27 Oh I see you wanted me to look at the author bio, sorry I was looking at the abstract. Well in this case not at all because I know the author. 

I1: Okay fair enough.  Had you not known what would have, do you think it would have contributed?

R1: No, not really it tells me he's an expert in electronic, ah, the production of  electronic texts  but I would kind of assume that anybody who as writing about it was. I wouldn't use the author bio to assess value of the article.

I1: Okay.

R1: It's not relevant.

Metadata
I1: SO the second question is, does any of the metadata in view items metadata, add to your reading of the piece and if so in what way?

R1: Ummm it doesn't add to my reading of the piece it explains why most of the search tools later on failed as abysmally as they did, because it's improperly categorized.  I assume that he chose his own search terms, so for example, his search terms under subject European Literature, Computer Science, Humanities, Humanities Computing, as far as I'm concerned, the article is at least as much about Chaucer and about the problem of textual variation in Chaucer, and  Chaucer does not appear at all in this data, so that's a major problem actually, but that's his fault, not the fault of the tool. It just means that it's not very finely grained.
1:55

Define Terms
I1:  So the next question is, in this piece do you see the value of being able to look up a term by placing it in the look up box in Define.  

R1: Oh no (laughs).  Define terms no.  Because I did it, there is, I mean there aren't a lot of terms I don't know, and I wondered how he was using graphitic, right okay I put in graphitic (typing) ant it's not going to be in the internet encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's not going to be in OneLook Dictionaries, it's not going to be in the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, it's not, WordNet is misleading, you don't know what WordNet is misleading until you read the About, and by the way the About isn't, in this case, it's an About, but half the time when you click About all you get is the Homepage.  So it doesn't tell you anything about.  There is no back arrow to it, it's extremely irritating.  So, all you can do is search Miriam Webster which is not a particularly good dictionary, and of course it's not there.  Now, if I were looking up a word, I would go to the OED online which my university has access to.

I1: Okay. 

R1: I don't know if graphitic would be there and these suggestions are silly, right?  So it's, it's pointless. 

Add Comment/Email Author
I1: Okay, next question, Do you ever see yourself using add comment or email author and would you want those features on your own work?

R1: (sighs) I don't think I'd use add comment I might email an author, whose work I was interested in, ummm, and you mean if I had an article would I want people to be able to email me?  Is that the second part?

I1: Yeah.

R1: Sure.  Okay 

I1: So moving on to the second set of tools, assigned, related items. 

R1:Yeah. 

Authors Other Works
I1:So have you gone through these already? 

R1: Well I've played with them and again, look what they're giving me, the one place I would search for an article written by somebody who is a specialist in Chaucer would be the MLA, which isn't here presumably because it is a subscription based service. 

4:01

I1: Okay.

R1: Ummm.  It isn't in most, I don't understand the principle of selection behind these tools, I, I don't know what they're doing, like what, what brings together Perseus which is an archive of resources for classical studies with the Public Knowledge Project Open Archives Harvester with the anthropological index and the English server and the voice of the Shuttle.  I, I just don't see how they are connected, and none of these, is going to give me a complete list of Peter Robinson's work. Like not even close.   I mean if you look him up, well let's just pick one, so if you go to the anthropological index let's say, Now I mean I know I'm not going to find him, because I know he's not an anthropologist, right? But other people wouldn't necessarily. I just clicked the About link and this is what I got.  So it's not really an About page.  I can't go back, because there's no navigation so I have to close the window and try something., I have to decide, decide to search it, so I'll search it, no matching entries were found well of course they weren't.  I wouldn't expect them to be.  If you want to know what Peter Robinson has published, then what you want is to go to the MLA (typing) and if you put him into the MLA (pause) I'm just curious to see how many hits you're going to get.  Peter in author, and Robinson and Author (exploring tool) okay, well I mean there is 90  they're not all him, but many of them are, I know which ones are him, because I know him, and I know his work, right. 

I1: Okay.

R1: So I just, you know, there are much better tools than the ones that are included.  Now, if this included the MLA, then sure it would be useful, it's just that right now, the tools that are there aren't the ones that would give a complete listing of his work. Okay.

I1: Okay, that's great.  So just to make sure that I've covered the sort of the structured questions, so has this tool led to materials that affected your understanding of the original article?

R1: You mean the authors other works tool?

I1: Yeah.

R1: Well no for reasons given there.

I1: Already stated. And, did it lead to anything that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R1: No, no.

I1: and it didn't lead to materials that you would use in your teaching or research?

R1: Well no because it didn't lead to anything.

6:56
I1: Okay, so overall the tool itself might have been useful had MLA been included...

R1: Had the content been different, yes.

I1: Okay.  So it's a content based...

R1: Yeah, that's right.

I1: Okay.

R1: No I like the idea of being able to look up, of easily being able to look up the works of an author if I find an article interesting. 

I1: Okay.

R1: It's just that you need the right match, and, and things like Voice of the Shuttle, I mean it's a great list of links but it's not, it's purpose in life isn't to be a bibliography.  Right?

Government
I1: Useful information.  So moving on to the government tool.

R1: Huh, huh.

I1: So we'll go through those three main questions again, did the tool lead to materials that affected your understanding of the article?

R1: (laughs) no. 

I1: Okay, and did they help you to evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R1: No.

I1: And did they lead to materials that you would use in your teaching or our research?

R1: No.

I1: Okay so then is that, is there any specific reason for why?

R1: Well again, I mean look at the list 

I1: So it's again content.

R1: Well it's partly content ummm, it's also because  I believe that the search terms, like the search terms that he's assigned for this article, are bibliography and e-books, I'm not interested in it primarily as an article about e-books or bibliography, I'm interested in it as an article about textual theory and the problem with textual variations in Chaucer manuscripts.  

I1: Okay, so you have the option of changing those key words

R1: Changing those yeah, I realize that. 

I1: So did that result in any better . . . 

R1: I didn't, I didn't bother because the tools that I would have been searching are largely irrelevant to the those subjects. 

I1: The search option.

R1: I mean there's nothing in the government of Canada, I know this, there's nothing in the government of Canada archives that's relevant to me to Chaucer to the textual to the status to Chaucer's text, right.  If I want an article, about the status of Chaucer's text I'll go to the MLA, right? And now, I mean if it were a different kind of article, if I were reading something about public policy, sure it'd be great search government web sites but for an article on literary, textual theory it's irrelevant.

Book
I1: Okay that's great, so the next tool 

R1: Book. Umm same problem.  None of these are sources that I would consider particularly reliable or comprehensive.  They're not true bibliographic tools.  I mean (sighs) Google Print for start there's no About, right.  This is just, this is just you go straight the search page.  Ummm it's not comprehensive.  It's not academic, it's not scholarly, so I wouldn't, I would be just as you know, I might go Amazon and type in Peter Robinson but I wouldn't, if I had a student who did that, yeah go ahead and move that.  If I had a student whose idea of conducting a bibliographic search, was to use Google Print, Online Books Page, Books online, you know I 'd tell them that they were  missing the point, that what you use is the scholarly tool and these have promise but they're not comprehensive enough yet to be umm, to be safe you know like they're just an, and you see nothing shows up (laughs) well that's, that's not right you know.

I1: Okay. So with the option of changing the search terms and with having other search options on there.

R1: Same thing. Then it will be useful, sure.   But at that I wouldn't necessarily, I mean author's other works and book,  like I'm not seeing the difference, in other words, the author's other works could include a book by him. Right? So it seems to be doubling in a sense.
11:14

I1: Okay. So include a book search option under author's other works possibly?

R1: Well I mean you can limit it.  You know if you wanted but normally for me, if I want to know what somebody's written, I want to know everything they've written whether it's book or an article it doesn't matter particularly to me.  Ummm I wouldn't like to think that something wasn't being listed because it wasn't a particular kind of work, I want as comprehensive a list as possible. 

I1: Okay, so any other comments on that tool?

R1: Ah, no.

Dictionary
I1: So dictionary? 

R1: Oh well we've done that, that was where we tried to look something up, right? Oh no these are..

I1:  These are slightly different.

R1: Oh well Wikipedia, I'm not going to look anything up in Wikipedia! Anybody and their dog could change Wikipedia.  I spend most of my time telling my children whey they're not allowed to use Wikipedia for homework at least not as their only place.  I mean the problem with Wikipedia is some of the articles you know, I read, sure I check them all the time too, because it's the first thing that shows up in Google on most subjects.  Some of them have obviously been written by experts but they can be changed by anybody, you know by a student with you know with second year experience in a survey course.  And a lot of what when I read Wikipedia about things that I know about, there are things that are wrong.  Right? So I don't consider it a reliable source. It's a good first place, you know, but I would never, I would never ever cite it.  You know. Like I'd feel like people would think I didn't know what I was doing  if I did that.  

I1: Okay, so lets try, did you have the same sort of issues with each of the tools that the sources were not.

R1: Yes.

Book Reviews
I1: Okay.  So what I'm gong to do is ask you kind of hypothetically had there been a choice of different search options?

13:14
R1: I mean this one is better, the book reviews because at least it includes book reviews source which are solid.  I mean the medieval review and the Brin Mawr Classical Review are both scholarly tools and you know, New York Times Books Times is fine. So it's not, it's not even across the tools in terms of the quality of the sources being searched.  In every case though I'd like to be able to do it.  I would like to be able to find, if I read something, if I read a book that I'm interested in but I'm not sure about the argument I'd like to be able to find book reviews.  To find out what other people have thought.  So that would be valuable.  

Dictionary
I1: Okay, so just going back to the last one, we were on Dictionary, had the sources been better, do you think that the tool would have led to materials that affected your understanding of the original article?

R1: (pause) No and not in that particular case no.  In fact I'm not sure why it's called dictionary?

I1: Okay.

R1: Because to me dictionary means looking up a word you don't understand but what we're actually searching here is not that kind of thing.  It's more sort of reference works. Like the Dictionary of Canadian biography, in fact what a strange collection.  Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia, InfoPlease and the dictionary of Canadian Biography - I'm just confused by it actually, I don't understand what it's trying to tell me to let me look up.  Like if it said encyclopedia, or reference works or something, that might be clearer to me. Yeah to me Dictionary to me means a place where you look up words.  Like the thing we used in the first set of looking up tools, for looking up a word.

I1: Right.  So did it help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R1: No. 

I1: And did it lead to anything that you would use or do you think it would use in your teaching or your research if the search option were different?

R1: If the search options were more  I mean for instance, if the - you've got the dictionary of Canadian Biography, which I never use because I'm not a Canadianist, but I use the dictionary of National Biography constantly, especially in my teaching.  So but that's another one that's you know an expensive subscription based service.  Our library gets it but, since this is all about open access you're not going to be able to get access to it right.  

15:41

I1:Okay, so over all, if this tool was more refined, do you think it would be valuable?

R1: Yeah sure.

Literary Critics
I1: Okay.  So, literary critics.  

R1: Yeah.  Same problem.  The place I would look for literary criticism would be the MLA.  I mean if you search this one, the internet public library online literary criticism collection, under the search terms that he's given, you know you end up with the annual Egyptological Bibliography.  So clearly there is a problem with the search terms.  Now notice what I would like to do now.  What I would like to do now, is hit the back button and change the search terms.  Can't do that 'cause there's no navigation here.

I1: Okay.  

R1: That's just a programming thing just need to add a back button, that takes me back.

I1: That's a good thing to note.  If you need to go back, although it's not as accessible you can  do the right click on the screen if you move off of,…. (pause)

R1: Now it just takes me back to his article.

I1: If you, if you go back to that page and you right click on the screen, then you can go back. But it's not quite as accessible as having a back button there. 

R1: So Bibliography and e-books as I said, it's not really about bibliography, lets try putting in Chaucer and text which is what its about or at least its the thing that it's about is of interest to me and search the same tool, (pause)  and it is taking too long.  And you know it's still, it's still not giving me anything useful.

I1: Okay. 

R1: It's, it's just, it's ummm, 	it's not specialized enough.  

I1: Okay
18:04

R1: I want, I want scholarly references and. And so I guess that's the problem there.

I1: Okay.

Book Reviews
R1: So next up, Book reviews, I think we already talked about that didn't we? 

I1: Yes we were just in the book reviews.  

R1: So related studies?

I1: Yeah can I just so the three main questions hypothetically speaking, 

R1: Huh, huh

I1: Do you think this tool could affect your, lead to materials that could affect your understanding of the original article?

R1: I don't think it would affect my understanding of the original article ever, I mean no matter what the tool was, but the other question, things that might that I might use in my research or teaching, sure if it was a better source.

I1: And to evaluate the quality and significance of the article?

R1: No, that's not how I evaluate quality and significance. I Evaluate quality and significance partly by where things appear, which is the major problem that online publishing has.

I1: Okay.  And what's in the book review, we did book reviews earlier.

R1: We did look at it, yeah. It's the Bryn, Bryn Mawr Classical Review, the medieval review, umm, that's funny.  

I1: They're not even coming up.

R1: They're not even coming up.  Ahh, The New York Times Review, Humanities List Reviews, as I, I think I said that they were actually tools that were closer to being what they should be than on some of the other, rather resources that were closer to being what they should be than some of the other fields. So I think that's, that's good. 
19:38

Literary Critics
I1: And back to literary critics for the three questions.

R1: Huh, huh.

I1: If the sources were better.

R1: Yeah.

I1: Would it affect your understanding of the original article?

R1: No.

I1: And do you think it might help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R1: Probably not.  Maybe.

I1: And do you think it might lead to materials that you would use in your teaching or research?

R1: Yes.  

I1: And in what way would you use what you found?

R1: Well if it led me to other similar articles that I didn't know about. Yeah.

I1: And overall do you think this would be a useful tool if it were refined?

R1: Sure.

Related Studies
I1: Okay. So related studies is the next one.  

R1: Right.  Ummm, we're back to the same problem, which is the collection of resources. Ummm, it's, is this, is this, how are, how are these generated?  I mean who? Does Net Serf show up for everything  or just for things that have been identified as medieval for example.  

I1: In this case, the journal itself that we've created was designated as a Humanities Computing journal, and so that has a set of tools that are attached to Humanities Computing and there's sort of other subject areas that come with a different set of tools but all of the articles that we put on to this journal will have the same tools

R1: So net surf is going to show up even in an article about of the 18th century?

I1: If it's related to Human.  Like if we put it on here, and it's related to Humanities computing it will.  If it's on, say we chose the topic of a journal as history or even English, there's an English one as well it would have different search options.

R1: Yeah.  But I mean have you ever seen, have you ever gone to net surf? Cause it's just, it's just a collection of links about things medieval.  Which is fine, for this but, but it, first of all it's not particularly searchable actually.

I1: Okay.

R1: And, second it's, it has nothing to do Humanities Computing, it's a, it's a set of links, ahh it's just netsurf I don't think there's a www, it's just a, just a collection, a very useful collection of links about things medieval.  Ummm So, it's just peculiar.

I1: Okay.

R1: I mean it isn't peculiar in the case of Peter Robinson's article because he happens to be writing about a medieval problem, but it would sure as heck seem strange, I mean look.

I1: Right.

R1: There's nothing, it has nothing to do with Humanities Computing, it has everything to do with the middle ages.  So I'd be pleased, if I didn't know it existed, I'd be glad to see that it existed if I was working in medieval, and sites like are the sort of thing you use for teaching all the time. 

I1: Okay.

R1: But I'd be perplexed as hell if I was reading an article about the 19th century and Net Surf showed up in the list of tools.

I1: Okay.

R1: I just don't understand what it's doing there, I guess, I guess is the point there.

23:06
I1:  So the search options need to be more specific to the article.

R1: Well in this case I guess I thought that it was specific and I thought that was rather good, but from what you tell me, it was just a coincidence, right?
 
I1: Well. Yeah I guess they tried to cover a range of different things that might be in there, like Humanities Computing work covers such a broad range of things that they've covered that they've thrown a broad range of search options based on all the possible kinds of articles or at least a broad range of them.

R1:  Yeah.

I1: so they might not be relevant to each article.

R1: Yeah.

I1: But hopefully there's something for every one I guess is the idea. 

R1: Right.  Well I think that probably broadly that's what's wrong right now.  This is neither scholarly enough for a scholar, nor general enough for neophyte.  It's, it's somewhere in the middle.  There's, there's not much to help somebody who doesn't know the first thing about a field, choose between tools of different quality, there's nothing to tell you not to rely on Wikipedia for instance. 

I1: Okay.  

R1: Ummm but the specialist tools that you would expect if you were reading towards your own research mostly aren't there.  So, so it's kind of you know, sitting somewhere in the middle right now.

I1: Yeah.  Okay.  

R1: Alright, dissertations. 

I1: Can I just take you through those three questions again?

R1: Yeah and then I'll tell you what's wrong with your dissertation catalogue (laughs).

I1: Okay.  So if, if the resources available were different

R1: Yes
24:46
I1: Do you think that the tool would lead to materials that affect you understanding of the original article.

R1: Oh sure, not that affect my, I don't understand that question I guess. I mean I read an article and I understand it, I don't. You know, I don't think, finding out more doesn't change my understanding of the article.  It may change my understanding of the field which is a bit different. But yes certainly umm it might lead to things I'd use in my research and teaching, yeah, if it were, if the tools were different.

I1:  Okay and to evaluate the quality or significance of the article?

R1: No, I, I evaluate the quality and significance of an article on it's own merits just by reading it. 

I1: Okay, and overall, do you think the tool will be as valuable to this kind of web site.

R1: Sure, yeah, yeah.

Dissertations
I1: Okay.  So dissertations.

R1: It doesn't have Dissertation Abstracts International, which is the one tool that I use when I'm searching dissertations.  (exploring tool) See, Electronic Thesis, Dissertation OAI About, harvesting metadata from Open Archives,  so you see it's the same problem.  because the good data isn't open, the resource won't give me what I need.  If I want to know it there's a recent dissertation I search Dissertation Abstracts International, but that's another one that's not open, it's commercial.  I, I think it's an insurmountable problem, until, until this stuff really become free, because everything that's free is incomplete. So. And I, and I care about complete. 

I1: Okay, so for our three questions, with the proper search options ,do you think this tool.

R1: And the proper database, then yes it would be useful.  

27:15

I1: Okay, in affecting your understanding?

R1: No.

I1: Okay.  So that question stands for all of them?
 
R1: Yeah that's the, it doesn't, it's never going to affect my understanding of the piece and it's not going to affect my evaluation of it, because both of those come just from reading.  But in every case, if the databases to which the tool links are, are the right ones, then yes, it'd be very valuable for finding more things to use in research and in teaching. I think you can just sort of take that as given all the way down there, yeah.

I1: All the way down OK. Umm

Databases 	
R1: Databases?

I1: Yes. Same again?

R1: Well it's just a completely weird collection. You know.  I mean it was fun, I didn't know about the UIUC Digital a Gateway to Cultural Heritage Materials, for example (laughs) but I have no sense of why these particular databases were chosen. And most of them are not relevant to, to the article, so you know ummm.

I1: Do you have any suggestions on what might be more useful in that.

R1: Not really 'cause I mean I'm not sure even what you mean by, databases, the list here looks to me like these are not databases, these are some of them, by and large, that what I would call archives. Except perhaps the one, the Literature, Arts & Medicine database, and I mean the Catholic Encyclopedia why isn't that up under dictionary, where the other encyclopedias were. So, and for instance the archives hub, I mean that's archives but it's also a hub so in a way it's like a portal which is the next category down. So, I think what this probably should be is something called archives. And, the archives that I use are things like the public record office in the U.K., ummm and I guess that the archives hub link goes there so again it's a question of, I mean the  archives hub is a good, it's a good site, it's just not, you have to, again you'd have to reenter the search terms, because the search terms that Peter Robinson has provided ummm, only describe one aspect of his work and of the article and it's not the aspect which is most likely to show up in most of his, or most of those archives or whatever we're going to call them.  

I1: Okay, so, with this, sorry, if the resources were better do you think this tool is a good contribution to the site, is a useful contribution?
 30:47
R1: I guess it might be, sure, I mean if it, if it, if it pointed me at an archive tool that I didn't know existed, that would be good.

I1: Okay.  And, for use in your teaching and research in what ways do you think it would be valuable or useful?

R1: Well, presumably to allow me to find materials that I didn't, either didn't know existed or didn't know that I could get access to remotely.

Portals
I1: Okay.  So  moving on to portals.

R1: Right, okay.  Umm, now see here we've got the Archives Portal, why is the Archives Portal under portals? But the UK Archives Portal is under Databases? Ummm, (pause) and again I mean you know obviously there's not going to be anything in the Romantic Circles site that's actually relevant.  Ummm, but then, again that's partly the problem with the, what it does here is it simply pulls up electronic editions which isn't you know, it's not about electronic editions, it actually gives you electronic editions, just randomly of things that happen to be on that site, so.
31:33

I1: If you changed the search terms at all, is that useful?

R1: Ummm, now lets try Chaucer (typing) instead because that's what it's about Ah and search the Dante Project and interestingly there is nothing there, of course there isn't because the Dante Project's about Dante and it's a great site, if I hadn't known it existed I would have been thrilled to find it, I do know it exists, but you know there's, there's even if you used his original search terms, it wouldn't have pulled up anything because what the Dartmouth Dante Project is, is this amazing online archive, in fact, of early editions of Dante.  Right?  Ummm, so it's e-text in action, but it's not you know it's a, it's a project I guess like Peter Robinson's Canterbury Tales project except it's online.  You know it's, it's the same thing.  It's just that the lists...

I1: It's not relevant to this article.

R1: No.

I1: No. okay.  So with, with alternative resources, how would you feel, how do you feel about this tool?

R1: Well in this case I guess I'm not sure what a portal is.  So I'm less certain that it would be useful 'cause I don't quite understand the distinction between a portal and a database or at least certainly not in terms of what is actually in those sections right now I don't see the distinction but maybe if it were different I would understand what was meant.

Pay-Per-View
I1: Okay, so pay-per-view.

R1: Okay (laughs) First off there is a title problem to me that means you know world wrestling federation or something. Ummm, I see what it actually is and ummm, so lets say you search Ingenta, which is a good, a good, I subscribe to you know their table of contents, service, ummm, (long pause) And it finds these two things, ummm, one of which is completely irrelevant the other of which is potentially relevant I suppose, but if I changed the search terms I know that I would find things here.
34:32 

I1: Okay.

R1: Umm but I already I already use Ingenta so it's not like I didn't know it existed, but, but sure having a direct link to it, is a convenience.

I1: Okay.  So what about the other the other options that are on there were any of those?

R1: Ummmm, (exploring tool) Oh  so that one's no good, yeah, I, I, I haven't actually heard of this one and this happened last time I tried to look at it too so, (laughs), ummm, Questia, I don't use this because there's ummm, there's too much mingling of, of different kinds of research and I, I just, I mean to me it, it duplicates other tools that I have more confidence in.  

I1: Okay.

R1: So, but you know it exists, people use it ummm, and this I didn't look at, 'cause it's, it's sounds like it's a science database.

I1: Okay, so, so you found the Ingenta resource useful.

R1: Yes.

I1: So in terms of the usefulness of the tool itself, aside from the title do you have any other comments about the value of the tool as part of this site?

R1: Ummm no, what I, what I would say though, I mean there's a distinction, essentially, pay-per-view turns up the same things or should, as author's other works,

I1: Okay.

R1: The difference is that this turns up actual full text access if you're willing to pay or if you're institution subscribes to these services which, which UBC does for most of them right?  Ummm, for me it would probably be most convenient again if I were able to get a master list of works that I was interested in whether it's the author's own works or similar works with an indication of which ones were available to me for immediate access full text access.  Like there's a difference between you know getting a bibliographic list of things you then need to look up and getting a list that tells you and right now you can go and read this. So for instance a tool like Academic Search, whatever it's called now, Academic Search Elite,  or Premier it keeps changing it's name when you get the list of results there you see immediately which ones you can access in full text and that's useful.
37:34

I1: Okay.  So something with a more comprehensive result.

R1: Yeah, I think so.

I1: Okay.

R1: The danger is that if you make them too comprehensive you're going to end up with a massive list, like I want what I want is to be able to conduct a very targeted search but then end up with the comprehensive list from that targeted research and an indication of which items I can get at my desktop, and which ones I actually have to go to the library for.

I1: Okay. So in terms of your teaching and research, how do think you might use this?

R1:  Well in, in that way I mean I, it's standard for me in both areas to create bibliographies, ummm, and then I am much more likely specially for teaching, I'm much more likely to rely on something that I can get at my desk top, you  know I'll go to the library, if I'm doing my research but not for teaching if I can get a reliable resource, I don't worry so much about whether I'm being completely comprehensive. So that's how I would use it, I would use it to find online reliable online material.

Related Texts
I1: Okay, related texts.

R1: Umm, okay this one confused the hell out of me because Project Gutenberg is a list of primary, it's primary texts, so, you know if I, I don't see how it's relevant to the article, ummmm, Perseus, is also in this context primarily primary texts and also research tools, like all of these seem to be, many of these, I'm familiar with almost all of them, and, and most of them, most of them are ummmm, sources of electronic texts, primary texts, not critical texts.  

I1: So, do you think . . . 

R1: Well I mean I can find chau -  You know, I know what,  I know what there is in terms of Chaucer at the Electronic Text Centre, but you know if you search obviously you're going to find, with those search terms, if I go back, and search for Chaucer though, ummmm, I will get the Chaucer that they have.  (exploring tool) At least I should do, and yet, oh this is, you know what they're searching full text and so they're giving me anybody who actually mentions Chaucer which would be the one thing I wouldn't be looking for at this point.  Ummm, isn't that funny, what they're not telling me is what I know to be true, which is that you can get various works by Chaucer online here and yet they're not showing up, isn't that funny?  'cause they're not, I don't see them.  
40:23

I1: I don't see them either.

R1: (laughs) 

I1: That's strange.

R1: Okay well that's just not, O you know what, you know why, okay this is a problem, it's defaulting it's not searching the University of Virginia Electronic Text Centre, it's searching the e-book library which is different. The University of Virginia E-text Centre has different kinds of e-texts, the biggest most comp.  the thing you want to search comprehensively is this thing, the overall collections. The e-books is limited to books which can be downloaded in different kinds of formats for Microsoft reader and Palm.  So that's why it wasn't turning it up because they haven't put that into e-book form. But you see, somebody who didn't know, what the electronic text collection of Virginia, who didn't know that there is Chaucer would have taken that search at face value, would have said "Oh I can't get an e-text of Chaucer"., which isn't  true you can, you can get lots of Chaucer.

I1:  So it should take you to a different place.

R1: It should take you to the, to the electronic text centre home I think, not to the e-book lot, to the e-text home. Yeah, I guess to their, they have a, well I mean the problem is you were trying to go straight to a search page right?  You have to drill down to find the search pages.  Again this is, this is irritating.  Search all.  No you see this is by collections, that's probably why it was done because the only easily accessible search page is this one. But that's not the useful one.  

I1: Okay.  

R1: Just worth knowing I guess.
42:20

I1: It's good to know, yeah. (pause) So in, so this, this tool was misleading in terms of it's title, maybe it should have been called related primary texts?

R1:  Yeah I think so.  

I1: What did you, what did you expect to find under sort of based on the title?

R1: Under related texts? I would have expected probably to find other scholarly articles which was a bit confusing because there had already been all these other headings where I would also expect to find that, I thought that perhaps it might be ummm, other freely accessible online articles about the same topic.  But. That's what I was expecting to find.

I1: Okay.  So in one way or another if this were related primary texts or if you found what you would expected to find, do you think this is a useful tool or do you think this should?

R1:  Yeah I know I mean it would be useful although again I think I mean if were in some ways it might overlap with previous categories ummm, in general I prefer fewer sub-headings because as soon as there's an attempt at classification you know somebody's gonna say but that's not an x that's y, what's s it doing in the x's you know or you'd be looking at the Y's and saying well where is this other thing although it's in the x's. So, simplifying seems to me to be a useful thing to do.  
44:30
I1: These, the main tools you mean?

R1: Yeah, now I mean if it did say, if it said related primary texts then it would be very clear and at that point, the only problem would be that Peter Robinson didn't have the sense to say that his article is about Chaucer among other things.

I1: Okay, well we, we enter the thing with the, this OJS's because it uses your search terms automatically, we entered the key words because we had to pare them down to only two.: So that otherwise the searches the automatic searches wouldn't return anything because there's so many search terms. So, we did pair them down to sort of the most general thing. So, although Chaucer might have been one of the original key words, it's actually 

R1: It got edited out.  

I1: We edited it out for simplicity.

R1: Okay, but you see I guess, I guess it just depends on why you think somebody's reading it, now fair enough if somebody's reading a journal called Humanities Computing they probably care more about the problem of variants lets say, than they do about problem of the text of Chaucer but if I'm reading that article, ummm I'm not paying attention to where it shows up I've just got a reference that says that Peter Robinson has an article about Variants and Chaucer, in fact, you know I, I grabbed a paragraph of it to use in a lecture tomorrow ummm, but there's another problem you know this, there's nothing on this journal to indicate where these things came from originally and I know where this came from originally, it's a 199, it's from a 1996 book so, that bothers me a lot as a bibliographer. I want to know like it looks like this was published for the first time and it really wasn't, and that's a big problem as well because he says a lot of stuff in here about we will we will - this project that he's describing is 10 years old now, and a lot has changed and it would really be misleading for somebody to read it thinking that it was the state of the art in 2005 when it's not it's describing what he thought actually back in 1995 or so.

46:30

I1: Okay, partially that's a function of, we did this as a sample journal.

R1: Yes, I realize that, but if.

I1: If someone wanted to post up something that they wrote.

R1: That they previously published, it would be vital to indicate.

I1: Where it was originally.

R1: Yeah, yeah.

I1: Okay.  

R1: Especially if it's about technology actually.  'Cause things change so quickly, these guys have changed their minds so many times since they started this project right?

I1: Yeah.  That's true.  Okay.

Online Forums
R1:  Online forums.

I1: We're almost there.

R1: I, I didn't even bother because frankly I don't use online forums.  'cause it's mostly clutter, so. I used to, I mean back in the early heady days when we all thought this was really exciting I subscribed to a whole bunch of them and I gradually turned them all off 'cause I couldn't stand all the twittering in my mail box.

I1: Okay, so you don't use them now.

R1: No I don't. 

Instructional Materials
I1: Okay, instructional materials.

R1: I was really excited about this and very disappointed. I was excited because I thought it'll be great to get instructional materials 'cause that's what I'm doing all the time I'm always looking for pictures and maps and good general sites to point students to ummm, and it did tell about this thing called Edcitement, which is a terrible name, but you know, there wasn't actually anything as you'll see, I did the search and nothing actually came up.  Also, it's not the most responsive site in the universe.
47:41

I1: It's very slow. 

R1: Huh, huh. Yeah it's not just because of this connection I've, like I said I've been on these several times from several different computers like at home as well. And, well, I can't get it to come up today, but yeah, I would love a really good link to instructional materials.

I1: So if better links this would be an excellent tool. 

R1: Huh, huh. Yeah.

I1: Okay, any other general comments about that tool?

Media Report
R1: No.  And media report as well, I this is the kind of thing I would use in teaching I wouldn't use it in research but, ummmm, I do like being able to search newspapers.

I1: Okay.

R1: Although again you know, I, I do it anyway. But it is convenient to have a whole bunch of them in one place.

I1: Okay.  

R1: Even though of course it didn't actually find anything with those search terms.

I1: Okay.

R1: But, but you know in principle I like the idea.

I1: Okay excellent. So in general did that tool work well for you or did you have any other comments on that tool?

Search Engines
R1: No, that's fine, fine. And I have you know, search engines, Google well yeah of course, I'd never heard of Clusty the Clustering Engine, and I have to say that I still don't quite understand what Clusty the Clustering Engine does, after going to the ;page.  
Ummm, I use I use Google mostly same as everybody in the universe, right.  But, again it's a question of convenience, yeah sure It's convenient to go straight to a Google search, but, you know I can also just go straight to a Google search up here. Right? It's built into my browsers tool bars, so, I don't need it.

I1: Right.

R1: And since, and since I would probably actually change the search terms the direct link isn't so useful because the search terms in this case, probably wouldn't be the ones I'd choose to use anyways so I might just as well go up here and do it.  

I1: And any of the others sources were those did you try?

R1: Well I, I tried them.

I1: Or would you be interested in trying them?

R1: Sure I, I tried every thing out I just didn't really, (exploring tool) Oh come on, see it keeps doing that, they don't all load all the time. Ummm, see Visimo didn't give me anything, like even close to, it was a very strange list of, of things.

I1: So Google is the one that you would actually use.

R1: Probably. I mean once upon a time I taught a research methods course and that time I was familiar with the different quirks of all the different search engines and there were lots of different search engines and different ways of mining them, but I've become lazy now I just sort of Google it, and if I can't find it on my first search I just keep changing my search terms in Google till I do, probably not what I should be doing but it is what I do.

I1: Okay.  

R1: And then this, Find items in this journal, okay so this, this is really funny.  Because I had just read an article about Chaucer, right.  (exploring) Chaucer, search full text, (pause) no results.  

I1: No results, okay.  

52:01 

R1: I thought that was pretty funny (laughs) I started, I, I mean the whole he says Chauc, I tried all kinds all kinds of things but, but look at this now did I find "bleep", ummm, full text, yeah okay, I didn't. It's not searching the full text.  'Cause he's got this, there's the paragraph I stole has this really great bit where he takes the opening from the wife of Bath's prologue and replaces every word that doesn't occur in all the witnesses with bleep, and they almost all say bleep, or beep, maybe it's beep.  Beep.  Search the text, yeah see it just doesn't come up and, and so obviously it's actually not searching the full text, I don't what it's doing, but it's not searching the full text.  

I1: Okay.  Okay, so now we'll go on to the sort of general final question the overall questions.

R1: Huh, huh.

Value of Reading Tools
I1: I'll just scroll down to here, so, has what you've learned changed you ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R1: No. I use, I use a lot of online tools already, so, it didn't point me, it showed me a few sites I didn't know existed, I didn't know Edcitement existed, ummm, but there was, if anything, it confirmed my sense that at the moment, you can't rely on free tools for scholarly purposes because they're not complete.  

I1: Okay.

R1: I would say, that that's the case -  I wish that weren't so.

I1: Okay.

R1: But I think it is.  I'm still going to be using MLA you know and Dissertation abstract international and JStore and project news and you know all the things that cost money.

Value of Knowledge
I1: Okay. So, the major challenges on improving the value of knowledge online knowledge I guess specifically, can you speak to  what you think any of those might be.

R1:  Ummm, well I think, I think the problem is manifested by Wikipedia I mean Wikipedia is a resource which may be expert and reliable, which may be crazy, which may be amateur and the only way to know is if you are already an expert.
55:02
I1: Okay.

R1: Ummm, so it comes back to the question of the authority of the sources I notice that all over the front page for this journal, ummm you keep repeating the words "peer reviewed, peer reviewed, peer reviewed, tools for this peer reviewed article," and it's because peer review is the gold standard by which academics judge value of things, ummm, that's probably the right direction, ummmm, (pause). A lot of your questions were about how I evaluate the significance of an article, ummmm I said that I read it, and I decide if it's any good but, from an institutional context, ummm I sit on the faculty of arts tenure and promotion committee for example, so I know how institutions evaluate publication venues.  

I1: Okay.

R1: And online publication is still having real trouble getting accepted as ummm first rank.  That's not reasonable. I've, I've read lots of good articles published on online, online venues but they're still, so I would say another big blockage is institutional attitude.

I1: So even online ones that are peer reviewed?

R1: Yeah, sure because because the peers are seldom felt to be as important as the peers who reviewed you know the, - the thing is every, no academic publishes in a, except in a few specialized fields like lets say  Theater or History where people publish in trade magazines, they don't publish in unrefereed journals, so the refereed isn't actually the primary standard, the kinds of things that get used are what's it's circulation, what's it's acceptance rate, acceptance rate has to be low, like it has to be teeny weenie before people outside the field take it seriously which is a huge problem if you work in a very specialized field.  I mean I, for instance I get something called the Journal of Medieval Latin it has quite a high acceptance rate, well of course it does, 'cause there's only a few people in the world who can actually write for it in the first place.

I1: Do you need an acceptance rate in terms of.

R1: Number of articles printed versus number of articles received.

I1: Okay.

R1: So for instance, a Generalist journal like the PMLA, Publications of the Modern Language Association, gets thousands and thousands and thousands of articles; publishes very of them.  So it's acceptance rate's tiny. That plays very well ummm, once you get outside a specialty, so when you get outside of a department and like a Faculty, or a President is looking at a list, that plays well.  But when a publication is specialized, a specialist venue may have a very high acceptance rate but that's only because most people in the world won't try to submit in the first place.  So the standards by which institutions judge are not always sensible. You know I wish, I wish they were but they're not. Ummm, certainly having peer review is crucial, having those, having the editorial board be international ummm, be composed of well known people, all those things help I think. Ummm, but so far if a journal doesn't have a print presence, ummm, it's still, it's hard to get, once you move outside of you know areas where people really know the field it's hard to get people to take it seriously.  

I1: Okay.

R1: So I'd say that's the biggest challenge in terms of getting people to publish and I mean your question was how do you add value to open and accessible knowledge, well you've got to persuade people to publish that way. And they're not going to if they feel it's not going to pay off in terms of their career and the biggest problem is that junior faculty who might be most interested in new ways of doing things, are most vulnerable to institutional pressures, so they're most likely to be advised by their mentors not to publish that way, perhaps until later, you know.

I1: right, and by then . . .  

R1: Well by then maybe they're set in their ways or whatever ummm, I think it'll probably change, I think it is changing a bit because, but the way it's going to change is because people have become accustomed to online access to print journals, so, I get really irritated now if I have to actually go and physically find a journal, I want to be able to you know, I want it on my screen (conversation overlap)
 
I1: Have it right there and then.  

R1: And that I think is gradually breaking down the distinction. Like, many libraries have quietly discontinued ummm, the print runs of journals for which there is simultaneously a print and an electronic presence.  I think in another few years of that, and probably people will stop having this sense, well and the online journals will get older, that's the other thing, the longer a journal has been around the more status it seems to have and so you know naturally a lot of online journals are startups.  And new journals seldom get the kind of immediate recognition unless you know they got really, really famous people behind them or something like that. Umm, but as they get older they become established and then I think they move up. So yeah.  

I1: SO any comments overall on the site  and the value of having these access to these tools in it's usefulness of the tools?

R1: I, I think I like, I like having one site where I can simultaneously read an article and find out more either on subject or by the same author.  I think that's very useful.  Ummm, I'm not a huge fan of PDF's myself, although ummm, in the case of Peter Robinson's articles there's actually images so you would have had to use PDF's.  Ummm, that's because I like to grab bits, and I mean know you can grab text from PDF but then it comes out funny formatting and you know, I don't like that.  

Capture Citation
Ummm, there was, there was a tool where you could grab the citation which I liked, I don't think we talked about that, now where is it ummmm, maybe it was under abstract.

I1: Yeah it was under that first set.

R1: First set, capture the citation see 'cause I use endnote all the time.  

I1: Okay.

R1: So I like that.  Ummm, now I don't know if it actually works though because I didn't have, yeah it doesn't. Okay, ummm, at this point I'm not sure what is supposed to happen next, like I've a got library about History and Textual Theory,(exploring) choose an import filter.

I1:  Is there one for Endnote in there?

R1: Well this is Endnote.  

1:03:02

I1: Oh.

R1: I've opened endnote but the problem is endnote needs to know what format it's downloading from and endnote has something like 388 import filters.

I1: Okay, is there one that you typically use?

R1: It depends on what I'm importing from.  There's one, they're specific for each different format, right. So if I'm downloading from a silver platter database there's a silver platter filer for instance or is it. (exploring) It's gone because they've changed it, well MLA is under here somewhere.  Ummm, but it's not going to work. See there's OCLC's, Silver Platter, OVID, okay I mean lets, lets take the Silver Platter MLA and see what happens (exploring). Ahh,  I don't think it actually downloaded it.  

I1: Yeah it didn't seem to.

R1: Robinson, Robinson, Robinson (looking in endnote) no, didn't actually download it. So I love the idea but it, it. 

I1: Needs to work.

R1: Needs to work yeah, but, but I would use that all the time because I do use Endnote and I like, I would love to be able to dump the citations straight into my Endnote

I1: Okay.  Any other comments at all?

R1: I think I, I already said that you know if , if the things are going to be reprints then obviously there needs to, I need the original information I mean I happen to know where that was first published but, it really matters a lot that does.

I1: Okay.

R1: Ummm, so this is just a mock up right?

I1: Yeah.

R1: If there were going to be journal, ummm, under editorial team, like back to the question of authority and whether you'd get taken seriously, ummm, it would be useful for the masthead to have a little more detail.  Like, like where are the rest of these, well O, I know where, I know where both Ray and John  are, but it doesn't say here right, so, that's the kind of thing that.  That's what people check, they check editorial boards to see if they recognize the names and if they seem to be people from well known places and that's ummm another of the kind of unfair but frequently practiced ways that people judge how significant a journal is.  

I1: Okay.

R1: So, you know anything  that can be done to beef that up  is useful.  

I1: Okay.

R1: Otherwise no I don't think I have anything else to say.

I1: That's great.

R1: Yeah I think that's it.

I1: Okay.Interview 2

I2: And so have you gone through and used these tools?
 
R2: Yes I've used all the tools.

Author Bio
I2: Okay, so the first question about this first block of tools is, in what ways if any does having access to the bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece?

R2: You know it's a, it's a bit of a funny question because I know Jerome McGann, so I don't need, so I don't happen to need a bio in this instance but I imagine that were I reading an article that I didn't know the author I would, I find that useful to know the area in which that person researches particularly in Humanities Computing because you know most computing, humanists have a particular area of study as well as humanities computing so they're always sort of  dual, so it helps to have that, yeah.

Metadata
I2: Okay. And does any of the metadata in the view items metadata tool add to your reading of the piece, and if so in what way?

R2: Sorry do you want me to move the recorder so I can grab my mouse?  The metadata item was interesting because I guess I, I'm understanding I think that the author is choosing their key words, is that correct or is, who is choosing the key words?

I2: Actually what's happening with the key words is we've taken key words from several databases that hold this article.

R2: Okay.

I2: And then we've narrowed them down.

R2: Right.

I2: Because we can only have a few key words in there.  So we've basically chosen kind of two key key words.

R2: Right, and somehow I suppose I expected a bit more in the way of metadata, the key words both in the search scenario and in the metadata material I found almost too broad to be of assistance with this particular article.

I2: Okay.

R2: The future of the book and e-books I don't know where I would have gone with it, but, you know I suppose the article partly deals with I mean, all his references are often from the Romanticism period, now I don't know ummm, whenever I did any searches and now I'm going into the second block I found that those key words didn't give me anything. Primarily most, most search engines came back with nothing. So I did find that the key words weren't particularly helpful in the searches that I was doing in relation to this article.
2:24

I2: Okay.  Any other comments about the metadata?

R2: Ummm, no, (pause) no I think that was the chief area of, you know that I would, and I can't actually suggest how I might improve it.  You know and I don't know if that's your intent for us to make suggestions, or if you'd rather.

I2: If you have some, but.

R2: But it, they just seemed so general that, that I couldn't use them in the system , In any searches in relation to this article, so that would be my primary comment yea.

Define Terms
I2: Okay great.  So the, the next question is, in this piece do you see the value of being able to look up a term by placing it in the look box in define?

R2: Yeah, I do.  Ummm, I wonder is there some kind of, of, scenario whereby you can't say link to the OED, I realize that the OED is, is off, is not sort of a public site, and yet, could it not be included in the list, and then if, if we don't have access to it through our, our library system then that would just come up with something.

I2: then  you'd have the option to subscribe.

R2: I mean at least you have the option to look it up through this, through this list rather than going outside of the program. You know  it's not a matter of subscribing but I mean if you come up to a scenario whereby in other instances for instance there are say links to New York Times or something like that and in some instances the archival material in New York Times is pay-per-view, so I imagine that if you were to search into the New York Times not that I did today, that you would occasionally come up with an article that you can't access in any case so it would seem to me that something like the OED is probably, for humanists, the primary reference. And it would be interesting to have a tool that would at least allow you access to that.   Whether or not every single person can use it is another question.

I2: Okay great.


4:38
R2: One thing that I did find about this, and this is just a matter of design I suppose, is I find it, it's a bit awkward the way that the, the tool that you're actually accessing which is the internet encyclopedia or the Webster dictionary or whatever, comes up in this preset box.  Because what you in fact do, is loose the tools that you're used to using as you browse the internet, and there's not in my experience although I may have been I mean if I put something in and just looked it up here, I would probably come up with no, one entry, but I mean I'm really accessing this, this, this website online. And I'm losing my browser tools.

I2: Right.

R2: And the other problem is, that in order to go back to another dictionary, I, you know I have no way of doing that then unless I am familiar with the right click button to, to move back.  And I would imagine that you're really designing this tool for a number of people who may not have experience with that right click for the back button and I'm not sure exactly how it works on a Mac. I suppose you just hold it down and it will show up back. But in any case, I would like to still have my browser tools available for me.  And in some instances, and this is general to all of those popup boxes, I feel like this has a feel then, of that kind of period web design in the mid 1990's, when people used to develop these frame pages and if they weren't really thinking ahead they would call whatever page they were trying to link to into a frame rather than into the parent browser window.

I2: Right.

R2: And it's that same kind of frustration that you're framing somebody else's material in your own (laughs), in your own sort of a.

I2: In your own site.

R2: Site, and, and denying the user access to the browser tools that they use in general to access those sites, including things like bookmaking a site that you find interesting, because one of the things that was interesting about these tools to me was, you know, gee I hadn't thought about searching through this for a particular you know if, in case I was looking for say book reviews or something, now here's a site that I might be interested in and now I've got to figure out what this site is. Because the url is not immediately evident.  

I2: Okay, that's great.

7:00
R2: So. I'll just go back. So yes, it's a useful tool, so the OED and that general comment about the design.

Add Comment/Send Link/ Email Author
I2: Okay, now the last question is do you ever see yourself using Add comment or email author, and would you want those features on your own work, if this were your own article?

R2: Just as a matter of etiquette I'd probably wouldn't email the author unless I had some link to that person, and I probably as an author wouldn't respond, (laughs)it sounds terrible but I don't typically respond a lot to, to just general unsolicited email because, I just simply don't have time.   

I2: Okay.


R2:Send link to a colleague, I would use that.

Capture Citation
R2: You hadn't commented on capture the citation?

I2: Okay.

R2: I don't know, did you want to ask a question about that or no?

I2: Yeah.

R2: Because one thing, this is interesting I don't have Endnote or any of these managers on my computer here.  But I've wondered about the option of making these citations available in more than one style.  

I2: Okay.

R2: It would be, that would be extremely helpful.

I2: So having instead of just that one having a few different one's.

R2: APA and MLA and (laughs). That actually would be a quite a helpful thing. I recognize that Endnote would do that for you.

I2: Yes.

R2: But, if you don't have Endnote on your computer. Then at least they would be there with the styles .
8:27

Print Version
I2: Okay.  Did you have any other comments on this first set of tools, generally speaking?

R2: Now when I went to the Print version which I typically don't print articles, but I did go to the print version just to take a look at it, it immediately dumped me into the printing without enabling me to view. So I've got the abstract showing up behind, and I've got the fact that the printer and I'm not sure what it intends to print. Does it intend to print the abstract, or does it intend to print the PDF article?

I2: I guess it prints the abstract in this case, and I think if you're on the PDF.

R2: If I want the PDF it would print the PDF article. 

I2: Yeah, but I guess that's unclear.

R2: 'Cause I mean the print, to print the PDF article obviously that, that you can do through the window in any case, most people would know how to use Adobe, ummm, would be able to just print it. So I don't know if that adds anything to it, when I go to a print version, in any other sort of setting, I generally will look at it to see whether or not it is set up in such a way that it becomes easier for me to read.  'Cause if I'm struggling with a format, then I'll check the print version to see whether or not that form, because it will often reframe it in a page, sometimes it will get rid of materials around it.  So, that's what I sort of thought to do, but it just sends it immediately to a printer and.  So it's not actually taking you to the print version, it's just printing. So may be that should be what it says. 

I2: That's great comments.  Anything else.

R2: All right, no, that's all.



10:04
Authors Other Works
I2: Okay, so moving on to the larger group of tools now, finding related items, so the first tool is the author's other works, and I'll just let you look around, first of all did you have any questions about any of these tools?

R2: No they seemed fairly self evident to me, yeah.

I2: Okay. 

R2: Ummm, some of these, obviously some of these selections are more relevant to this article, you know the PKP Open Archives Harvester, I'm not sure how much you've put in it yet, but that wouldn't show up anything that was related to Jerome McGann. In fact, it seemed to be not as discerning as it might be in the sense that I came up with a few, take a look through this, with a series of really hardly related. In fact I don't even think it came up with one article.  Now I recognize that I can, I can put any search term in I want, but, some of them were obviously more relevant Voice of the Shuttle obviously is more relevant to a Humanities Computing theme. 

I2: Okay.

R2: So, in relation to that it was a fairly obvious tool to use. But I wondered, based on the key words of the article, whether it would be possible to, I mean do these change, do the databases you're accessing based on the key words of the article change or is this the limited number of, or all articles are Humanities Computing articles, so therefore these are the ones that they've chosen.

I2: All articles in, yeah, in this journal.

R2: In this, okay.

I2: So, if we built a journal for, say, historians it would be a different set of tools there.  But it's sort of, it's default to the journal at the moment.

R2: Okay.

I2: But.

R2: Yeah I find some of these probably more useful than others for humanities, but.

I2: Okay. So it might be good if those changed based on the key words your thinking?
12:08
R2: Ahh Yeah, and I suppose what you've just told me helps a bit because I had question about find items in this journal.  And I suppose when I read this, when I look at this tool, I see this as a, more as a archive than a journal. Because obviously these are all published elsewhere, so I know their sourced from other journals, so when I looked at, find items in this journal, I wondered whether I was to submit a journal name. (laughs)

I2: Oh I see.

R2: And then search for it.

I2: Okay.

R2: 'Cause I don't think of this as a journal I mean obviously all these articles are.

I2: Yeah, I guess the way it would be applied though as people would be submitting, submitting their own articles.

R2: I understand, Yeah, yeah. But, that, that was just a sort of oversight on my part.

I2: Okay. So, based on this tool, author's other works, did you find that it lead you to materials that affected your understanding of the original article?

R2: Again, it's a, it's a bit of a question that because I know Jerome McGann's work, all I had to do is oh yeah it brought up the articles that I would have thought were relevant.

I2: Okay.

R2: So in this instance it didn't, but it would were I looking up someone who I didn't know.  

I2: Okay, and did it help you evaluate the quality or significance of the original article at all?

R2: Had I, again, had I been reading something where I needed to read this, yeah obviously, if I, if I were thinking about my students reading this article. And being able to immediately access other articles by Jerome McGann I would find that that would be a useful tool. I would find it very useful as well though if these sites again, if I had the urls, so I could.: Because in some ways, the way in which it's framing it within this site, almost gives students or someone who is not familiar with the work a sense that these don't exist as, as unique locations, where they can go to on their own outside of this journal.
13:32

I2: And then the last question was, did this tool lead you to materials that you would use, that you would use in your teaching or research?

R2: Ah yeah, well I mean I would certainly be using Voice of the Shuttle or Perseus or any of those, I mean they're, they're tools that I use anyways so yea.

I2: Okay, and so overall how did you feel about this tool in terms of its usefulness and value?

R2: I think it's useful, I mean as, I think I've already said the drawbacks 

Government
I2: Yeah. Okay. Great. So the next tool is Government. 

R2: That I didn't find related to this, you know particularly related to what I was looking at here. You know, I mean, in those particular sites I don't think would necessarily help me in with this article.

I2: Okay, so would you say not relevant to sort of those three main questions that we're asking in terms of understanding.

R2: In relation to this article specifically.  

I2: Okay. So I'll just write, not relevant for this article.  In general as a tool along side of - a different article, do you think it's useful to have there or?

R2:  Yeah I do, I mean even looking at it again the notion that you can go into these archives might give you a sense of the sort of items that McGann is speaking about.  I mean he's is really speaking about humanistic knowledge tools, so I suppose here are some examples of them.  Umm, so yes I would see it as a useful article in that respect or a useful tool yea

I2: Okay, so on to the next tool, book.  

R2: oops  Sorry I'll just pull it up here.
16:03

Book
I2: So did this tool lead to materials that affect your understanding of the original article?

R2:  Ummm, again the searches were sort of, they came up with generally related materials that I might have expected to see.  In some respects I guess, there was a sense in which I wondered if some of these tools could be amalgamated with a distinction between, you know book or Literary Critics, for instance, Literary Critics was an odd one to me. You know what came up under Literary Critics in relation, and then searching in books as opposed to Literary Critics, or how are you making the distinction in pulling out) book reviews for instance, I mean I'm getting ahead of myself, but I have to speak for all these tools I think in a way.

I2: That's fine.

I2: In relation to each other I mean the next one that we look at then is, is dictionary.  And it seemed odd to me. Do you mind if we go up?

I2: No.

R2: That for instance in dictionary here we have Wikipedia in define terms which is essentially a dictionary, we don't have Wikipedia.

I2: Right.

R2: What, why is it that that tool wouldn't be in one or you know, if it's in one why isn't it in the other, why, why might the two of them not be combined. You I recognize what they're trying to do here is a bouillon search, in any other instance it's just a search for a term.  But if it's a bouillon search then you could just put the one term in and omit the other one and have the same tool it seems to me.  So it was my feeling that some of these tools might be amalgamated and it might in fact improve searching, it would also be nice to be able to search multiply across databases, so instead of just looking in, I mean if you go back to book and you've got these four databases, to have a tool whereby I could search all of them simultaneously, now I recognize what they're doing here is they're actually moving to that site and doing the search for you. Just to take away that step, but boy it would be nice to be able to, and I'm sure it's that would be extremely sophisticated.  So, but that would be a nice tool to have.
18:00

I2: Okay, okay.  So now that we're back on book, I'll just go to the next question.  

R2: Sorry

I2: Did it lead to materials that you that would help you evaluate the quality or the significance of the article?

R2: Yeah, I mean this is all about just finding related materials and I suppose any time that somebody finds related materials to what they're reading and reads around it that that's going to help, help their ability to evaluate the article. Again it's, it's a bit of a question that's, because I know the article and I have read around it, (laughs) I find it difficult to answer, but I mean I would, I didn't particularly find stuff I didn't know through this tool, but that's only because I know this article.

I2: So potentially.

R2: Potentially, yeah.

I2: If you needed to know it could fill you in.

R2: Yeah

I2: Okay.  And then, did this tool lead to materials that you'd use in your teaching or research?

R2: Yeah.  All of these sort of searches would do that. Yeah.

Dictionary
I2: Okay. So on to dictionary which we sort of already addressed.

R2: I think I've answered that question there.  Did you want to go through the questions again or?

I2: Yes I would like to if you don't mind.

R2: Yeah.

19:29
I2: Sort of hit on those specific - so enhancing your understanding of the article?

R2: Sure you know a search like this would do that.  

I2: Okay, and allowing you to evaluate the quality and significance of the article?

R2: Yeah, again, yeah.

I2: And, finding things that are useful for teaching or research?

R2: Huh, huh. Yeah.

I2: Okay, And, and, in what ways might you use this tool for your teaching or research?

R2: Yes.  Well it's not the tool specifically it's the sources it takes you to, I mean Wikipedia is an interesting, it's a  particularly interesting sort of open source concept of encyclopedia, so, I find that as a great site to direct students to.  So just in it of itself these sites are, are good for my students to know Voice of the Shuttle, and you know to have a tool that sort of is directing them to places that they need to go, is useful. Yeah.

I2: Okay, and did you have any other comments on the value of this article or this tool or the usefulness of it?

R2: No, it's a sort of standard tool with a bullion search, and it's something that you're familiar with generally yeah.

I2: Okay, so moving on to the next one, which is Literary Critics.  

R2: I mean I'm just going to come back to the other one and say that the comment I made about define terms and dictionary, I really don't see the distinction there, you know in terms of the dictionary.

I2: Yeah. Oh and define terms, right.

R2: When you're asking me that question, that was my comment on that tool.

I2: Yeah, okay.

Literary Critics
R2: So we're at Literary Critics and I have to say I wasn't sure why the IPL is what we're searching, when we search Literary Critics.   You know we have, essentially every single tool is giving me, is coming up with a default of the same two search terms and I can change the search terms I'm quite aware of that, but I wasn't sure when I searched this, I mean if I were just to search IPL, you know why that would be the only source you would have under Literary Critics.  I mean Voice the Shuttle for instance would seem to me to provide a great source for Literary Critics, etc. So it's an interesting sort of choice, or why not journal databases you know, it's sort of an interesting - sometimes I'm wondering about choices.  And I recognize that this is a tool in progress, but obviously the helpfulness of the tool would be based in a large degree on what choices have been made, so that would be the comment I would have there.

And, even in that respect coming back to book, sorry, I'm jumping all over the place.
21:42
I2: That's okay jump around.

R2: Umm, something like I can't recall whether or not yeah, something like project Gutenberg I wonder, like, you know where is this related literature, because in this article in particular, McGann's article, he is talking a lot about literature and to have you know databases that, that are related to his topic would be useful in terms of if I were thinking about book, that might be the one I think about.

I2: Okay.

R2: I suppose it's not so much that, I think it's actually the descriptors that are sometimes catching me up, it's not that it's not a good idea, I wonder you know why somebody's tried to catch these particular things in book and these ones in Literary Critics and, how do you make those distinctions, so.   I, I in fact think it might be more useful to have a general search tool that would enable people to do a bullion search of particular archives and databases and just lump them.  I think I've said that before.

I2: Okay, so one rather than having all of these tools.

R2: All of these separate ones that you know in some respect it's one person's decision as to what constitutes this category versus another's.

I2: Okay.  So, do you think that, we were on Literary Critics, okay, so for Literary Critics it was only that one source that was given and you didn't find that very useful. (last part conversation overlap) 

R2: IPL?  It's not that it's not useful, it's a good, it's a good source, but it's just why is it the only source? Or what, you know the choices that are made obviously are, are saying something to the person who is using the tool, and there are lots of sources for Literary Critics.  I mean I can think of many sources.

I2: Yeah.

R2: Many, many open access journals for instance I would think would be suitable to be under Literary Critics.  So, that would be the sort of question that I would have.  You know for instance under the Literary Critics I wonder 'cause you're really just giving the same search terms to the internet public library that we've been given to everything, which is in this instance if you choose the book in e-books, ummm project Muse is, is not, is not open access, but even putting it there would let the user realize that this is something maybe that I should look at for Literary Critics, and if I don't have access to it how do I get access to it. So  I understand that probably the intent is just to put up the open access stuff, but.
24:43

I2: It seems to be the idea and there is a section for pay-per-view. 

R2: Pay-per-view. Yeah.

I2: But they're not distributed sort of throughout the categories.

R2: Yeah, I just, you know I don't know that it's, if I have a proxy server that enables me to access my library databases, I should be able to just click through . If I'm like, in my instance as a researcher based at a major institution with access to a lot of these things, I should just be able to click through.

I2: Yeah, you would be able to get in, I would think so.

R2: So just giving me that ability, so I don't have to go outside of the tools to get.

I2: Okay. So maybe within each tool have a heading that says, you know these are open access and these are subscribed or pay-per-view.

R2: Yeah I think that would be my, my general comment about all of these would be, I would sort of want to reorganize some of the headings and consolidate them.

I2: Okay, great.  So generally speaking, having access to search options to find Literary Critics, do you think that will, would affect your understanding of the original article?

R2: Oh sure, yeah.  I mean it certainly though is related to book and all, all the things that you end up accessing, I mean anybody.

I2: Okay, and in terms of helping you evaluate the quality and significance of the study?

R2: Yeah, reading around the article, obviously will do that.

I2: Okay, and, for use in your teaching and your research?

R2: Yeah.

26:48
I2: And can you state any examples of how you might use this in your teaching or your research?

R2: Well I suppose my answer would be similar to, to what I would do were I searching for related books, or related ummm works by the same author.

I2: Okay.  And overall, how did you feel about this tool?

R2: The option was limited again, and the selection you know the option was limited to the one, to the one selection I suppose. 

Book Reviews (indirect)
R2: The other option, the other comment that I would make about this is when I see the term 'reviews' I often actually think that it's going to be review of whatever I'm reading. And so I found that an interesting choice then, you know book reviews on, on future of the book and e-books, (laughs) it's sort of an interesting notion.

I2: Yeah, that's true.

R2: You know I mean when I initially clicked on it and I was reading very quickly I thought Ah, this will be reviews of this article or response or commentaries on this article, and then I ended up with a section that was book reviews on. You know and I felt somehow that was going two steps without my, and you know I mean obviously you feel perhaps you're reading too quickly, but, as a reader, I would be used to seeing reviews of the book.

I2: Yeah, that makes sense.

R2: Sort of like, what we get used to as we do Amazon or ummm Indigo, Chapters, sort of notion that you're going to get a review of whatever it is that you've read, so.

I2: Yeah okay, related studies.

R2: Did I have anything else in that? Oh yeah, you know, just in general on these things, some of these sites that are called when you do the searches are pulling up pop-up windows which is really distracting. Now I recognize that I could set my browser to, to stop that and I had set my other browser to do so, however, the reality is using a tool like this I don't expect it.  Because I'm thinking that I'm actually doing a search using this tool and then it's taking me to another site and these pop up windows are coming up.  Now it didn't happen to come up under here it came up under a define tools, terms rather.  And I can't remember which site it was, but it was certainly you know an interesting scenario because it reminds you that you're within this tool and yet you're not within this tool.  

28:59

I2: Okay. Anything else?

R2: No.  

Book Reviews (direct) 
I2: Okay.  So the next one would be book reviews.

R2: We just did that one.

I2: We did?
 
R2: IPL? Oh no, sorry. Right we were on Literary Critics and I just made the comment about book reviews because I was thinking ahead. And the Book reviews was the comment that I made. I just made that comment about the fact that I when I read book reviews I would sort of think that I was actually reviewing an article.

I2: Okay, was that the case for Literary Critics would you expect like people critiquing  the.

R2: No, I'm sorry, no, no it wasn't, it was specific to book reviews. I was getting ahead of myself.

I2: Okay 

R2: Is that okay or you're still going to be.

I2: That's okay, no actually because I ran out of room under Literary Critics and I started writing on the book review line so.

R2: Oh that's great (laughs). So that was my main comment about this book reviews, I started off thinking that I was actually getting book reviews and in fact just flipped right into the searches because you know you tend to go quickly with these tools, and then realized that every single time I was coming up with the same search terms, now it's not that I can't I recognize that I can change the search terms, that's not the problem, but that I'm actually not searching for reviews of this article I'm searching for reviews on books about this or. And so that that was taking me a step, as I said before, you've got that article, that down.
30:55

I2: Yeah.

R2: So t hat's what I would say about that.  You know because really, I suppose were I using this with students I would rather have them reading the abstracts of the art, of the books that are related to the topic.  You know seeing what's out there rather than starting with the reviews, I would rather have the book reviews in the book, you know (laughs). So that when they're accessing things they see that there are these books that are related to this article and there are these reviews of these books that are related to this article all within one tool, as it so happens they're going into one scenario and then they're coming out and they have to move into another, another tool to access it and they may not actually see those as, as entirely related.  You know. It's interesting.

I2: Okay, and, how if at all did, do you think this tool would affect your understanding of the article?

R2: I think directing the students to book reviews is useful and I do it all the time.  You know if I'm ever putting a book on a reading list I usually will pull up a few reviews about it so they have a sense of what it is they're reading beyond the abstract , so it would be very nice to link book and book reviews together in the same area so they're actually seeing what's.  You know it's just another way really of directing them to books on a topic.

I2: Okay, so in terms of it's usefulness for teaching, it would be. Or  in a revised form?

R2: It would be useful, and, just amalgamate them. Because really, when I search for these topics and come up with these reviews obviously they directed me to book.

I2: Yeah.

R2: So what's the difference between directing me to the book and directing me to the book review - it's still giving a sense that the book exists. I would like to see actually a section here speaking of reviews of reviews of specific commentaries on the article, now maybe that would just in most instances not give you very much.  
32:51

I2: It might though.

R2: It might though.

I2: Yeah.  

Add Comment/Book Reviews
R2: You know were it just reviews rather than book reviews of this article. Or user comments, because there is a, you know you've got online forums, and you've got a comment feature, no you can't comment can you? Where's your comment feature?

I2: There is no comment feature.

R2: No. See you know just the notion of having that, that seems to be a fairly common thing for a lot of online journals to have the comment feature so that there's access.  

I2: I thought it did have a comment feature.

R2: I thought I did.  Why am I thinking that,

I2: But it might have been in another version that I saw and it maybe it hasn't been added to this.

R2: And it might be that I've seen it another version of this.  I haven't actually seen this interface, but, I mean there's the forum, forums but they were just sending you to Humanist and, so it's not specifically commenting but to have reviews and -then if you think about what people are using when they're online and they're trying to buy books, they're typically looking at either specific public reviews of the book that they're trying to buy, it'll have features like, if you bought this book you'd like another book, that kind of notion, so the actual users reviews of the article, comments, that would be helpful.

I2: Okay.

R2: I should think. I'm sure there are lot of Humanists with tons of time on their hands to do reviews.  But I mean in fact as a teaching tool, to have students read an article and post something in a forum or in a review like that on a site like this would be a really good exercise.  

34:54
I2: Okay, so as a, in terms of it's usefulness to teaching this tool, this tool might be useful if it was.

R2: If you created it.

I2: Specific to that one article?

R2: I think it would be specific to any article.  If you had  scenario where you get reviews of the article and enable the user of this database or this journal whatever you want to call it, to put their own comments up, that would be a very good teaching tool in any scenario.  

I2: Okay. So the online forum, the online forums didn't really serve that function?

R2: Well they don't really serve that function, because they're sending you to Humanist for instance, it's what we had over there - and you're looking at essentially the archives so in order to, it's not commenting specifically on this article.  Right?

Online Forums
I2: Okay.  I see what you mean. Okay, since we're here, how did you feel about the online forums tool, did you think it, did it affect your understanding of the article in any way?

R2: Yeah, these are good, these are good forums to send people to I mean, they're essentially just, there's something by Willard McCartney, Willard McCarty sorry, it's, it's a good, it's a good source. But I mean a lot of the time, I find that you know unless you really know the area you're going to be kind of wallowing a little bit in this material.

I2: Okay. 

R2: You know if I go here I see this person I know exactly who this person is, and I know what they're posting about because I know these people as computing humanists.  Now I might find, if I were a student, I would wonder what I've been sent to, why do I seem to be in an email message, you know.  I mean I know that this is the way these are archived, but for a new user to this area, and I'm not sure if you're actually looking to assess the impact on users who don't know that much information about the area, I would, I might find this a little bit disconcerting. You know, this kind of just getting a sense.  And I realize that you've got an About button here that will give you a bit of a sense but still like, I think people tend to just go for the search.  So just, it's a comment I made again and again, but just kind of pulling people out of this environment and into somebody else's environment with really not very much warning, is, is a bit in terms of navigation, it's a bit disorienting.
37:22

I2: Okay. In terms of being able to evaluate the quality and significance of the study, do you think this would be a useful tool?

R2: Yeah you know in fact sometimes there's quite a bit of forthright discussion on these kind of online ummm forum lists, and so you know I would find that helpful.

I2: Okay.  And for we've already talked about referring students and using this in your teaching, do you think that would be useful? Or do you think they'd be lost.

R2: Well I just think you know if I were using in my teaching I would give them a sense of what they're getting into.  I suppose the other thing is that, you know the notion of just using the two key words from the metadata and punching them into every single one of these searches, if I were searching the online forum, I actually might be looking, but I might put the title of the article in because I know that that article would probably be discussed by this group of people.  You know and so, I sort of defaulting to those two key words might take people away from, and I recognize you can change the key words, but if people don't know where  they're getting into, it might be useful for the person who is programming to say OK, well if I'm in this area then I might want to have a different set of search terms to start with.

I2: Okay.  Good.  And for your research, how useful, would you find this tool, this tool useful?

R2: Yeah it would be useful, you know I mean beyond I would just change keys, the keywords.

I2: The key words.

R2: Yeah. 

I2: Okay.  And do you have any specific examples on how you might use this tool generally speaking?

R2: Well I think I've sort of said that, I would tend here to be looking for my reviews.  So if I'm on online forum it wouldn't be that I would be asking people, I mean I might look for general comments on the Future of the Book or E-Books But I also might look for comments on this article, comments on specific things in this article beyond that - these are such broad, you know in a way these key words put this, situated this article in a whole field of study, and they don't speak so much to the article itself, you know. I mean there's a lot of stuff in there that's not captured at all by these.  Or is captured too broadly, any way.
40:04

I2: Okay, any other comments about online forums tool?

R2: No. Are we gonna go back to the other ones, or just?

I2:  We'll go back, yeah.  Just I thought since we were kind of already.

R2: Since we're already there, I'm just jumping around, like I always do. 

Related Studies 
I2: Which is fine. So back to related studies. 

R2: Yeah.

I2: So did this tool lead to any materials that affected your understanding of the original articles?

R2: Well some more than others, I mean it's interesting because we're back to related studies and we're in fact starting to use tools that show up in some of the other tools, some of these references are in the other, so you're essentially doing exactly the same search, in exactly the same database or site that you were doing in another.

I2: Tool.

R2: Tool, and so it doesn't add anything, you know it just puts it in a different area, and in fact I think the fact that it does that, might detract people, they might start to get confused about well am I supposed to see a difference between a related study and a related book, or literary critic that's related (laughs).

I2: Yeah.

R2: If it's related to the, I mean I'm going to say the same things in terms of these understanding, assessments and relevance.  It's always relevant to move outside beyond the work to read beyond it to see how it's situated within a body of knowledge, that's relevant.  

I2: Okay.

R2: But the way it's set up here, separate from some of the other search tools that's what I find a challenge.

I2: Okay.  And in terms of your teaching and research would you find this tool useful?



41:50
R2: Yeah, I think I sort of put that within that comment, all three of these, I would say the same thing it's always relevant, it's always useful.

I2: Okay, and do you have any specific examples of how you might use this tool?

R2: They relate to the comments that I made about the book or the Literary Critics one, to send students in that direction, have them search, you know some of these tools they came up before, these ones particularly umm, you know they're very useful for my area.

Dissertations
I2: Okay, great. So Dissertations.

R2: Yeah, and that's a great tool for graduate students too, and actually I think the fact that it's set out apart is really a good idea.  Yeah, that, that is one I would keep it as a category. Particularly for students because, you know and because a lot of the dissertations obviously they never get published. And so just having access to that, that material is a good idea and I would find it useful in all three of the areas.

I2: Okay, excellent. And do you have any specific examples of how you might use this or the materials that you find within it?

R2: Well you know in supervising any student I mean there's two things, firstly, as ah researchers a lot of the forefront research in this area is coming out of the graduate students body, so it's very useful to know what's going on there, and the second thing would be if you're supervising students in this area to show them examples of what is being done, what has been done. This is really beneficial.

I2: Okay, so any other comments on this tool?

R2: No.
43:35
Databases
I2: Okay, databases is next.  

R2:  Yeah, so it's interesting, 'cause if I were looking for archives in this instance, it's an, it's an interesting sort of ahh(laughs) I'm trying to sort out what I would say about this one. I didn't actually note anything here, but let me just wander back in here.  (exploring tool) I mean I find this tool a useful tool, just here, just a minute here, where am I, it, it sets you up differently again, so on all the other search tools you're staying within this little window and here you're actually moving outside of it, I mean I don't know if that's just.  I think it's, I don't know if it's just that one, I mean do you see what I'm saying here?  The last one I mean if you just look at what I was doing, clicking on some of these and they're showing up within this little box, some of them are actually showing up in a larger window.

I2: Oh are they?

R2: The one I just searched for.

I2: That was a larger.

R2: Just came up in a larger window. So I was wondering why that was the case.  Which one did I go to that did that?

I2: I think archives hub was it?

R2: You know I should have made a note. (conversation overlap) I wonder if that was just an error in that instance there.  But that happened a couple of times and I wondered why.  See now it's not doing it.  Did you notice how it did that the last time? 

I2: I didn't even notice it.

R2: Let me just try and go back to the one I should have made a note on it. (long pause) Maybe it's this one, there it is.  

I2: Oh yeah.

R2: It came up in - now that's just probably a little glitch.  But I found that that a bit of a challenge.  

I2: Now would that be preferable though to having it come up in a smaller window?

R2: I think ummm, now you see I'm just trying to find here where my original, there it is.  Now it didn't do that the second time.  That was interesting wasn't it?  I think it would be preferable to have it come up in a window that's defined as this one is, but with the browser tools. 
46:20
I2: Okay.

R2: You know so you know that you're moving out of the site.  

I2: Yeah.

R2: The way that it originally came up when I clicked on it originally, this is how it came up.  So it's taking up the entire screen and although I know that it's a new window, because I don't have a back button.

I2: Yeah.

R2: I mean the reality is and I know that, (laughs) because I do a lot of work online, but I know my colleagues, I know people who are using tools like this, and they get very challenged by that.  It's like okay wait a minute here we've always been in this little box and now we're in this.  

I2: Okay.

R2: This is the AAD site.  So that's just a glitch, I mean obviously that's not.

I2: I don't know why it did that.

R2: Yeah, but it did.  And it did that a couple of times before, do I guess it's just a glitch. But anyway that was kind of, I found that a bit of a challenge, but directing people to archives I think is a useful thing to do and I pointed that out before, you know and whether or not this choice of archives kind of represents what I might represent is another question, I sort of pointed out a couple of archives that I would find useful.  In this particular study obviously it would have been useful to have direct access to the Rosette archive.

I2: Okay.

R2:  Direct access to the Blake archive.  You know for this particular (laughs)

I2: For that one article.

R2: Because those are the archives on which in which Jerome McGann had such a big hand.

I2:  Okay.

R2: So it would have been nice to see those kind of major projects you know, author's other works, I don't think that when I did author's other works that I actually came up with, with something that was pointing me directly to his archives.

47:59
I2: Okay.

R2:  You know they were just sort of looking at his print materials.  Obviously you would get to those through the print materials and he references them in the article, but it would be nice, that was the other funny thing about this tool, was when the PDF comes up within the context of this tool, it almost seems like a bit of a, a disjuncture between the tool and the reading space.

I2: Okay, the PDF of the article?

R2: Yeah, the article is coming up as a PDF.

I2: Right.

R2:  It would have been interesting to have it come up so that when he references the Rossetti archives or the Blake archive you just click off to it, so you see it.  

I2: Hyperlinks in the article?

R2: Yeah.  I mean it's interesting cause PDF is a little bit of a an oddity in the (laughs) where they're trying to kind of make a kind of electronic print format, and so it seems odd when you're trying to develop a tool for research, but that's the format the article comes up in.

I2: Okay. 

R2: Anyway, that's going back to another issue.  

I2: Okay.

R2: So yeah I think again all three things in terms of understanding, assessment and relevant to teaching or research, particularly in this instance when he's actually talking about archives and how do we build the humanistic knowledge object.  Then it's interesting to be able to access humanistic knowledge objects examples of those.  But the way it's couched in this instance, doesn't necessarily tell my students that that's what they're actually looking at.  You know I suppose in some ways what I find is that the content of the material and this is interesting because in the actual article by McGann he is speaking about this disjuncture between form and content that seems really common in scenarios whereby designers are building these tools to access these objects and there seems to be that here, you know there's a script written that calls the key words any article it's going to call those two key words in, and the only relation between the article and all of these tools are the two key words that are defaulted into the two. You know into the script, into the box there. So that's sort of an interesting thing. It would be nice to have tools that were built specific to what you're reading. A bit more specifically to what you're reading.  And I'm not critiquing everything you know  I'm not saying it's not a useful tool 

50:01

I2: That's ok, I'm a neutral party. Okay. Okay, so any other comments about the databases  tool, any examples of how you might specifically use it?

R2: I would use it particularly with relation to this article in terms of as I said demonstrating those knowledge objects and how they've been constructed in different settings.

I2: Okay.  

R2:  And right now I'm not even looking at it.  But you know we were looking at it, so.

Portals
I2: So portals.

R2: Where were we, we were on portals.  So, umm this is an interesting one.  I didn't, you know what, I didn't actually explore this one, I think I might have just somehow skipped and gone over to pay-per-view.  So I actually I'm going to have to not make a whole lot of comments about it.

I2: Okay, you can take a minute if you like.

R2: See this is another interesting thing. Have you noticed how this has come up? 

I2: It's a full window again.

R2: Yeah.  So that's I think, this is actually what, and this in some ways makes me feel much more comfortable, except that I know having used all the tools that it's probably not going to happen the next time I use it. (laughs)  So where were we? Now  I'm down here trying to figure out where's McGann (exploring tool)  All right where's my portal?  I'll just pull it up again and see if it's going to do that here.  Yea really interesting.  So, you know that's, it's not really relevant I mean in some ways it's relevant to tell the programmer that that needs to be sorted out but it's not really getting at the, the essence of what the tool is, so ummm, (pause)  It's interesting though I mean the distinction between portals and databases.  Because you know you're essentially doing here is accessing South Asian Library.  So are you accessing a database or an archive in doing that?  I mean is it a, just let me head back here and look again at what (exploring tool).
I think in some respects this is just coming back to the same issue that I had at the outset, is sort of the definition of these areas.  And maybe what, maybe what needs to happen is that people who are using the site need to have some kind of description of what the person who is designing the tool is thinking about when they write portals, or when they write databases so you know what you're getting into when you're searching that area. 
52:20

I2: OK so a little blurb like "portals are", or "these sites are".

R2: Yeah because you really have no description of what it is that they mean by portals in this instance.  And you know in a way what is a portal? It's a window into a world of information really so if you're accessing a database, it's sort of a similar thing. So my definition of you know there may be a specific definition that people were working with in design, but here is where you might expect to see project Muse I suppose but would you call Project Muse a (pause) it's interesting. 

I2: Okay.

R2: All right, I don't think I'm adding anything.  I'm very repetitive. 

I2: Okay, do you have any specific examples of how you might use this tool?

R2: Well in terms of using archives or any of these, these projects I would use it in the same way that, here's the only one you've got, Romanticism, by the way.  (laughs) sorry.  I feel like I'm repeating myself because so many of these tools I would use the same way, it's related material to the article.  So I would use it for both my own understanding, my assessment of the article, my teaching in similar ways.

I2: Okay.

R2: And I don't know that I can expand on it in relation specifically to this because my distinction between some of these things is just blurring, you know.

I2: Okay, that's fair enough.

Pay-Per-View
R2:  Yeah. Pay-per-view, we've already sort of discussed.  Umm, you know pay-per-view is simply all you're really looking at is what's the difference between open access and what's, what materials are closed access then and so, these materials aren't  so much different than what we've been looking at before, it's just the access that's different. So what I would rather see here again, in terms of questions 1, 2 and 3 I find the material relevant but I would rather see my pay-per-view service choices lumped in with related materials, so that you just access.  I mean the two of them, it comes again down to the notion of I think there are too many tools.
54:51

I2: Okay. Great.

R2: That's what I would do.

I2: Any further comments on that one?

Related Texts
R2:  No.  So we have related texts. 

I2: Okay.

R2: And here we have Project Gutenberg and this is where I was kind of wondering why it wasn't up with Book (laughs) it's interesting, so, anyway yeah these are great, these are great databases. I would definitely, but I mean I do see them like I see Project Gutenberg for instance or the Oxford Text Archive as archives, and they're under related texts, so again, the same thing.

I2: Okay.

R2: I'm repeating myself because the material is …

I2: That's okay, so, generally speaking positive for each of those three, each of our three categories?

R2: I would use the materials and it's just the set up. 

I2: Okay.  And would you like to give any specific examples of how you would use them at all or is that repeating yourself?


56:49
R2: Well I think in this instance, like a lot of these archives are directing students to primary materials here. So you have related texts and you have Literary Critics and book and book reviews and then in some respects I might wonder whether or not literature and environment with respect to literature you might be thinking of directing students to or directing yourself to primary or secondary materials.  You know giving a sense that these related texts are related to you know project Gutenberg is specifically literature.  So it's not I mean it's relevant in that some of the literature to which McGann refers may be in project Gutenberg, so you're essentially sending somebody off to the library. And telling them to wander into the literature section, and find something related to what they've just read.

I2: Yeah. 

I2: Umm, I don't know what we would come up with if (pause) yeah, I mean I wouldn't have expected that the terms would provide anything, Project Gutenberg, I didn't even look. But I mean this is definitely a scenario here where you're accessing primary works you know, primary literary works you'd have to be searching for Milton or (laughs) I mean, you wouldn't come up with McGann in this at all. (laughs) But you would come up with Blake, so if I were searching in this I would definitely need to know what, I need to know what project Gutenberg is, as somebody who's searching otherwise I think, and when I went through most of these searches to be honest, time and time again, I just came up with no results, no results, no results, so I definitely had to know where I was going.  

I2: Okay.

R2: And I would look all, all I would do is look at the search terms and think it's going to come up with no results.  And I know, I know what to put in to get the results, but I don't know that every user would.

I2: Okay, that's a good comment.

R2: And we already talked about online forum.  

59:01
I2: Yes we did.  And.

Instructional Materials
R2: So we're on the instructional materials.  

I2: I think did we talk about?
 
R2: This, this particular site to which they directed us wasn't as you know, wasn't as useful as I might have, you know in relation to this article, I mean I think it's specifically because the article was related to e-books or humanities computing I didn't find that this particular site was useful.  But it may be that I just didn't explore it enough.  I mean there's a lot of material to explore.

I2: Okay.

 Media Report
R2: I might as well as hop down here, I'm just wondering here, all right (exploring tool).  It came up within the tool and the Media report, I went through that, just looking at that again, you're just going to be searching the archives of those papers for related articles, so in some ways, you know when I look at for instance databases in the library, you get your division between refereed peer reviewed articles, and I would almost think that instead of calling it, because you're really building a tool for people who are in this area, actually saying peer reviewed related - you've got related text here I mean, and then you've got Literary Critics - you said related peer reviewed articles.  

I2:  Okay, to lump those all in?

R2: Well no I, umm, yeah.  I mean I would, I find it useful to have a search a tool where I could just throw the search terms in for related peer reviewed articles. 

I2: Okay.

R2: And then I would have selection of pay-per-view and, and open access. Under that large area and I realize what's going to end up happening is that you're going to have a huge screen that you're going to be scrolling through.  But in some instance they're repeated anyway.  And then this (media report) would be ummm, even not reviewed, or you know.

I2: Okay.

1:01:11
R2: News articles or however.

I2: Okay.  

Search Engines
R2: And then the search engines were just the standard search engines.  So, I mean I don't know, it's just as easy for me to go I suppose if I were going I wouldn't probably put the search engines in, and the reason for that is because unless I were going to call the search engine with all it's standard tools there, I would want to have the browser window so that I can actually access the search engine and be using it.  I really feel that would be useful. 

I2: And in terms of commenting on our on the three on understanding evaluation and usefulness

Media Report
R2:  I'll go back to media report.

I2: Yeah.

R2:  Then ummm, I think that the media report, or the notion of having media articles there to see what the kind of public or the press is saying about the area is useful because it gives a very different perspective.

I2: Okay.  
Instructional Materials
R2: The instructional materials, again I think it would be very useful to have that tool were the, you know what's ending up happening is often these search terms aren't producing any results.

I2: Okay.  and for the source that they gave it didn't . . .  

R2: Yeah.

Search Engines
I2: Okay.  And then for the search engines, did you have?

R2: Again, the comment would be that you know I think that umm, I use search engines all the time obviously, but I use them to access things that I, you know I use their general search, I would just do that kind of search myself. 

I2: Okay.

R2:  And so I would want were I to be directed to Google, it's useful to have a little click through so I don't have to get out of this screen I have a second, you know I can keep my text in front of me and kind of use a montage of windows around (laughs) giving where I'm, giving me a sense that I can be searching two things simultaneously but I do need those browser window tools.

1:03:08
I2: Okay.  And for the three evaluation areas, the understanding, evaluation and usefulness in teaching and research?  How do you feel this tool might contribute to.

R2: The search engines?

I2: Yeah.

R2: Yeah, I think that it's useful if you can use the tool with all of it's features.  I find again it's going to be such a scenario where I don't like get pulled into that box and taken outside of the context of it's own.  

I2: So you need those browser, those back and forth buttons on things.

R2: Yeah well it's not so much that, its that if I'm going to be looking at things and for instance I'm using a search engine and coming up with a Future of the Book or e-books, I you know I have my own way of organizing my information on my screen and one of the things would be to bookmark something. You know, so if I loose my ability to bookmark, because I'm within this window that's not giving me those features, then I can't save for myself a lot of material that  I would want to be able to come back to.  The other issue is, I'm not quite sure because I haven't checked it out, but a lot of people will use the history feature for instance, it's something like internet explorer I don't have one using Mozilla, but how does the history feature display those kind of searches, I imagine it would probably just show them anyway. But it, if you're just actually using the search engine to do that, then you kind of have a sense of where you've been, and when you go back into your history feature, you know I was there, I was there, I was there, and you can recognize the url, but when you remove those kinds of features you actually remove a lot of the navigational ability of the reader I think. So.

I2: Okay. Great, so do you have any other comments in general about any of the tools that you wanted to mention?

R2: Ummm, no, I suppose a question that I would have is, is the intent here that I had at the outset that, is the intent here to develop a sort of database of key articles in humanities computing, or is this you know you've got volume one number one, I mean is that the intent to try and sort of have an open access databases for humanities computing or.

I2: I guess. 

R2: Or are these sort of considered reprints or are they.

1:05:38
I2: What we've done is basically we've taken recommendations from you guys as to what you would want to read.

R2: Huh, huh.

I2: For the study, but how it would work is you might have a group of your peers and you want to sort of start up your own journal, so you could use this site to start your own journal set up among, among your co-workers you could have you know a review board, and you could have, you could be the editor, and so you could set up a journal on any topic and it would be open access,  So you could be posting your own articles and having your peers review those articles, so it's, I guess it's a.

R2: So it's the same as a conferencing system or the other tools that the PKP is developing right now. 

I2: It's, it's along a similar.

R2: A similar line.

I2: Yeah.

R2:  So this is just kind of an example for scholars to look at. I just wondered  whether or not the intention was to actually continue with this topic with this particular or is just an example of what.

I2: Well this is an example, but we wanted it to work specifically, we want it to work specifically with this topic and this study is being done among different disciplines like they're doing one for the medical professionals and, and, different things, in terms of, yeah different professional groups, and so this is for humanities computing professionals I suppose.

R2: Okay.

I2:But yeah, the way we've done it is, is not necessarily how it would 

R2: Are they going to make this freely available?

I2:  I think that's the idea, not this particular.

R2: No, no I don't I mean the journals, eventually when they're open access, but I mean for  if a journal wishes to use this system it's freely available to that journal?



1:07:24
I2: I'm not sure if it's free but I think, I think it would be depend on the venue, I think that if, I think that's a good question, I'm not exactly sure but I imagine if there was a commercial journal out there that would be willing to allow their publications to be.

R2: Open access.

I2: Open access, 

R2: Then this would be freely available.

I2: I would assume that would be the idea

R2: Okay. That's what I was wondering, yeah. Okay.

I2: Yeah.

R2: Great. 

Value of Reading Tools
I2: OK So there's just a few concluding questions, ah two concluding questions to be exact.  So, has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally speaking?

R2: No I don't think it's changed my opinions about the values of the tools because these are tools that I use all the time. So it's just giving me a different way of searching. Taking a step out, you know keeping within this journal and enabling me to do those searches that I might do in any case. Which is a useful idea, but it doesn't change my perception of what's possible.

Value of Knowledge
I2: Okay.  And the next question is a general question, what do you see as the major challenge if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R2:  For improving the, now you're not speaking this tool, you're speaking.

I2: Generally speaking.

1:08:54
R2: Generally.

I2: Yeah.

R2: You know what it's interesting because I think the article that we're looking at in fact speaks to that question and McGann's remark at the end is that these humanistic knowledge objects have got to be looked at by people who know the previous technology  very well, that is, when we're studying in the humanities for looking at, at print objects, and it's, you can't just sort of shoo, you know a lot of designers are sort of looking at and I'm not saying that this is the case here, but looking at designing computer based humanistic knowledge objects without a knowledge of previous technologies or how those are, are designed as it were.  And so the notion is that the people who need to work at this, need to be people who are very familiar with the book and it's possibilities.  

I2: Okay.

R2: And a lot of those people (laughs) are in fact, you know staying away. Because they are familiar with the book and it's possibilities and they don't really want to look at this. But the reality is that that it will exist and it is a very useful, it's quite powerful research tool.  Obviously more powerful in some ways than the book as a research tool. But it's extremely important that that people who know the book well are also involved in the task of developing these tools.  You know so there's, that would be a comment in terms of this sort of broader question. and I think the other question, comment that I made earlier which is that, form and content you know, I think a lot of times we develop interfaces, and then what we want to do is to dump content into the interface and it could be anybody's content.  But I think that's when we start to get these kind of scenarios where the tool doesn't work the way it should be because the content that we've dumped in, isn't really suitable to the particular archives that we've picked for standard searches. So if you were to lump the archives or lump the source materials that you're going to, to do searches, so that you've searched a number of them simultaneously, it might enable people to come up with productive searches. because you're going across a range of, you see what I'm saying, you're searching a range of sites. And so if nine out of ten don't have anything at least the one that does have something is going to pop something up.  
1:11:04

I2: You don't have to keep going back and back.

R2: You don't have to keep going back and back, and by the time somebody has gone through this site, through five of the options that come up with no, nothing, they might just forget that tool. So that would be a general comment. In terms of the form and content comment.

I2:  Great.

R2: So I don't know if that's helpful. (laughs) 

I2: It was very helpful.  That was wonderful. I'm going to stop this now. Interview 3 - Tuesday, February 14, 2006
(inaudible)

I3: Okay, it's on.  So the look of the thing?

R3:Yeah it's just I find the print terribly small.  And as you can see here it's almost non-existent with the green.

I3: Oh okay, that's interesting.

R3: So it maybe just the way it displays on my computer.

I3: yeah I see that differently on different browsers.

R3: have you?

I3: It looks really small on this one in particular.

R3: Yeah, yeah.  This is internet explorer that I'm using.

I3: Okay.  So maybe I'll, I'll - have you tried out the tools?

R3: Yes I have.

I3: Okay.  Which articles did you read? 

R3: I was, I was working the Susan Hockey one.

I3: Okay.

R3: Umm, I think your computer case is on my mouse cord.

I3: All of my stuff is on your mouse cord. 

R3: Yeah, that's good, that's good.  …… Okay so (exploring tool).

I3:  So what I'll do is I'll start with asking you the questions about the first set of tools.

R3: Huh, huh.

Author Bio
I3: Umm, so the first question is in what ways if any does having access to the author bio statement contribute to your reading of the piece?

R3: That's a hard one for me to answer explicitly because I already knew something about Susan Hockey.  I did indeed read the bio, it reminded me of a couple of things in her you know movement from one place to another, but beyond that I can't say that it added a great deal but that's because I was familiar with her but if it was somebody that I didn't know at all I could see that that would be somewhat helpful.  

1:30

I3: Okay.

R3: yeah. 

Metadata
I3: So then the next question, does any of the metadata in view items metadata add to your reading of the piece and if so in what ways?

R3: Huh, huh.  Ahh, no again I had a look at the metadata umm, but I can't say that it really did very much because I'd already read the abstracts, so if I hadn't read the abstract it might do, aah key words here are pretty much what appear anyway so there wasn't too much more that I might come up with to have a look at.  Ummm, aah, no the rest of it not really.

Define Terms
I3: Okay.  So, in this piece do you see the value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the look up box in define?

R3: Again this because this is a historical overview there was not a lot of complex terminology, but I tried out the tool ummm, I loved the tool for student reading of academic writing and I would find that a wonderful tool, and I think I might really enjoy it for myself too in reading a more technically complex article than this one, but this one was not I looked up a word just to try it out, now it does say that you can double click on the word in here, but I couldn't make that work.: I think if you go to define terms and then it says, aah, yeah, double click on any word in text and  it will appear in the word to define box but I couldn't make that work.  Ummm.

I3: Okay, I'll make a note of that.

R3: Well, see nothing happens when you do that.  So I'm not quite sure how that works.

I3: yeah, I've seen it maybe it's just because of the PDF I'm not sure, but.

R3: have you seen it work?

I3: On when it's in html when it's a html document it works.

R3: It works, okay.  

3:52
I3: But I guess not with PDF.

R3: Right.

Add Comment
I3:  So that's a good point. Okay and the last question, do you ever see yourself using add comment or email author and would you want these features on your own work?

R3:  Add comment, I didn't see that.

I3: Add comment it is on, I guess it's not, it was supposed to be on it was on a different version that we looked at when we established these questions.

R3: yeah.

I3: And this is a revised version and they seemed to have taken it off.  But there was an option to add your own comment.

R3: So would that be like marginalia that you could write down side or something like that.

I3: It would show up at the bottom. 

R3: It would show up at the bottom.

I3: yeah.

R3: Yes, that would be very useful.

I3: Okay.

R3: ummm, because whenever I use any kind of filing system for articles, that's of course is what I always do is, is add a comment.

I3: Okay.  This will be adding comments that everyone can see.

R3: Oh that everyone could see.

I3: And you can see other people's comments.

R3: (sighs) Huh.  4:55 I wouldn't mind clicking on those in a separate file.

I3: Okay.

R3: Something like that, that might be interesting yeah.

5:02
Email Author/Send Link to Colleague
I3: Okay.  And how would you feel about having that done on your own work and having people being able to email you directly from.

R3: I don't think that would be a big problem I mean we're all pretty accessible now anyways, so.

I3: Okay.

R3: it's not as you could really hide your identity.

I3: Okay.  

R3: yeah.

I3: Great.  So moving on to the second, the second set.

R3:  Huh, huh.

I3:  So in this set I'll go through, I'll go through those three main questions, and then I'll ask you to comment more generally on the tool if you have any other comment.  But before I do that I've just remembered did you have any other comments on that first set of tools, the first set of tools there?

Capture Citation
R3: The capture the citation obviously takes you to particular programs and I, I don't happen to have any of those programs.  Ummm, I guess what I really missed in this which is what amplifies my and perhaps you want this commentary afterwards but, what amplifies my enjoyment of these articles and how I might use them is the direct link to citations from the text.  

I3: Okay.

R3: So, capture citation meant recorded it in your own database, but what I would like is simply which article is being referred to here or what not.

I3: So like being able to grab citations within the reading.

R3: Just even to read it, I don't necessarily want to grab it, I just want to be able to read it - what is this particular article that's being referred to, some I know, some I don't.  Some might be well, here's one.

I3:  Right.

6:45
R3: Busa In 1974 what precisely was that article, where was it published, etc.

I3: Okay 

R3: So, that you get as a hypertext link of course in, in a number of the scholarly journals and that to me is a really valuable function.  Because when I read a  scholarly article that's what I'm always doing, is reading backwards and forwards like that.

I3: Right. Okay, anything else.

R3: No, that's just I happened to remember that from capture the citation.

I3: Okay, and did you have any questions about any of these other tools before we move on?

Authors Other Works
R3: Well yeah (sighs - laughs) Ummm, ergonomically okay, author's other works, I played with that a little bit, I've looked at a number of these, if you look at the English server as an example, you will see that absolutely nothing here is by Susan Hockey because all it's doing is just putting words together.  And it's all about hockey (laughs). So it's completely useless and that's of course because of the way in which the search is done.  Umm, okay let's try that one again.  If you go to ahh, was it this one I don't think so, I think was the most useful one of the lot.  That gave me one reference. I believe that was about the only one I got out of author's other works, except for the Institute for Advanced Technology in Humanities and that's the one that has all the Humanist Archives, so there was a lot in that.

I3: Okay.

R3: Aahh, Voice of the Shuttle had nothing, I didn't check everything out there.  So that function was a little disappointing.  Umm, I'm trying to remember which of these other ones that I played with I think it might have been reviews, but whatever it was all I got was first lines of reviews on a pay-per-view text but the lines weren't full lines, so all you got was fragments of first lines.  And again it was, it was fundamentally useless, so the fact that I hit so many useless returns is a little bit discouraging.

I3: Okay.  When we go through these now, I just want to suggest if you like to try, to try different key words.

9:18
R3: Sure.

I3: Because the key words that come up are just, quite general default ones that we use that try to cover the whole cover all our bases with and they don't necessarily return the best search results.

R3: Huh, huh,

I3: Or the search that you're looking for, so, what I'll do is I'll get you to just try each tool or have a look and remember stuff and then I'll ask you those three questions.

R3: Sure.  All right now what would you like me to get.
 
I3:  So if you want to try one of those search functions oh, you've already used this tool?

R3: I've used this one, yeah.

I3: So I might as well I can go ahead and just ask you 'cause there's really nothing you can change in that one, it's just the author's name.

R3: Huh, huh, huh, huh.  

I3: So did this tool lead to materials that affected your understanding of the original article and if so in what ways?

R3: Aah, well, I suppose I can answer partly yes, in that I got after a number of attempts one hit with a url that I could then explore further, but I didn't.  But that is precisely the tool I would most value.

I3: Okay.

R3: Yeah.

I3: So did what you find or do you think hypothetically would this tool lead you to materials that would help you to evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

10:41
R3: Quality and significance.  Possibly.  

I3: Okay.

R3: It's more likely that it would simply give me a fuller understanding of that person's work and the development of their work and that kind of thing.

I3: Okay.  And would you use what you find from this tool in your teaching or your research and if so how might you use it?

R3: Huh.  Well in research it might lead me from something that is relatively useful to something that's absolutely relevant.

I3: Okay.

R3: So, yes I could see that a lot much of the time is spent refining searches and and, wandering through the maze.  

I3: Right.

R3: Ummm, so yeah in that way it might be very useful.  In teaching, Huh.  (pause).  Again possibly.

I3: Okay. And overall how did you feel about the usefulness of this tool?

R3: I thought it had great potential but that it wasn't working to it's potential.

Government
I3: Okay, great.  So moving on to the next one, which is Government.

R3: Huh, huh.  Didn't try this one at all.

I3: Okay, so give it, go ahead have a few searches if you like.

R3: (exploring tool) Nothing in that one.  I guess the other thing too is that the search terms are really broad umm, were they generated simply from the unit with all the journals in it that I have access to or was it generated specifically from the title of this article which is a history of.

I3: It was specifically from this article but it was with the, the journal  in mind being Humanities Computing.

R3: Right okay.

I3: So, so if your interest is more in history part you might want to change those terms to include something more, more relevant to you.

12:57
R3: Right, okay.  So out of two hits there I got nothing.

I3:  Okay.

R3: Umm, critics? Oh sorry.

I3:  I'll go through and ask you those questions and if it wasn't, I guess it's not very You probably will answer no because.

R3: I will (laughs).

I3: So I won't even bother so it wasn't helpful at all.

R3: Yeah.

I3: Why can you explain why it was unhelpful? Do you think it was that it was government . . . 

R3: Well I think when, I think when Oh.

I3: Do you think you wouldn't even be searching those.

R3: I couldn't imagine even having any reason to go searching through government for that kind of material.  So, I guess it's just the nature of the subject domain, that makes the tool not relevant really so.

Book
I3: Fair enough.  So, next one we'll go to is book, which you're already there.

R3: yes I am.

I3: Have you tried this one?

R3: No.
Okay.  Aah.  (exploring tool) So yes I could see that this would be umm, useful, because it's really like giving me a a bibliography with a subject search.  So sure. 

I3: Okay, so do you think this tool could lead you to materials that would affect your understanding of the original article? 

R3: Certainly provided a larger context for it, other views of it, sure, yeah.

I3:  Okay, and in terms of helping you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R3: Yes it might do
14:35
I3: Okay, and in terms of being useful for your teaching or research?

R3: Aah, possibly, huh, huh, leading me to other materials again that might be even more relevant than this particular article.

I3:  Okay, and can you give any, any other specific examples of how you might use that tool for either your research or your teaching?

R3: No.

I3: Okay and did you have any other comments on that tool?

R3: No, not really.

I3: Okay.  

R3: That one didn't give me any results, so most of them are returning, again returning no results.  Aah.  (exploring tool) I've no idea how this results turned up but I, it doesn't appear as thought they are of any relevance whatsoever.  

I3: Okay.  So only one of the things gave you relevant results?

R3:  Huh, huh.  

Dictionary
I3: So dictionary, have you used that one yet?  

R3: Is that different from define terms?

I3: It is, yes.

R3: Aah so nothing, (pause).

I3: And again you can change the key words if you like.

R3: Huh, huh. Well, yeah in some ways if I can see, change the key words then why wouldn't I just do some other kind of search, like I don't see why I wouldn't use that tool particularly and start fiddling around with key words.

I3: (conversation overlap) So you mean you go directly to a site, that you want  and then do a search there?

R3: I might yes.
16:53

I3: Okay.  

R3: See yea, it's not really giving me very much that's useful.

I3: Okay.  So.

R3: So on the one hand, I mean these tools might be really useful but on the other hand it's obviously going to take a lot of time to flush anything that's going to be particularly relevant.  

I3:  Okay.

R3: So I'm thinking like why bother, it's all I can (laughs) I don't have enough time now, let alone.

I3:  Okay.  Okay so you didn't feel very positive about this.

R3: No I didn't feel very positive about that at all.  

I3: Okay.

R3: I want to be really positive here but I just, I'm thinking about my own practices, and thinking now this is just making my life more difficult than not. I mean I guess I can see that some of these tools might be more useful to a student, than they would be to somebody who already has a fair understanding of the field, who wants not these kind of broad overviews generally, but to work through trails of citations and what not to pick up bits that aren't known.

I3: Right, yeah.  I think I see what you're saying and it's obvious from our little demonstration 

R3: (laughing) All right what would, you like me to try now.

Literary Critics
I3: So Literary critics is next on the list.

R3: Literary critics.  Okay.  I mean it's a really impressive collection of, of connections you've got here.  Ummm, oh I did look at this just vaguely. (exploring tool ) Okay, so that takes me directly to their site, ummm, I forget what I'm doing here, Literary critics, (pause) So what exactly am I looking for here, am I looking for response to this article? 


19:22
I3: Or response to articles of that subject, I guess.  And if you wanted to look specifically for that article you might have to put in the article title.

R3: Huh, huh. 

I3: Instead of the keywords that we have.  

R3: Huh, huh.  Yeah, so it's a little, I mean I guess if I'm looking for that kind of thing then the usual place where you find this kind of response of course is in later issues of that particular journal.

I3: Okay.  

R3: Ummm, otherwise I suppose to create the path of discussion and citational reference to this document you'd be doing something quite different than the kind of ah  Because again I guess what I would want is specifically to this document and not necessarily to the field as a whole.  

I3: Okay, so, so did this tool lead to materials that affected your understanding of the original article?

R3: No (laughs).

I3: And did it help you evaluate the quality and significance.

R3: No.

I3: And do you think you would use what you found in your teaching or your research?
 
R3: No because it didn't lead anywhere particularly.

I3: And you have any other general comments about that tool?

R3: No.

I3: Okay.

R3: Well other than the ones I've just made.

Book Reviews
I3: Okay, on to book reviews.

R3: Book reviews.  I think I looked at this I think I played with that one, I think I looked at the HNet reviews. This is the one. This is the one that if you see, "that provides a", and then the line doesn't finish then you get 18 pages, "the", and then the line doesn't finish.  
20:50

I3: Right.

R3: And this is a pay-per-view one, I think because all you can get is.

I3: Okay.  

R3: So, (sigh) umm, and because what I'm reading is an article and not a book, unless I happen to plug in the author's name to see if there have been reviews of her books, then again it's not going to be particularly useful.

I3: Okay, did you want to try that one with some diffident key words and see what you come up with, or one of the other, do any of the other sources look of interest to you?

R3: Aah, (pause) Well there is a, there is exactly the kind of thing that might be useful umm,  the review of her book ummm, but again I really don't know that it's helping me to interact with this article in particular.

I3: Okay.  So, it didn't help you, it didn't affect your understanding at all.

R3: It has a potential possibly to do so.

I3: Okay, and to evaluate the quality and significance of the study?

R3: Huh, huh.  But only if I wanted to make particular effort to do that.  

I3: Okay.  And, in terms of finding things for your teaching and your research?

R3: Possibly.

I3: Okay, and can you think of any specific examples of how you might use what you find?

R3: Well I can imagine that if I wanted to build an argument on this article then, I might want to look to see how it was received and in lieu of that since, since it's an article I might go to some of her books and see if there is one that's connected to this historical overview and have a look and see what that says, but it's a pretty indirect rout, so, I think I'd rather just do wider research in the fields of the history of humanities computing, so if I could look for something like that then, I might get a broader view and interaction, so oh yeah, Hockey's is fine but you know she didn't think about this or. 
23:32
I3: Okay.

24:09
R3: yeah.

Related Studies
I3: So the next one is related studies and let me know if you want to break or anything, 'cause it can get, it's a bit of a long list and it's very repetitive, so.

R3: (laughs) Yeah, no that's fine.

I3: Okay.

R3: I guess what I'm saying is, is I'm expecting to interact with the individual article but the tools and the search terms that are automatic for the tool, keep taking me back out to the field.  And that's too big a level I don't want to go to that level really.

I3: Okay. Umm, can you give any examples of how you might, we might better provide routes to be int[er]acting with the article

R3: Huh, (laughs) yeah it's a very complex question isn't it. Well I guess it has to do with those key words so this one is very much easy to key because it's a history.  So I suppose if other key words took me to history of humanities computing, umm or a key word did that, then I would get related materials to this one rather than at the much higher level, and have to sift them all the way back down for myself.

I3: Okay.  

R3: Do you want me to go on to the next one?

I3: Yes 

R3: which is? Related Studies?

I3: : Related studies.

R3:  Related studies - I think I tried this one too.  This one obviously takes you to related material, and this could be really useful - this I thought was the most useful of all the connections.

I3: Okay.

R3: Because this would give me the kind of context that, that I would want. 

I3: That's the IATH one.

R3: Yeah. 

I3: Okay.  


26:00
R3: Yeah because you can see all the way along here - it's, it's well not everything is, but there's quite a bit there, that has the potential to, stuff in the Humanist Archive for instance is probably going to be very useful. So I think that I found one had the biggest eh, potential of any of them

I3:  So, did you find that it, it would lead to something that helped, that could help you're understand ?

R3: It might do, I didn't follow it but it might do. It certainly had the highest potential.

I3:  Okay, and in terms of helping you evaluate the quality?

R3: Yes that would be.

I3: And for usefulness in your teaching and your research? 

R3: Well it would certainly give me much more in-depth and broader context for seeing this particular article.

I3: Okay, and do you have any specific examples about how you might use this tool or what you find in it?

R3: No, not specifically.

I3: Okay and did you have any other comments about that tool?

R3: Ummm, well this one too, looks as though it's. it's returning some material that would be is much more precise.

I3: This is e-server?

R3: Ah yeah. 

I3: Okay,  So over all how did you feel about this tool?

R3: More positive than most of the others, yeah. 

I3: And, now any other comments on that, or did you want to move on?

R3: No, I don't think I have any more comments on this one.

Dissertations
I3: Okay, so dissertations, is up next.
27:52
R3: No I suppose you can't do that.  

I3:  Do which?

R3: (laughs) aah, (exploring tool) I didn't look at this one.

I3: Okay.

R3: Yeah this one again is so broad that it's taking you out to stuff that just is not relevant because it's picking up these. And just, it's not, it's just that this would take too long to sift it all through to possibly find a little nugget of information.  

I3: Even if you did narrow the key words do you think?

R3: Possibly but again I just, I think there are easier ways of doing a search like that than starting here and doing it.

I3: Okay.  

R3: Ah, so let's finish the other one. Yeah okay. 

I3: So did you feel that this tool lead to anything that might help your understand.

R3: No. not this one.

I3: Okay and anything to help you evaluate the quality.

R3: No I think no, to answer to the questions because I didn't try this one.  

Databases
I3: So databases?

R3: Yeah.

I3: Okay.

R3: The search terms are too broad again.  You can see what's happening.  All I'm getting is humanities, so again I'd have to spend a long time narrowing that one down.

I3: Okay. What if when we if we go back to initial page.

R3:  What happens if I put history here.  Let me just try what you're suggesting 
to me which is to narrow the search terms.  No just pulling up all the humanities and not.(exploring tool)  Where are we databases, right?
30:01
I3: Huh, huh.

R3: Ummm, (exploring) I don't see anything very obvious here for this topic.  I don't know what that one is.  (long pause)  No.  Again I think I'd have to a lot of fooling around with key words.

I3:  Okay.

R3: yeah.

I3: And, so for those for our three questions, in terms of understand?

R3: Well since I didn't pull anything I'd, I'd have to say no.

I3: Okay and no all across the board?

R3: Yeah.

Portals
I3: Okay.  So portals is the next one.  

R3: Huh, huh. (exploring tool) ahh Dante Project (exploring) (laughs) it's quite an odd collection of stuff.  

I3: It is.

R3: Yeah.  Well I can't say that did too much for me.  (exploring)  Oh, this one I have to do this search is that right? 

I3: I guess, it didn't work?

R3: (typing)  .  So I'd have to fool around, in terms of how you search on that and all the rest of it.  Aah (exploring)  portals.  So none of these portals seem to be particularly relevant to what I'm looking for, based on the article about, other than the Dante project has an obvious relationship to digital humanities, but not necessarily for history about digital humanities.

I3: Okay.

R3: Yeah. 

I3: So in terms of improving your understanding of the original article?

33:01
R3: No (laughs).

I3: And evaluating the original article?

R3: No I think once we get a no there then it's.

I3: no all across 

R3: Yeah.

I3: Okay, any other comments about that or ?

R3: Ummm, huh.  Well does it just show that we don't have a portal, these tools I assume are being used for articles of all different disciplines, are they? Yes.  I guess that's part of the problem. Is that I'm wanting them to be more specific.

I3: Okay, they are specific they are specific to Humanities Computing but the selection of articles that we have is so broad still even then that

R3: So broad yeah.

I3: That yeah it's hard because different people, some people are very interested in the technical side, you are more interested in the literature side of things.  

R3: Right.  

I3: So it's difficult to cover all your bases.

R3: So you've tried to, so your fundamental criterion then is that these would lead to whatever might be relevant to somebody doing, doing digital.

I3: Hopefully.

R3: Yeah, humanities.

I3: That's the idea but what we're trying to find out is whether or not they actually do. 

R3:  They actually do, yeah. I guess to me it would also seem to, to point to the fact that maybe we just don't have a portal that is relevant enough.
34:25

I3:  Right that's possible (conversation overlap)

R3: I mean I can think that as for instance as for instance as a Victorianist the Voice of the Shuttle is the most wonderful portal, to take you to all sorts of things, so when I think of portal, here I'm thinking oh good there's something to do with Humanities Computing or digital humanities or however you want to call it, that it is a portal of that type.  

I3: Okay.  
Pay-Per-View
R3: Pay-Per-View, I'd probably have to be pretty desperate to use, and is somewhat, I, I mean it's amusingly oxymoronic given the nature, the free nature of what you're trying to do here. But even if we click on it, we don't seem to be getting very much. In other words presumably this would take me to something why wouldn't it take me to scholarly journals, which are pay-per-view in the sense that if you're not hooked up to the university library they're pay-per-view.

I3: Yeah.

R3: Yeah, oh we did that one didn't we, sorry. Where are we here, what else other choices do we have?  (long pause) Well that looks a little bit more and this is exactly what it's doing, it's taking me to some of these journals Literary and  Linguistic computing etc. etc.

I3: Okay.

R3: There's Susan Hockey so, so yes, this is working well.  

I3: Okay.  So did this tool lead to materials that affected your understanding of the original article.

R3: They could, it could do, yeah.  

I3: Okay, and, for evaluating the quality and significance of the original article?
 
R3: Yes could do.  
36:59
I3: And for usefulness in your teaching or research?

R3: Could be, huh, huh.

I3: And can you name any examples of how you might use this tool or what you find with it?

R3: Not precisely.

I3: Okay and any other comments on that tool?

R3: Ah, well it's kind of a it's the securest root in the sense because I am at a library with access probably paid access to those journals.  Then what I'd have to do is make note of what interested me, go into my library site.

I3: And get it from there.

R3: And go from there, but it at least gives me some citations to work with..

I3: Okay.

R3: Yeah.

I3: So overall how did you, what did you, how did you feel about that tool?

R3: Very much I guess like some of those other tools it has given me possibilities for exploration but also a dead end because then I would, because I don't want to spend the pay-per-view (laughs).  I would start from that one, and then go back into the tool that would give me, which would be my library portal.

Related Texts
I3: Right.  Okay, on to.

R3:  Related texts. I did play around with this one before too, and I was somewhat surprised that it didn't give me more results.  (exploring) We've been, we've been to this one before and so you could play around with this one and I won't do it right now, but aah.  Oh related studies, I guess that's, what's the difference between related text and related, related studies?

I3: Umm I think that this tool leads more to primary texts that might be related to the article.

R3: Okay.  And again their book ummm, so I'd have to fool around with this because the there is no, 

I3: Didn't find anything?

39:36
R3: Didn't find anything here, but perhaps again I could fool around over there if I wanted to.

I3: Okay.

R3: Ummm.  (long pause) Giving me some returns here not much that this is, is really relevant.  

I3:  Okay.

R3: Yeah.

I3: So for improving your understanding of the original article?

R3: It probably the related studies one was better. 

I3: Okay, and the same with for the other two questions.

R3: Yeah.

I3: Okay, and did you have any examples of how you might use that?

R3: I see these two tools (related studies and related texts) as being connected and this (related texts) one as probably being somewhat redundant.  

I3: Okay, you have someone at your door.(break in tape)

Online Forums
R3: Okay, online forums well, Humanist would be the obvious one to go wouldn't it.  And there's obviously quite a lot there that looks as though it would be relevant, and again it would need quite a lot of sifting.

I3: Okay.
(exploring)
R3: I mean I guess it doesn't seem to me like these tools are functioning very well I think I've said this before - for somebody who has a fair view of what's going on here, a fair familiarity with the field, so these tools would work for me if I really wanted to dig for something that I might have missed along the way or some esoteric little thing, ummm perhaps they'd be good for that.  Or if knew very little about the content area, they might be good for that.  But in terms of specifically related to this article, ummm, many of them no. 

I3: Okay. So have you done have you finished working with this tool, do you wanna.

R3:  What were we looking at, online forums weren't we, Yea   

42:39
I3: Online forums.

R3: Yeah online comments weren't we, yeah.   (long pause) Again an interesting forum that I can see I might enjoy playing around in, but in terms of specifically enhancing my understanding of this article, probably not, unless I either took an enormous amount of time to go through everything or serendipity, you know I hit something (laughs).  

I3: Okay, and in terms of evaluating, being able to evaluate the quality or the significance of the article?

R3: Unlikely easily.  

I3: Okay, and finding something that might be useful for for your teaching and research?

R3: Again, well it, that's to say sort of serendipitous, yes I might if I played with it.  

I3: Okay.  And overall what did you think about that tool?

R3: Umm, I like it better than some of the others.

I3: Why is that?

R3: Because it's a little bit more precise, a little bit more focused at least in the general area but even so it's very, very broad.

I3: Okay. And did you have any other comments on that one?

R3: No I don't think so.

Instructional Materials
I3: Okay, so moving on to instructional materials, (pause). 

R3: It's a little hard for me to estimate the teaching potential of some of these tools too because I don't teach this particular topic.  

I3: Okay.
(long pause)

R3: No.

I3: Okay, so not useful at all really, you didn't find anything.

R3:  No it doesn't appear to be.

I3: Okay.

44:57
R3: I mean instructional materials what would I expect there even at your general level, I guess I would expect something like (long pause) Huh. Well I suppose I wouldn't get something as specific as, as a timeline of Humanities Computing or something like that, but even, ah what would I get with Humanities Computing at a more general level?  Examples of syllabi perhaps, Ummm, classroom projects, I guess I would expect to be instructional materials used in the teaching of digital humanities of which I know if you hunt around on some of the web sites of places like Alberta and what not, there is some stuff.  Or individual people within the field.

Media Report
I3: So Media report.

R3: (exploring tool) No it didn't like that one surprisingly I would have thought it would but it didn't.  Ummm, (exploring)  Let's try the New York Times (laughs) Have you tried out these tools yourself with the different ah?

I3: I've tried them out but not with this article, and I've had mixed findings and usually I've had to play around with the key words because,

R3: Quite a bit, yeah, yeah.  What'd we get here? 

I3: We got one.

R3: Oh this one.  (exploring) Well I don't think it looks too promising, do you? (laughs)

I3: (conversation overlap)

R3: No. so again it doesn't seem to be producing too much

I3:  Shall we try with maybe history and humanities computing.
 
R3: Sure.

I3: You can change them actually right on that.

R3: Oh okay, sorry did that before. 

I3: If you right click.  Oh well we came up with something.

R3: We came up with something aah, (laughs) they don't look too promising do they?

47:56
I3: No.

R3: It's just a, a, miscellany of stuff  So I would take one look at that and I wouldn't go further, for sure.

I3: Okay.

R3: Alright you want me to do something here.

I3: So I'll just ask you I guess well we didn't find any thing so no's across?

R3: Now I can right click somewhere did you say?

I3: Oh yeah well if you, you can just click in those boxes and you can.

R3: Oh delete.

I3: Or you can just backspace  

R3: (laughing) 

I3: And change you, type in your new.

R3: Okay so h-i-s-t-o-r-y.  Now we'll search what did we search?  We'll do the New York Times

I3: No okay.

R3: Okay so that one appeared not to be very useful.

I3: Okay.  Did you have any other comments about that tool?  Do you think potentially if the search results had found relevant articles, 

R3:  Huh, huh.

I3:  relevant articles, do you think it would be, you'd find it useful in any way.

R3: Well I could see potentially it might be, it's always interesting to hear the popular discussion of scholarly preoccupations, but the fact that it didn't, surprised me.  

I3:  Okay.

R3: Given that computing is something that you would think would transcend those boundaries and it didn't so, unless we made it more general, we didn't try doing that.

49:26
And maybe we'd have to do something like computing but then you'd end up with a lot of stuff on computing and business, that sort of thing, so.

I3: yeah.

R3: And again I suppose if I really wanted to know, and was that preoccupied then I might spend the time.  But if I'm just doing this as a quick kind of contextualizing what were the newspapers, what were the newspaper saying at about the time that this article was published, it's certainly not going give me that.

I3: Okay. 

Search Engines
R3: Now ahh, Search engines. Oh well okay so Google, Google Scholar I mean these are fairly intuitive aren't they.  

I3: Huh, huh.

R3: and that's what I would likely do if I wanted to do the kinds of things that some of these tools are inviting me to do I would probably just go to Google Scholar and do it.

I3: Okay.

R3: So I'm not even sure I'm going to try these out, because well, let's just do it and see.  So this is obviously giving me quite a lot of what appears to be fairly relevant material, as I would have expected and which would have been my first resource even for going to find related materials about Susan Hockey.  

I3: Okay.  So did you feel that it would lead to materials that would help your 
understanding of the.

R3: Definitely. 

I3: Okay.

R3: But it's what I would use first not some of these other tools. Because it's much more focused and the others were too broad.

I3: And for evaluating the quality and significance of the original study?

R3: Yeah, definitely.  

I3: And for finding materials that you'd use in your teaching or your research?

R3: Huh-huh, huh-huh.

51:23
I3: Any examples of how you might use this tool or what you find with it?

R3: Well for instance sometimes when you're putting together as I'm just in the process of doing right now, a reader or text book  for a course of theoretical readings, I might say to myself well I know Susan Hockey is a major figure in the development of Humanities Computing, ummm, lets sniff around her work until I can find the one that I think is most appropriate for students or most precisely captures what I want to capture. 

I3: Okay.

R3: So that would be an example.

I3: Okay and overall how did you feel about this tool?

R3: Well it to me is the, 'is the' logical tool of the whole set, yeah.  

I3: Okay and did you have any other comments about that tool?

R3: No because I didn't try the other two other than Google Scholar.  

I3: And in terms of having it you said it's the first thing that you would go to is the Google Scholar.

R3: Huh, huh.

I3: Having it in the context of the link from this, this website.  Did you like that or would have just gone to the page on your own?

R3: Well I mean it would be handy to have it right along side the, no doubt.

I3: Okay.

R3: yeah.

I3: Great, so any other comments on those tools individually or as a group?

R3: Not other than I think the comments I've made about the difficulty of making them precise enough.

Value of Reading Tools
I3: Okay.  So there's a two concluding general questions that I'm going to ask. So the first one is, has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally? 

R3:  Well online access to research I find incredibly productive, so I'm greatly in favour of it, I've just been spending the last five hours doing it, this morning.

53:30
Have these tools in particular enhance that experience (pause) not especially.

I3: Okay. Any other comments on that?

R3: I think for the most part when I do that kind of research I'm most likely to want to stay within the scholarly network.  So if I were able to access something like the pool of scholarly journals having to do with humanities computing and that some of these links would take me to different ways of searching that pool, that would probably be more relevant to me than being sort of thrown out into these huge um gateways, yeah, if you want to call them that.

I3:  Okay. 

R3: Some of which might produce me some interesting material like the one that takes you to the Oh I don't know, was it one of the online book stores or something like that.

I3:  Okay.

R3: But, I'd really, to enhance my enjoyment of this article I'd rather have that access to the scholarly material.

Value of Knowledge
I3: Okay.  Last question, what do you see as the major challenges if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R3: (pause) Ummm, well I guess I would see the whole restrictions on access to this material, for instance I was, I've just been doing quite a lot of searching in College English this morning and it only goes up to three or four years ago.   

I3: Okay.

R3: So that's a real restriction.  

I3: Right.  

R3: So I have to go then to the library if I want more relevant material or your up-to-date material to finish that search.  

I3: Okay.

R3: Ah, I guess the ability what I'm talking about this pool of journals, so we'd have to have literary and linguistic computing and text technology - and a whole range of journals, how you'd ever get across all those access problems would be, I could see formidable.

I3: Access problems including having to subscribe to those ones.

R3: That's right yeah, yeah.

I3: Okay.  

R3: So what would be most useful for me I could, that I was describing, I could see would be the most formidable to be able to achieve because of these protections of copyright etc.

I3: Okay.

R3: Obviously if there was a really large pool of articles on your site then most of this could be site internal rather than spinning out to some of these tools that don't really lead you anywhere.

I3: Right, that's true.  Okay, anything else any other comments at all.

R3:  Ummm, I mean I'm really interested in what you're doing here in particular because as students are making increasing use of these articles, it would be so nice to have some of these reading tools available for them but they'd have to be much more specific because otherwise students will get too distracted and lost in the great world out there.

I3: Okay.  So is that all?

R3: Huh, huh. I think so.

I3: Great.
Interview 4  

I4: Okay, so for these, have you used these tools at all?

R4: Yes, I went through and sort of navigated around them, ummm, and I was when I was using them I was saying should I worry about what I consider kind of the technological level, if there are things, that there are tweaks that can be done to these tools, that will make them much more user friendly.

I4: Okay.

R4: So I tried to kind of put those, that question to the side and think about essentially what does this tool do.  Tried to do that, but the problem is that all those things kind of mesh because it is about usability.

I4:  Okay, yeah.

R4: Yeah, so ultimately this is about usability, since it's about usability then all this question of well can you, like on this screen you can't go back.  It's like you have to close and that's it, and I always like this system that wherever you go you can kind of go back (laughs).

I4: Okay.  So all that's fine to comment on as well.

R4: Right. So I now, I'm supposed to answer this question about what bio means as far as article.

I4:  Well, umm, no. I'll go through my questions.

R4: It's better that way.

Author Bio
I4: So, in what ways does having access to the author's bio statement contribute to your reading of the piece?

R4: Well, let me think, I have to think about both articles because obviously here it's too close, but the other one is not.  Umm, (pause), ha, good question.  (pause) Normally I would say it would help a lot.

I4: Okay.  

R4: It can also be confusing 'cause, in the case of Sperberg-Mcqueen, I saw him initially as a, doing literary theory, and then when I went and saw his bio it was all about world wide web technical dimension.  And so it was, it was in some ways there was a contrast between them, what the article was really saying, what his bio said.  And so the contrast was in a way that the bio was leading me down a path that was perhaps not a balanced reading of the article.
2:17

Metadata
I4: Okay. And so the next question is, does any of the metadata in view item's metadata add to your reading of the piece, and if so, in what way?

R4: Umm I felt the metadata was too general.  Where's the metadata.

I4: It's right there, next one down.

R4: View items - phew - Okay, sorry, I'm little blind at times.  Okay, umm, I felt that the metadata was (pause) and this is true of the descriptors in general, that they are too vague.  The other one says encoding.  True that's much more specific.  So in my article I would say it's too vague and the other article it was perhaps useful except for even in that topic of encoding, you know if you do a Google on encoding, there's just everything.  So what I would have liked to have seen here is a let's say, almost automatically generated metadata.  

I4: Okay.  In what automatically generated in what sense?

R4: That it goes from article, it looks at all the words, then says, well what are the most  important words then goes out on the web does the same thing with all the other articles and it makes these categories, so that there would be this pyramid of categories that  are generated automatically from the words in the text. Basically. And that, therefore, and the reason I mention it in this term, in these terms is because you see, ahhh, those are very lonely terms there, when in fact there is, what you'd  likely do is kind of dig down into the article. I would say Dig down into the categories the, lets say, the subject index categories of the article.  You should have semiotics yes, then there would be this whole tree, more and more precision of terms that are associated with semiotics.
4:57
I4: Okay.

R4: And that can be generated more or less automatically, I think.  (laughs) that's another dimension of technology, the fact that no matter how wonderful it is, you always say, oh, couldn't that be faster. (laughs).

Define Terms
I4: Okay. That's true.  All right, so in this piece do see value of being able to look up a term by placing it in the Define lookup box?

R4: Oh, I was quibbling with defining semantics, and I was quibbling with Define again, Oh what drove me nuts about define things is that, OK I put a term in there, like  ummm, let me see I  want to define 'Lemmatisation' and I go and I hit search Webster online, and, err, first of all it doesn't have it, that's okay, but then I say, Oh I want to go search the others and  I can't. 

I4: Okay. Because there's no back button?

R4: No back right.  Then I hit close and I start again, "define terms" type it in, it's kind of a  question of user friendliness.  On the other hand, now it does say about Webster's but it's a very, it's an about, that's you know it's a commercial about and it's not an about that really helps me figure out whether this would be appropriate for my search. 

I4: Okay.

R4: So defining it didn't really work for me.  (exploring tool) Let me see, internet, for my terms, which I admit is a very, and there's no stemming so you've given me Lemmatisation but I might have found something for  for lemmati-, no result, so I might have something for lemma. No result for Lemma? Ahh, Lem?, no.  Well okay well maybe I wouldn't so right, define terms I can say on the idea side is great, on the implementation side we have a ways to go

Email Author/Send Link To Colleague
I4: Okay.  Great, so next question, do you ever see yourself using email author and, would you want that feature on your own work?

R4: I believe that, yes, I would want that feature on my own work, I believe the idea is good, I believe that would be totally superseded in the space of 5 years.

I4: By?

R4: By umm, on the site itself, and I guess  that's the case here, on the site itself there will be a forum, a discussion forum.  Basically you'll post it on a discussion forum.

Add Comment
I4: Now in another version of the OJS, there's an option to post a comment.

R4: Right.  Yes!
8:16
I4: How would you feel about using that and having it on your own work as well?

R4: I think it's perfect.  I think that's the way it's going to go. That's what all the software sites do.  You just, you have below this, comments.

I4: Okay.  

R4: I think that's probably the way to go.  Now, why not email?  Well, probably any commenting system will have email notification, and if not sending a comment on, so.  It's a perfectly legitimate feature and useful ummm simply I think that it will be much more efficient way to do that.  Now I, I think probably email will be replaced because author's will say I don't want all this email.  They will say, you know put it on the side or something.

Go to Print Version
I4: Okay, and did you have any other comments about any of that first set of tools at all?

R4: Umm, I didn't really understand go to print version, because I didn't really go anywhere, as far as I could tell, I went like, PDF, right, here's another thing that annoyed me, ummm get your little PDF, that's good, but we always had this bar on the side, and there's no way I could just get the PDF.  Maybe that's my lack of familiarity with how this works, but I could never, I tried to several times just  have the article without this, and I couldn't do that.  Umm, and when you say go, print, print, go to print version. (using tool)  I didn't know, I didn't know what it did, menus disappeared, but it hasn't, the frame is still there, I think it might be a bug or something.  It could be a bug.

I4: Okay.

R4:  So then,  (exploring tool) does it do that, go to Print version, yeah same thing. Umm but that maybe because probably since these are all PDFs now if you  say go to print version, ah print it directly from the screen, umm, (exploring tool) oh well may be this is the way.  No, it prints that screen, right.  So when I go to the article I can't get the same kind of screen as I have here, so.

I4: Okay. 

R4: Back, right.

I4: So any other comments on those?

Capture Citation
R4: Print version, view metadata, capture the citation - Ah yeah!, I was kind of, this downloads the citation information I would like a cut and paste, now maybe, maybe this is it, but I think in Endnote like if I go like this, and I say open it with Notepad, (exploring tool)  on to open it with default location, let's go to Endnote, it won't have it  anyways, yes, so it's Endnote has a paste format, so a lot of these things could be I would like to see the option where you can simply just paste it into Endnote rather than saving it to a file and then importing it into Endnote.  It seems like its rather complicated.

Author Bio
And what else, author's bio.  In the author's bio of course is that content, have to worry about that? maybe, I was going to say that, obviously normally people have web pages and so this should be linked to their web page.

11:36
I4: Okay.  

R4: Send link to colleague, email authors, okay, that's fine.  

I4: Okay, so before I go on, through each of those with the next set of tools, did you have any questions about any of those, that you ran into while you were using them, for the second set there? 

R4: Umm, no questions about these tools, they all seemed very straight forward, except for what I'll call glitches.

I4: And what about, what about these ones here?

Author's Other Works
R4: These, umm find related items among author's other works.  Well I went through them, umm, I didn't find that I didn't that have any real . . . right, oh right the same problem, with dictionary is that I didn't have a back button, therefore if I'm not familiar with these things, then, and I felt that the Abouts were, umm, I would have liked to have a shorter About, about, in there.  Now here, you know, it doesn't even say look at here, instructions, data, educational use, phew, there's no About really.  

I4: Okay.

R4:  We know who supported it and everything but, It seems like there would be a little blurb here -to tell me what it is.  

I4: Okay.

R4:  So, my, I guess for all of these, the question is why not have a bit more, more information about what they are, they are not (pause), if you have an advanced enough system they could be organized according to their pertinence to this particular article, or this author.  Right now, I'm assuming for every article they are in the same order.

I4: Yeah they are.

R4: So, I don't really know which one is the most important. If I search , I don't find myself anywhere as a matter of fact but, if I search English Server which is kind of well, umm by chance, if I find something, oops comma (exploring tool). Umm I have to in fact,  do they even do?  Could be little  technical issues like  if I, oops, do they do, no don't do (typing) fixed expression searches, do they? Yea so there putting in quotes rather than using fixed expressions, so there'll be little things that won't.

I4: Okay.
14:39

Government  
R4: Now Government, what was   probably, yeah, it's understanding what government meant, so I would probably want an explanation of this, were there, now did I search the help, there didn't seem to be any help here, or did I miss it being half blind. No I don't think there is a help.

I4: Not from this page.

R4: So when it says government, I don't know what that means.

I4: Okay.

 Book
R4: Book.  Find related among  book, among books.  

I4: Okay.

R4: Book or books, among book.  I'll find it among book (laughs). Here you've got Author's Other Works, government, find related among government, okay.  So understanding what these categories are might be a good, Okay?

I4: Okay.

Related Studies
R4: Okay. Related studies and what they're going to give me is these determiners out there.  So, that's what's happening with all of these things, what's happening is that, these are really good, these will be great. The search will be great, if those search terms are not particularly specific then, it's a mess.

I4: Okay.  So did you, did you try using, typing in your own search terms and get better results with any of those?

R4: Sure, yeah I can do that.  And Like you go to a search engine and like go to Google, see if  you did  Google  it gives me too many entries.  But if I get Google, now this question is whether it would work or not, ummm, and I want to find out (Exploring ) "reading the text's mind"  and I want to find out about, yeah see, I can find all the Google references to it.  So t hat works and you see they use, the quotes, go through alright so  that's fine. Umm, so, my own search terms are good  But what where, my problem would be is that, I can't evaluate these, I would have to learn a lot about these databases in order to say, Ah let me go search in that. If I can go, Ah let me search in them all, click, (laughs) Them okay, because then I don't have to know.  And then by pertinence by, or something like that.

I4: And so they all come up.

R4: Yes, that's why goog-, that's why I would, probably if I was using this system I would down and search it in Google.  And so the Google gold standard would be what would determine the usefulness of this.

I4: All right.

R4: And especially with Google Scholar.  

I4: Okay.  So now I'll take you through each tool and ask you three questions.

R4: Okay.

Authors Other Works:
I4: Starting with Author's other works.

R4: Okay.

I4: And so did this tool lead to materials that affected your understanding of the original article?

R4: I didn't find anything on mine, now on the other one, ummm, let's see, it could have yes.  

I4: Okay. If the search terms were better, or?

R4: No the other one could have in the sense  that if I had read through what it found, then I would have umm, it would have been umm, useful. It could have helped me understand the article, yes.

I4: Okay, and how about, did it lead you to anything that helped you to evaluate the quality or significance of the article?

18:38

R4: Huh, you know I'm going to go back, see if I can remember. (exploring tool) Umm, so go to current then I go to Sperberg-McQueen(searching) Oh and I went to right, English server, oops. Umm, I think that was a problem is I didn't find anything, ah there we are.  Right when I found something, the problem was it didn't seem to have anything to do with him. It's as if the search - Ok Now this is coming out of Humanist, and everywhere he has talked  in  Humanist, there were times, umm, I don't know if it was that one Author's other works, or what was it in, Online Forums, I did the search and I had the impression that it didn't find, it wasn't related to him. . 

I4: Okay.  

R4: Here, Author's other works, was the only place that I found anything it keeps on going back to, oops, again, ummm, to (exploring tool) yeah, it's the Humanist archives which are in this Online Forums.  So there's an overlap.  But that one worked, but I think Online Forum didn't work.

I4: Okay.

R4: Why is that? (exploring tool) Humanist, oh right 'cause encoding bibliography.  And there were things on here (exploring tool) that wasn't  it, it's something else.  Umm right, so one remark here would be that there is overlap and another remark is that umm, it really depends on the search terms.

I4: Okay. And did this tool lead you to anything that you might use in your teaching or your research?

R4: Umm, certainly.

I4:  Okay, can you give me any examples?

R4: Umm, this, well first of all I should say the article did. Now did the tool? 

I4: Did the tool lead to any materials that...

R4: Right so I have all these references.  Yes, umm so when I went to (explore tool) yeah I found references that, oops references which I would I would probably follow up on.  Now where did I find it? And which tool it was? Whether Author's other works?  (exploring tool) Over there, and that might be important for you.  Umm, voice of the shuttle  , let's see if we can find an (hard to hear, sounds like "vandle")  (exploring) ha, maybe I had to change it.  I had to go, oh, just get rid of that, (exploring) was it, it wasn't there, so I don't know which one, but I think I found an article that I was interested in.  You know, if it had been the same time, then I would have said one of these workshops might have been interested me, so yes, I would say sure.  

I4: Okay, any other comments about that tool? 

R4: Nope.

I4: Okay, now as we go through the tools one other thing that we want you to comment on to keep in mind how it might if there is anything that compares between them.  
23:04
R4: Right.

I4: How one tool compares to another.  That's just one thing to keep in mind.

R4: Right.


Government
I4: So Government.

R4: I found nothing in there, even though there's every reason that it would be, but you know maybe it didn't look thoroughly enough, I do them all, but I found nothing in there that, (exploring)  ah well let's look at it.  Yeah, I get no results.  

I4: Okay, potentially if, if you had results, do you think that looking for government publications, is something you would find useful?

R4: Well I don't understand I mean, it's the categorization I don't understand.  Umm I suppose it might be useful in a sense you might say, ah, government materials would be open source, so you can, you use them freely.  

I4:  Okay.

R4: And they are topic limited because I'm sure governments materials are about government.  What's happening in government so, they are, they are, they  pin point a particular area, on the other hand, you know why government rather than, I don't know umm,  electrical engineering, you know, why are we taking that as a category as opposed to some other  category I'm sure there are library science reasons, but I can't say that I really understand that.  In this field I don't think that would be much of an issue.

I4: Okay, so you didn't find anything.

R4: No.

Book
I4: Okay. So, the next tool is Book.  

R4: Yeah.

I4: So did this tool lead you to anything that affected your understanding of the article?

R4: Well I didn't read them, (laughs) but I think they would.

I4: Okay.
25:18
R4: I think they would, except for the fact that umm, (exploring) when I found something, I'm not sure that I found anything, (exploring ) or anything that I really understood  (laughs). See when I get to this, I get one of thirteen results. And I didn't know what to do with it.  So it's you have to know the databases in some ways.  (exploring tool) I can go back yay. Yeah, it's all kind of, I'm kind of I need to know more about the databases as such. 

I4: Okay, okay, so for the following two questions did it lead, well it didn't lead you to anything at all, did it?

R4: Well, ummm.

I4: In terms of improving, helping you evaluate the quality of the article?

R4: I would say it didn't, in this particular case.  

I4: Okay.

R4: But it seems like it would, that's my problem.  If I went through thoroughly enough, I think I would find something. Like Google Print, there's, there's certainly something there.  (exploring tool) Bibliography and Sociology, yes, well there you go, Foster, and Kelly yeah sure, why not. 

I4: Okay.  So then it did?

R4: It did.  Let's switch that say it did.

I4: Okay.  And then did it lead you to anything that you might use in your teaching or your research?

R4: Huh, huh, I think it would (laughs) if I followed up on it thoroughly enough.  No what I realized, part of the issue here in the ambiguity of my answer is that, within this tool book, there are in fact four tools.

I4: Right, okay.

R4: So, when I say the tool did, this part of the tool led to nothing, but this part of the tool yes it did, and this part of the tool is Google. 

I4: So each of the search options that you had, had diffident.

27:54
R4: Outcomes.

I4: Different outcomes, okay.

R4: So, and to say that the tool, that this tool book, because I used Google  Print to do search on those key words, this tool led me to that, umm I had, I want to say it's Google that led me to that. 

I4: Okay.  

R4: And that Google did that and not this tool.  (laughs)  

I4: Well Okay. 

R4: That's where I kind of, that's why I'm waffling. 

I4: Well, I think that that's what we're looking for is that since the tool led you to Google, the tool ultimately led you to the.

I4: Okay. 

R4: It's a nice link in the, in the chain (laughing).

I4: Okay. So overall, did you have any other comments about that tool?

R4: Book tool? Nope.

I4: Okay, and did you have any examples on how you might use what you found?

R4: I would go look up once I found the book, I would then go hopefully I would look first of all, go and find what's online, if there's a book online, I'll look at the book online and read it online.  Then I'm going to books in print and I'll try to find it in the library, and I'd like a tool that would say, is it in my library?  Is it checked out?    Then I'd like another tool where I could click it and the book would come to me magically.  (laughs)  Those are the things I would like.  But, ummm, so how would I use it, well, it certainly could be you know part of the, library research we do. 

I4: Okay.  So overall did you feel how did you feel about that tool?

R4: Overall, I liked the tool, I'm unsure about the usefulness of distinguishing book from article.  Or book from any other thing.

I4: Okay.


29:45
R4: But I mean it's I would see, I can understand that as an option so you'd have a general search tool and you would say, as one of the parameters, book, sure that's a selection option, but I don't know that I would have it as a, call that a tool.

Dictionary
I4: Okay. Now Dictionary is our next one.  So did this tool lead you to anything that improved your understanding of the article?

R4: Yes, yes.  I went to Wikipedia and I found something about Lemmatization  in Wikipedia.  

I4: Okay.

R4: (laughs) and   I was interested in and then in Wikipedia what I would do is I would say, Oh wow I can add to that article with the Wikipedia.  And then I can send my students there to either add stuff or to read it.  So then I would see the, this link is getting me on to what I consider the future of knowledge, which is this kind of Wikipedia.

I4: Okay, so for you're teaching you would find it useful?

R4: Yes useful as both, both for telling my students to go there, but as well as a, almost as a teaching material because I would go there and I could change things and put things up.  Then I'd say, oh go there and there it is, unless someone else erases it (laughs).  

I4: Okay, and in terms of evaluating the quality or significance of the original article is there anything that you found there?

R4: Oh boy, this q question of evaluation, umm no because what we need to do that it's more complex.  I think you need statistical studies and you need to know the sources, so, no not really.  I'd say not.

I4: Okay, and how did you feel this tool compared to some of the others that you've used?

R4: So far? 

I4: Yeah, if you have a comment on that.

R4: Let's see dictionary versus book versus government versus author's other works?  Ummm (pause) it does, or at least the resources that are put in the dictionary are a different kind of research, err, resource.  So Wikipedia and the dictionary Canadian biography online is a different kind of resource, so this is a different dimension, I would say.  Yeah, again, why, I guess so, I guess these are kind of categories that you're going to find from the library and different any kind of bibliographic indexing, these would be particular categories, I just feel like those categories you  going to  end up wanting categories not on the list, I'm going to want. Not to find government, but I'm going to want to non-government and then I'll be stuck (laughs).

I4: Yeah, and so overall how did you feel about that tool?

R4: Well I in this particular case I was very happy with it because it got me to that Wikipedia. 

Literary Critics
I4: Okay, so the next tool Literary Critics, so did that tool lead you to anything that affected your understanding of the original article?
33:22

R4: Wow, I ah did find things, that's right. Umm in both cases I think I had to change the key word, but in both cases I did find something.  

I4: Okay, and did this tool lead to materials that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study? 

R4: They do give statistics, so they have like 200 and some entries.  But the problem is,  what the tool is missing if you wanted to use it for that, is some kind of baseline encoding of references and umm, and what they consider, that is some grid for quality and some grid for like average number of hits.  Then you can start saying, Oh yeah, well this one is something good so .  

I4: Okay, and did it lead you to any materials that you would use in your teaching or research? 

R4: Yes. but just for b  basic materials not any, you can't distinguish, whereas before there's a distinction between like the Wikipedia and other articles.  Here materials look like very much like articles and that sort of thing, I didn't really notice that there was a different kind of article.

I4: Okay, so do you have any examples of how you might use this tool?
35:01

R4: Well I'm going to use it exactly like the others, ummm.

I4: What have you found for from this tool.

R4: Okay, well let's just look right here, umm (pause).  Under Literary critics we have subject collection, text and encoding initiative which is a site for TEI? We  also found a bibliography and now I go to the bibliography, and I would plough through them just like any other bibliography,  but, so I guess maybe I'll let me  contradict myself, umm, saying we're finding articles, and we found books, we found dictionary entries and here I'm finding sites, more so than I did subject collections - these are categorized in a different way.  So, this it turns out is more broken down into categories and its more user friendly, so I what would I use?  It wouldn't be, it would be much like the other, it would be  your basic bibliographic, bibliography research. 

I4: Okay.  And in terms of, you said it led you to some articles that helped your understanding 

R4: Yes

I4: Of the article and helped you to sort of evaluate it.  In what way did those help your understanding and evaluation.

R4: Umm it would give you insight into what others are doing in that field.  So in the case of Lemmatisation, there was a comment about the difference between stemming and Lemmatisation and they said that stemmers, which are machines that go and just take a word, and try to break away the ending, that they are much more efficient than a machine that would try to look at the context and lemmatize and so the way they put it in such a concise manner that I found that useful, even though I knew that, the way they stated it, in this kind of very succinct manner was very, was useful.  So it's really a question of and also there was a link to the software, so what's very what great about computers is that everything is linked. So you can talk about the stemmer, and Oh here you have the stemmer and here you have the documentation about the stemmer, but that's the sort of thing and then I can say Oh I'm going to use that in class.  And I can even download the software, so.

I4: So how does this tool if at all compare to the others ones that you have used?

R4: We're at Literary critics? 

I4: Huh, huh.

R4: Let's see.  In case of Literary critics, I didn't understand why it was Literary critics, so.  As compared, this is literary criticism collection so, should really be literary critics Umm, I don't see it as any different except for as I said, I did notice that I was getting a section there with more sites.  
38:44

I4: Okay.  So any other comments on this tool at all?

R4: I liked, I don't know about the Literary Critics tool but, I liked the tool that it represents that's the, this data base here, the internet public library online literary criticism section,  I like that it seemed very user friendly and I liked sub categorization

Book Reviews
I4: Okay, so on to Book Reviews.  Now did this tool lead to any materials that affected your understanding of the original article?  And can you explain in what way?

R4: Book reviews, this one did not, because it's not a book and all the things that I saw really didn't apply.  I mean it's not a book it's true that  the subject, I mean what your subject is searching for is encoding  and bibliography, but those will lead, yeah, cause you're asking the question - did it help me with the article, and of course that's not what this tool is looking for, it's not the article, it's looking for terms, and so does it help me with those terms yeah, because then it gives these, it lets you see what's being written in this field and often explaining in succinct terms what it's all about, encoding and bibliography.  

I4: Okay.

R4: So, did I follow up on it? I didn't, but it looked like yeah I could use it almost like a dictionary, that it would explain the terms that I'm searching.  

I4: Now did you find anything that helped you to evaluate the quality of the article?

R4: Well not in any direct way.  I mean in an indirect way sure, all these tools can, because you can start to get a feeling that if everybody is citing this article then oh well its important. But not in any kind of direct manner.  If it would give me a little number of quality that would be ideal.

I4: Okay, and in terms of finding things that you could use in your teaching and research, was it helpful?

R4: Umm, yes, helpful, because review will pick out books that concern this field of encoding.

I4:  And do you have any examples that you would like to give of how you might use this tool and what you found with it?

R4: Well the only example is, I go to encoding I find umm, an article I mean a (exploring tool)  early modern literary studies,  right, so I find, I find an article about French Emblem books of the 16th and 17th century and I find a bibliography in there, and I can then follow up on the bibliography or (hard to hear sounds like "the review") umm  articles that seem interesting.  And the text itself will explain some of the concepts surrounding them(exploring tool- reading from tool) So you begin to understand better what are the problems in a succinct way.  

43:14

I4: And did this tool how did it compare to the other one's, that you've used?

R4: Good question - you mean better worse?

I4: Sure.

R4: Or any feature?  Umm reviews are good because it's really, again (pause) there's confusion between the value of the tool and the value of the thing that's being indexed.  And reviews have a certain different kind of value than do dictionary articles or so on  So it's a bit confusing to say whether a tool you know to compare it, I would say that reviews are very useful, the tool is useful in the sense that it gets me to those (laughs) and but tool gets me to those reviews in exactly the same way as all the other tools, so I find them very similar.

I4: Okay.  Did you have any other comments there?

R4: No.

Related Studies
I4: Okay, related studies then, did this tool lead you to anything that improved your understanding of the original article, and if so how?

R4: Umhmm, in the same way that it led to articles and the question is were they more general or not? I don't remember that I noticed, you see  again you get, IATH you get the same Humanist thing so  there's a lot of overlap, that's what I was saying umm,. Umm, and ahh, yeah, it's going to be very, my remarks are going to be very similar and there is going to be a lot of overlap with the other ones as well. In fact I didn't understand why this was, I believe, anthropological index is used in these other tools as well.  If it's another tool anthropological index, now where was that. Anthropological index right so, it's the same tool with a slight change in the configuration of the database.

I4: So did this lead you to anything that helped you to evaluate the quality of this study?

R4: Umm, in the same way as the others, that is, frequencies, on my own kind of counting and referrals within the, umm, references within the given articles that I've encountered along the way.  So, umm, specially since we're dealing with the same databases and underlying data bases,  very much, it's very similar.  There's nothing there I could find that would distinguish it as such.

I4:  Okay, and usefulness in your teaching or research? 

47:01

R4: Umm, useful, as are the others in that it does give you, a) an idea of what are the problems to focus on and, b) the resources you can actually go and find and use it in teaching.

I4: Okay, and did you have any examples of how you might use this tool?

R4: Other than the other (exploring) umm, yeah, now we do a block move from my other example.  That is take another example, and say here I could have found exactly the same data.

I4: Okay, and overall how did you feel about this tool?

R4: As I say I had a difficult time distinguishing it from the Literary Critics Database what was the one, book umm, (exploring) anthropological right anthropological index  true the search terms aren't the same but you're using the same data base, and therefore it does basically the same thing, so.  

I4: Alright, and in terms of comparison, did you have any other comments on how this tool compared to the others. 

R4: Nope I'd say  there seems to be more overlap.  

Dissertations
I4: Okay the next one is Dissertations.  And did this tool lead you to any materials that affected your understanding of the article and if so how?

R4: Umm, yeah this was the one where I didn't understand,  any link at all, but I think it's because the  term bibliography, it's too broad, so it's getting all kinds of things that simply don't apply.

I4: Okay, and did this tool, so it didn't link to anything that helped you, didn't lead to anything relevant.

R4: Uh uh.  (exploring tool) Yeah, nothing.  

I4: Okay,

R4: For this article, no nothing.

Databases
I4: So then we move on to Databases.

R4: Huh, huh.  

I4: Did this tool lead to anything that affected your understanding of the journal article?

50:28
R4: No. And I have a feeling that it's the type of databases that are there, right, they, wasn't giving me the results, databases (exploring tool) funny .  In fact again, I don't know why you know, what that means databases? In fact they're all databases. (laughs)  I see archives, access to archives (exploring tool)  museum collection, map collection, literature arts and medicine database  I don't know what the nature of these databases are.  So it's really my lack of understanding of the database underlying databases that are supplied here. 

I4: Okay, and they don't lead to anything, the about keys don't really help you  understand why they were there?

R4: I found, I think probably if I followed up enough I would eventually understand, there were some cases where I don't think I would ever understand.  But there were many cases where I think if I followed up enough I would understand but I think  it would be very laborious there, and if, in this whole system there must be fifty databases maybe? No let's say twenty-five databases at least. So understanding. It's quite a bit of work to understand really what those databases are. 

I4: Okay.  So you didn't find any results.

R4: Uh uh.

Portals
I4: So skipping on to Portals.  Did this tool lead you to anything that helped you understand any of the article.

R4: It didn't. And I think it's just the collection of databases.  It didn't seem to have anything to do with this particular subject.  

I4: Okay. And did you try switching those key words.

R4: I didn't. Umm, I didn't try that in fact, here, (typing) (exploring) Right so, yeah, what happened here was this, it didn't do anything immediately when I went there to the portal.  Like if I go to this portal, archives portal, which is, the other ones I tried there was just nothing at all that seemed of interest, but this one it was, archive portal but I had to do the search, so it went from that search screen to this search screen and therefore I had to know, I had to decipher this search screen.  (exploring) and connector search.  And then it erased it all.  Then you have to start it again (exploring) Coding  Bibliography as key words with an and connector, search , and same thing,  so I guess it's, and it doesn't really give you time to know what went wrong.  I'm guessing it it has nothing.  I'm guessing  it found nothing. So for those key words it didn't really work.  I would you know  if I explored key words in the article, it could well be that I would find something useful.
4:17
I4: Okay.  Umm, so for those last three, you haven't found anything really relevant.

R4: Right, certainly not directly.  

I4: Do you think that is a result of, so for a few of them you felt it was the databases provided weren't.

R4: They weren't very pertinent.  

I4: Is there any other reasons why you think it might not have worked and any other scenarios where you think this might be a useful tool?

R4: Well, one of the, in the case of  the portals, for one of the databases, it puts you in their search screen and I'm not sure I'm using that search screen correctly.  So the question about whether I'm, when you start going to a lot of databases you don't know whether you're actually making it work properly. Like and this  is particularly pertinent with fixed phrases, normally under Google you put quotes around it, around a fixed expression And it'll search the fixed expression, s some databases don't allow you to do that.  And so understanding if I'm put into these other databases, then umm I might not be using it properly . 
  
I4: Okay, and for, in terms of being connected to a variety of different portals in the idea of it, do you find that useful?

R4: Well I didn't understand that distinction between portal and data base.

I4: Okay.

R4: Um I mean I do understand what a portal is, but in this context I really didn't understand why, because we're going directly to a search screen,  maybe that's the distinction you don't go, it doesn't do a search, you go to a search screen.  And that's why it's a portal. But umm (exploring tool)  Yeah I don't know where I am, I don't know what I'm searching I don't know what, how these things, "no results matched your query", I don't know which results it actually searched and I have to type them back in if I want to  so I was confused about why portal and why that would be a category right next to book, or government. 

Pay-Per-View
I4: So lets move on to pay-per-view.  Did this yield anything that would help you understand or improve your understanding of the article?	  

R4: Umm, I don't remember what I did pay-per-view.  Umm I think I decided well I don't think I'm going to pay for any article therefore I'm not going to  I don't know if that's really pertinent but, I don't even  
remember whether I found anything here.  I don't think I found anything, I think when I searched for bibliography and encoding, these are, I see them as potentially being very useful.  Umm, specially if you had, could read like half the article, so you really know what you're getting, then I would be very happy to use these things, they would fill the same purpose as any of these other ones but apparently (hard to hear sounds like "with a different tool" or "pool"), But  I'm kind of  ideologically against the pay-per view.  So I tend to go, no I don't want to use it.

I4: If you were to use it, in terms of finding things that helped you evaluate the article, do you think it would be valuable? 

R4: (pause) From what I've seen, the way this search engine is set up under pay-per-view, I don't think it would be valuable. 'Cause it wouldn't give me the information that I needed.

I4: Okay.  And for providing you materials for your teaching or research?

R4: It could provide materials.

I4: And just back to the first one about understanding.

R4: Huh, huh, understanding, oh, understanding of the article.

I4: Yeah.

R4: Umm, well yes it could.  Did it, in fact no because I didn't get anything.

I4: Umm, so overall how did feel about this tool you've commented.  

R4: I have.

I4: You have already.

R4: Yeah, I just don't there's an ideological problem about, so I immediately kind of jumped over that one.

Related Texts 
I4: Okay, so lets jump over to Related Texts then.  Did this help you find any materials that affected your understanding of the article?

R4: Umm, I think it was English data Consortium were I went to I thought well surely they'll have something here.  And I don't think I found anything (exploring)  Yeah no, with the key words that are there.  there's every reason  to believe that I should find something here 
in related texts, now whether related texts should be any different than related studies, related studies, I wasn't sure about what the distinction was Between related texts and related studies  so I decided they were the same thing. Probably different databases though.  Oh, but these are actually primary texts.
1:00
I4: Yeah, that's a lot of people comment that these are mainly primarily texts but a lot of the searches come up with not primary texts so its confusing 

R4: Yeah, these are ………..right.

I4: Okay, and umm, so do you think it might potentially lead to things that would affect your understanding of the article? 

R4: Of this particular article, yes because it has medieval content, and  I may put in the search term for the medieval text and it will actually go and find that medieval text through this.

I4: Okay, and for evaluating the quality of the study?

R4: Could potentially because I could go, they might made some, if I'm able to get at the medieval text, then I could they might have made some statement of the medieval text, and I can go and find the text and I can say, oh wait a minute what they've said is wrong because the text says this, so yes, I would say if you can get at these primary sources easily, that will help me evaluate, understand the article and evaluate the text better.

I4:  Okay, and would it lead you to any materials that you would use in your teaching and research?

R4: Yes definitely because I would want to give the students that primary text and the source.

I4: Okay. So overall, how did you feel about this tool in addition to what you've already said

R4: Well it didn't, yeah, I think first of all I was not using it properly.  And that it would have helped to understand that these are primary texts, and that, and therefore the code, the search term coding was wrong because there's no reason to put encoding and bibliography in it, it should be the medieval texts, so that is probably part of the metadata, if the metadata were more developed (exploring) lets see, view items meta data, Yea, indicate the primary text or the even the period, so umm, the metadata, so if the metadata was more complete then I think you could have metadata that applied to related texts and you would use the primary sources and then  have metadata As there is with related studies which would be the encoding and  bibliography.


1:03:28

I4: So, did you have any comments on how this compares to the other tools?

R4: It definitely, if again, these are all, it seems clear that what's happening here is that there is a selection of databases and the descriptor here is selecting a certain set of databases, databases that is being selected here are the primary text, so that is something useful to distinguish that kind of research, that kind of search, ummm, so it does add a it's useful umm, and it's useful for access to primarily text.

Online Forums
I4: Okay, so moving on to online forums.  Did this tool lead you to anything that improved your understanding of the original article?

R4: Yeah the, this seemed very redundant. I think I've run into all of these in the ones before. And since   since we're going down the list like this, the ones at the end are getting the hard time because they are redundant with respect to the first ones.  If you reverse the order I'd be saying exactly the opposite. But Umm, I didn't really, let me see like online forms what are we searching (exploring) the subject, right.  Umm, I think I'd already found the same materials through other searches before, related searches, related studies I think.

I4: Okay.  But nonetheless did they help your understanding?.

R4: Yeah, so the material that I found in here helped with my understanding.

I4: But it was repetitive?

R4: In the sense that I could find it with the other tool.

I4: Okay. And did it help with your evaluation of the article?

R4: Umm it gives that general glow to the article which is yes, people do talk about it and there are some comments about it.

I4: Okay.  And did you find anything here that you'd use in your teaching or your research.

R4: Umm, yes I'd already found things, I think it was, references that I would follow up on and use it in teaching and research yea.

I4: Okay, and over all how did you feel about the tool?

1:05:59
R4: Umm, (pause) well I think it is a category and therefore the tool, again, it's hard for me to call it a specific tool, it's the same tool with a different descriptor, but I think that descriptor is a useful descriptor.  

I4: And do you have any examples of how you would use the tool?

R4: I would, that would be mostly for very recent discussion about something, so what's really good about this is that a book takes a long time to come out, so whenever you read a book  well thats already probably 10 years old even when it comes out.  Because the time it takes to research, the time it takes to get the book printed and then published and out there and so on, then reviewed, it's probably nearly 10 years old.  So, I would use this for the most recent discussion. 

I4: All right.  Any other comments? 

R4: No.  

Instructional Materials
I4: Okay, so moving on to instructional materials.  Now did this tool lead you to anything that affected your understanding of the article.  

R4: Umm, I don't think I knew, did anything with this umm in fact (typing) I don't think I really got anything out of this, ed site, edsitement ….. ……… (exploring), yeah, that's what the problem here was that I just didn't get the right descriptor in terms to actually give me anything that, that I would have, that was useful, the descriptors that were there didn't work.

I4: Okay, so this new search that you just did, was that, were those results relevant?

R4: Well let's say, it's sort of relevant but I would have to you know, I would have to really work at finding descriptors that would actually dig the material out, that's my problem and I didn't.  Let's put it that way. 

I4: Okay.  And in terms of finding anything that would help you evaluate the article?

R4: (pause) I didn't think so, my impression was that this would not have that impact, would not be there that I would search for that kind of a relation, it looked like indeed instructional materials,  but that was, it's not through the instructional materials that I would evaluate the quality of the article or it's impact.

I4: Okay, and in terms of its usefulness to your teaching and research?

R4: I think it could be, in this umm, I mean in this particular case, for the particular article I was looking at, umm, I didn't get results that I was interested in, but I see no reason why for another article, they wouldn't have materials that I would be interested in, so I would say, potentially very useful.

1:09:50

I4: Okay, and, do you have any examples of how you might use what you find through this tool?

R4: Well, I was assuming and, though I can't have any examples because I didn't, I'm assuming that I could find (typing) that these would be direct teaching materials that I could use directly in the classroom and (exploring) ed sitement and I then I should know more about edsitement. Let's see what's in  the foreign language category, (exploring), no there there's nothing (laughs). Okay, I'll set the key words(exploring)  So if I went to French.  I think that was what the problem was, yeah there were things here where it would give whole classroom, yeah, (exploring) aaah, the difference here is that I should be able to, even though I didn't I don't think I found that although here you have this thing on Baudelaire so I don't, these are all lesson plans, have to go to oops, (exploring) French foreign language, I just found one, Baudelaire, umm, there were things, had nothing to do with the article, there were things that I could use in my field, listed in Baudelaire, which umm, I can't find it now.  But that often happens. There were lesson plans, and I thought oh, this is interesting.  

I4: Okay.  So overall how did you feel about this tool?

R4: Umm, I'm happy to have it.  (exploring) . . . Zero . . . , it was not at all applicable to the article because these are, the article is, in a rather umm, uncommon area of study it's not something I can use, but if I were to be teaching French then it'd be very useful and therefore I can see the potential of it.  Not so much for research obviously for teaching, and not so much for even lets say  teaching that involves research, it's more for like first and second year.  That's what I found anyway for my field, first and second year language teaching that would be useful.

I4: Okay.  Any other comments about that tool or how it can be used with the other tools?

R4: Sounds like a good thing.

Media Report
I4: Okay. Now media report?

R4: Oh right, I didn't find anything, Globe & Mail does not seem concerned with the coding. so no results.   Umm, certainly there are questions where this would be a useful tool, but what I note is that it's all English and since I'm in French, it's  going to be limited.  So it will be the linguistic question here for specifically, I guess for all of them it would be that question, but  And you wonder, yeah, for all these tools the question is, well I want to be able to personalize these things and I want to be able to add my own data base into it , and that would be the next question, more general question.

1:14:05

I4:  All right.   So you found nothing, had different options been available do you think you might have found anything that that added to you understanding of the article itself?

R4: As I say, there's no match as far as I can tell between this article and the Globe and Mail.  So I just don't think I could find anything, I didn't and I don't think I could.

I4: Okay, and anything that you'd use in your teaching or research?

R4: There are things though, umm, oh no there isn't not on this particular sub database it would have to be in French.
 
I4: Okay, any other comments about that tool?

R4: Umm, (exploring) Umm, no other comments about the media tool.  It's just not my area And its not the area of the article

I4: Okay, how do feel it compares to the other tools that are available?

R4: It looked good, but I mean does it look like, not all pertinent, but it looked like there were a number of databases, that if you had questions which actually dealt with that, you could find a lot of interesting things.

Search Engines
I4: Okay, so search engines.  

R4: Search engine, now, again this search engine Google is and Google Scholar now they are, that's the gold standard for searching.  And of course you can find everything you need to know and they're very pertinent in the sense that they give figures, pertinent about evaluating the importance, in the sense that if it has pages and pages of reference to that article, you know you've got an important article.  So, ummm, so you've got an article, a touchstone article. Now whether it is a good article or not, many people are saying something against it, but at least it's something you will know because  it's so widespread.

I4: So you commented about evaluating the article, what about leading to materials that help to your understanding.

R4: Indeed and in fact that's what I put in my articles, or a piece of my article, that's mine, (exploring) and I go search Google, let's go search  Scholar, okay, there's just one there, that's me, that's the article as it is up, oops, no it's not.  Wow, that's weird, (exploring) so the roots of Cornish language, very weird. Okay this, that I didn't find.  Why that is, I thought Google Scholar would have the electronic journal but why this person would actually  quote that article, I've no idea.  Umm, (exploring) do it again.  

I4: You can go back by right clicking.

1:17:26
R4: You can? Oh right and go back.  Okay, well here you go.  Thanks. (typing) =Okay, so try this again, Ok so but here, when I did that, I said, Ah, this is interesting there are these pages and it's certainly only my article, but when I go there I find all kinds of interesting sites like, this one, this one has a whole set of and all kinds of things on semiotics which I'm very interested in and it's in a major site, . . . , and so from there, I can find all kinds of, I find my subject and I find articles, and, so my, that was where I'd go first.  I would take the title of the articles I would put it in Google's search, Google scholar perhaps first and then go to this general Google search and just see who's talking about it, and find tons of things, and I would love to have something that would filter through all this.  So this thing for reasons beyond me, unless I didn't, Yeah, it's got, it's only 80 occurrences right, yeah.  So 80 that's a reasonable number, why 80 on 7 pages (exploring).  But anyway, one that would somehow take all those entries and try to do a classification, say, oh this is a meta site where they're talking about all kinds of semiotics and stuff, and there's tons of stuff here and select those out and here's a site which is a personal site and there's three other references which you can probably, probably the computer could distinguish between reference or bibliography.  

So if it were to work through these entries, they do a, do they do a sort by pertinence?  I don't remember now (exploring), yeah, so basically I would just like a more filtered Google that's where I found the most information.  

I4: Okay.  So for finding things that you'd use in your teaching and research, this would be also good?

R4: Yes.  In fact probably the best. : Right now.

I4: Can you give me a few examples of how you might use this as a tool?

R4: Well, it would be the same as the others but, is there anything different here.  One, frequency is important which gives me an idea that …(can't hear) ummm, what else, it's the same, it's the same as the others.  I go and I find the entry and go to the site, and it's like rummaging in the library. You go where the book is and you say, oh there's a book next to it,  oh what's the book next to it, and you kind off go around and you find and you open that book and Oh, this is interesting so you go off in different directions around that, around that site that you've found.  Now, that's been indexed by Google - now what I would like is a computer to do a bit of that. For me.  So it would go around follow links and it would collect data and sort it in different ways and it could tell what, when I gave it this, it could then select all of the

 vocabulary and then give me a breakdown of the vocabulary and then you would have appropriate descriptors - if you have a descriptor of semiotics and analysis, that won't  work, then it's just going to be a mess.  If Google goes in and finds all the occurrences with my article in it, and takes all the vocabulary from all those things, then you'll have descriptors that are appropriate. 

1:21:42

I4: Okay.  

R4: So, Let me see now courses, it's same as the others I'd just  find stuff (laughs).

I4: Okay, so any other comments on this tool or any of the other tools.

R4:  Umm, I like the idea, it should be configurable for personal use, cause when I find my data base I want to be able to put it in, I want it to have a reserve, I want it to describe these tools about the level of filtering,  about how you generate the descriptors, I want something like that. Ummm and I believe that (pause) that, and maybe that's what this is but I was going to say something that, would allow authors to set this up.  So when I write an article it could be that part of my work be to start setting up links to the resources that are pertinent for that article.  Therefore I would like for the those are writing it or those who are putting them online, to start setting up articles specific...  these things are probably the same for probably every, every single article.  They should be defined for that article.  So, there should be some kind of a filtering of the databases so that they do apply to the article.

Value of Reading Tools
I4:  Okay.  And I have a couple of concluding questions.  The first one is, how has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research generally speaking.

R4: Changed?

I4: And in what ways.

R4: Well one, I'm very happy to see that people, such as Ray and John actually are thinking in these terms.  And are moving in that direction.  And like any computer user, I immediately say, yes this is great I want more.  I want more faster, better, so how it's changed to say, umm, these are the first step towards a more, I'd say rational way of dealing with articles. 

And what I see, what I see as a problem, what I see as a big battleground is the copyright issues, and of course it's not like that's in the future, it's starting here and everything, but I see that and what I'd hope that somehow that a system like this would encourage, somehow that you could get academics hooked into the system so they'd publish copyright free articles under this system in that information will be free.  And so I'm almost of a, I understand the system might want to be mixed at the beginning, but I'm almost ready to say take away that pay-per-view. 

I4: Okay, any other comments on that question.

R4: I think I've forgotten the question, but that's okay, no, no comments.

Value of Knowledge
I4: The next one is what do you see as a major challenges if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point.

R4: I'm sure you gave me that question, but I don't remember.  

I4: It's not on there.

R4: It's not on there, ah, so this is a trick question.  It's not on my list (laughs).  

I4: Its on mine, So what do you see as major challenges if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point.

R4: Okay, I will try to interpret that, and I would interpret it as value as in usefulness, that is, how can you take knowledge which is out there and allow it to be to have greater impact so this is,  someone said this, they said, today someone in Bangladesh hooked in to the internet has more resources than ever in the history of mankind.  So you have this suddenly this ability to get at information which you never, which from anywhere in the world which you never had in the past, now that's good.  Let me see now, what, how can it make information more valuable?  (pause) Well the problem \is we tend to think of information as being like money or some tangible thing that has value.  And in fact it is like money, in the sense that it has no value, money is just apiece of paper.  It only is valuable within some kind of social context so, the point of, the whole point that makes this powerful is that you can develop communities - communities where, that's where the value exist is, because that's where the information is used and that's where it's developed and everything so, this is valuable and they understand very well this because they have things like, send link to colleague.   So as the system become more, what would make the information more valuable  is  as the system becomes more of a English pub, where people go to talk about their subjects - we have a very stilted way of  exchanging information. Forums, that is a less stilted way, people in particle physics they don't publish articles, they just go online forums - so what would change is , change the character radically would be a kind of highly developed information management forum which would incorporate a lot of these tools, but would really be towards acts on like the Wikipedia on a kind of dialogue, a collective development of knowledge.

I4:  Any other comments at all.

R4: No, lets see I think  that's about it. I think I've pretty much covered itInterview 5   12:30 pm


I5: So, the first set of tools that are directly related to the article like the metadata and things listed there,  I have some very specific questions about those that aren't on your interview guide.

R5: Okidoke

Author Bio
I5: So the first question is, in what ways if any does having access to the author bio statement contribute to your reading of this article?

R5: I think it is helpful to know something about the author.  It can lend credibility to the article knowing who the author is, because and for me specially this is an area that I don't know, I know the big names but I didn't know for example Mr. Robinson's name before reading this article.

I5: Okay.

R5:So it's a good thing.  But it just makes it, the fact that I can have the, bio of the person makes it all the more curious that I can't find out where the article came from (laughs).

Metadata
I5: Okay. All right.  So then the next question is, does any of the metadata add to your reading of the piece and if so in what way. so  under view items metadata?

R5: Huh, huh. No I didn't think that the, this is, this is all information that umm, I found elsewhere especially given the fact that it doesn't contain the metadata that I would have expected which is the original source citation but, I guess the fact that it gives the subject and disciplines is interesting, I'm wondering if these were Library of Congress terms or where the terms came from and who chose them.  Because you know like it looks like for example something you'd find in an online library catalogue but there you know that it's the library of congress terms that are being used.  

I5: Okay.  Any other comments on that one.

R5: I guess that's all. 

Define Terms
I5: Okay. Next question is, in this piece do you see the value in being able to look up the term by placing it in the define terms box.

R5:Theoretically yes, practically no.  Because for example, when my Mac downloads the PDF file I can't click on any words.  I tried pasting them into the box, and that works except that the word that I chose for experimentation 'aftertext' was not available in any of the dictionaries provided.  Now having the dictionaries available so to hand that way I suppose is a is a good thing.  Although it's not like a huge revolutionary tool because I have ones that I use regularly anyway that could have gone to.
3:11
I5: Can I ask which word you chose?

R5:"Aftertext" one word.

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I5: Okay.  So the next question is do you ever see yourself using send link to colleague or email author and would you want these features in your own work?

R5:Sure yes.  I really like that, I thought that was a strength indeed.  I think for example for graduate students you know using the text it's really cool to be able to contact the author.  And I would love it, if somebody wanted to write me about an article.

I5: Okay.  Any other comments about those functions?

R5: About all of them?

I5: Yes any of them there.

R5:In the first group?

I5: Yeah.

R5:Ummm, define terms, send link to colleague well that's cool like I can do that anyway, I do, I really like email the author I think the best.  And what was the other one, capture the citation, yeah I mean that's very nice, I get, one thing that I was curious about ahh, is ahh, at UVic would use Library encourages us to use RefWorks.: And it's not on here. So just, so if they happen to be pushing that, it would be handy to have it.  It's a lot easier to use than endnote for example.

Add Comment
I5: Okay, And if there was a function that allowed you to add a comment to the article, how, would you appreciate a function like that?

R5:Where would it go the comment?

I5: It would go at the end of the article or after the abstract.

R5:I see, it would remain with the article, so that the author may or may not see it, it depends on if he chose to go looking for it.

I5: Yeah.

R5: But other readers would see it in future.

I5: Yeah.

R5: Well that's probably a good thing, create a scholarly conversation.  

5:12
I5: So that's it for that first set of tools.  Now we're moving on to the second set of tools.  This is sort of the long stage of the interview and it's a bit repetitive, so if you want any breaks let me know and if you need to go let me know and we don't get through them all I can cut us off early, so but generally speaking, it's taking me it hasn't taken more than an hour and a half yet, and it's usually taken about an hour. 

R5: Okay.

Authors Other Works
I5: So the first one is, Author's other works.  

R5: I think I'm going to go to the one I just have it up. It makes you feel better the one that I actually read.  Yes, you want to know how I liked that.

I5: Yes.  I'm going to, what I'll do is I'll ask you our three questions, and then I'll open it up to other comments.

R5: Okay.

I5: So the first question does this reading tool lead to materials that have added to your understanding of the original article.

R5: That's quite a sort of a curious question I did use this function and found one reference to another article he had written and I had thought it did add context for me to help understand both his work and since I know, he's doing stuff that I'm interested in so yes, and helpful to see other works that he's done.  Does that answer your question?

I5: Yes.

R5: No I like this function,  

I5:  Okay, and can you give any examples of how it might have what you found might have added to your understanding?

R5: Well, I don't have a great memory, but let me see first one didn't work,  aah which one, the one thing that was kind of annoying was of course ahh, you have all these buttons to click on and by the way some of them don't work at all.  Ahh, and I came to understand that ummm, the fact that they were here, did not mean that there was going to be anything available behind them.  That was sort of irritating.  I suppose the tool would have to be a lot more sophisticated to sift through and actually only have things that were relevant for each window.  But, umm, I did find (pause) where is it, oh shoot, no it's not here, see this one isn't it, okay, so for example I click on this and this was not.  One of them I found one article by him, this wasn't it.  Now what happens I close this window right, is there anything I can do beside closing this window? I don't think so.  I can't think of anything.  Is there?

7:55

I5: On a Mac, if you control click, do control and click on your mouse.  No you can't on a mac I guess.
8:03 

R5: Isn't that annoying, and then see I'm back, I have, and I've lost the whole page, and I click on it again, and I think okay, which one did I use last time, I think it was (laughs) English server so I guess I'll try this one this time.  Now here I did find his article. Now of course the rest of them are some other Peter having nothing to do with, but this is cool, so I did find him and I could aah get the abstract of this article and it did add to my understanding in that  I saw what else he was working on and and that he founded this publishing house, electronic publishing house and that this is a person whose work that I'm going to probably continue to look out for so, yes that was good, it took me a bit of a bit of an effort to find it, but once I did I was pleased.

I5: Okay, so the next tool, or the next question is does this reading tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and the significance of the original study?

R5: Yes.

I5:  And can you give some examples?

R5: Well just because once again it's a question of credibility and knowing what he's working on.  And the fact that he's published in other respectable venues that he's somebody that does interesting stuff.  I mean just reading a rather long abstract told me that you know this is a guy who is doing important work.

I5: Okay, and how does this feature compare to the other tools that you've used in this regard?

R5: You're talking about on this page?

I5: Yeah.

R5: I this is one of the ones I liked the best. Author's other works.

I5: Okay, and did this tool lead to anything that you would use in your teaching or in your research?

R5: Sure.  I think that ummm as a bibliographical tool for students to see author.. being able to click on and find the other works of an author, the critic, that they're interested in is extremely helpful.  And it helps them realize the scholarly context in which the person is working I think I really do, think it's a great thing.  As a matter of fact on this entire list, this is just about my favourite element.  

10:53
I5: Okay, great.  Now did you have any other comments about this tool?  

R5: Oh I think I've said enough.

Government
I5: Okay, on to Government.  Does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article.

R5: Well in my, OK so,  the search terms have been selected by the author.  Now the author knows more than I do, about the basic subject key words that would be appropriate for his article presumably. Well I tell you what, I don't think, like I clicked on most of these and there wasn't that much about bibliography and e-books from these Government agencies.  I haven't checked this one out I don't think so I'll just click on there now for the heck of it, but, oh good it works:  "Zero"! and that was the most common result.  So then it leaves me thinking okay, well I'm glad I can learn if Governments have resources, if I can figure out more relevant key words?  Well I think their key words are probably good. Maybe it's illuminating to know that the Governments don't have any but ummm, ummm, yeah I mean maybe that's maybe that's interesting in and of itself, however in this particular case, it was sort of frustrating and you know.

I5: Okay.  So did this tool lead to any materials that helped , well it didn't lead you to anything at all

R5: It didn't lead me to a darn thing.

I5: Okay, so not really applicable then.  

R5: I tried but it just.

I5: So did you have any other comments about this tool at all, you said that?

R5: No, I mean I maybe in another contexts it would work better, but for this article it wasn't particularly helpful.

12:53

I5: Okay, and having access to Government searches, is that something you feel is useful in this context?

R5: It might be, it's not something I would use a whole lot.  Now if you're, if the search engine is ahh, within the Government site, I mean if it's effective enough I suppose it could even lead you to some granting agencies and things, which would be great but it's not working that way, and that's not the fault of the tool it's the sites that it's going to,  and the Government's themselves, I guess their, the way you know when I think of Government, I think of money, that's where we're getting it right (laughs)? and that, that would be the main thing I would be interested in and I guess their links for the Canadian Government and the others are on this list, things aren't set up so that the key words take you to topics for research grants.  You just have to go at it a different way. 

Book
I5: Okay.  So moving on to book then, did this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the article.  

R5: Aahh, no. Although, yeah I mean these are these are sites that are mostly commercial in nature, and see that's a little irritating that it won't stay open.  Ummmm, you know you would think that this would be a (exploring tool)- "sorry! returned no titles".  And I'm not really interested in trying to figure out, if I were doing a search, ummmm, with my own terms, you know may be I can get something out of these sites, but it has nothing to do with using this tool as an instrument for reading the articles or article or articles here, you know.  I mean I can go to these sites and put in my own search terms but it has nothing to do with this exercise or with reading these things. 

I5: Okay, do you mean, so you wouldn't, you wouldn't search for books that related to this article.

R5: Oh, I shouldn't say that I wouldn't, I probably would, but the fact is I'm not getting any.  

I5: Okay, so I'm just trying to understand your, are you not wanting to use own key words.

R5: Well if I were using my own key words it probably would be, I wouldn't be it wouldn't be about this article, I mean , I guess what I'm saying is I think that the key words that the author chose for this.

I5: Actually we chose them.

R5: Or that you chose for this are probably pretty, an accurate, a probably pretty good choice for this text, but it's not, it doesn't work with these sites.  So they're interesting sites and good key words but they don't work together.

I5: Okay.  

R5: So, good, good choice of sites, but you know.  Um, and I would have, and I know that it's an enormous enterprise to put up all these articles and have all these different possible interfaces so that you really can't I guess test it everything for each button, for each article and even if you did, you might say well,  it doesn't work, no big deal.  We're just go on to the next tool.  But err, just from me doing this exercise, it 's just a little bit frustrating and I'm thinking to myself okay, well, do I want to take the trouble to figure out better key words, who am I to try and do that? I'm not an expert in this field.

I5: Okay.

17:08
R5: May be to make the tool more effective you could have a list of possible subject key words, subjects and keywords

I5: That's a good idea 

R5: Yeah, give a list of alternatives.

I5: That's a great idea. Okay, so

R5: Let me try one, umm, you can put two words in can't you.  (typing) I'll see what that does. No its the same stuff.  (pause) Interesting.  Oh it went back, (laughs) of course it goes back, isn't that charming.  It's not going to keep my words anyway.  A back button would be really nice

I5: All right, so having the option to search for related books, had it worked better, do you feel that …

R5: It would have been, a very good thing.  I would have liked it.  

Dictionary
I5: Okay, so on to the next one Dictionary.  Now did this reading tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of the article.

R5: No.

I5: Okay.  Did it lead to anything at all.

R5: Not that I remember. 'Cause we're using the exact same terms ummm, you know this has, these the results are about "did you mean bibliography and books?" So there's nothing electronic on here that's given in this result.  So the problem really with the functionality is in the key words.  

I5: Okay.

R5: So if I take out the bibliography, and try, which one should I try? I don't get anything you know, and if I go, if I use the key words as they are it just gives bibliography.  

I5: Okay, and how did you feel about having this tool available if it had worked better?

R5: I'm not sure what the idea is behind it quite.  Umm because up here we've got the define terms thing, it's targeted at terms in the article, now this is for key words that aren't in the article, I guess, necessarily so, okay there could be a different function here, but ummm, and it's interesting, it's called dictionary, so I was kind of, I felt, I don't know that it's a little bit misleading because it's not really, the dictionary of Canadian biography is not in a dictionary in the same way that you know, Oxford online, OED online is.  So,if I could, if I had a way of you know, if these resources were giving me some kind of answer maybe I could, could speculate more about how using key words, general key words, hooking it up to encyclopedias would, would help, but I find just using define terms up here, is a more, I found it a more intelligent way to go.

20:46

I5: Okay, great.

R5: This I'm not quite sure what we're getting at here compared to this (define terms) except that we're using key words instead of words in the text and we're going to encyclopedias instead of dictionary.

Literary Critics
I5: Okay, great, Literary Critics.  

R5: Now that's theoretically interesting, but by the time that I got here I wasn't expecting much.  

I5: Okay.  So did it lead to anything that added to your understanding of the original article?

R5: So,OK, this is the only resource the internet public library and umm, yeah, it, this one probably could but it's, I mean there are 800 entries, it's, it's you know pretty complex, this will, this will lead probably somewhere, I clicked on this one before and I was interested in it because you know Ray has that human computer interface on the book, but this HCI is something else.  (laughs)

I5: Okay.

R5: So I say, "Oh HCI", and, ummm, you know this is, this is, an example of something that could be interesting to explore, it's not directly related to what I was to the article I was looking at.  It's the only resource, ummm, I've already you know, had trouble with trying to figure out the other key words, so I'm just going well, umm, and I also find Literary Critics to be a misleading kind of heading.  

I5: Okay.

R5: The internet public library online literary criticism collection sounds really good, but when I, this, this, this is taking me to other web sites, I mean I'll go into the subject oophs, oophs,  I can't even get this thing closed, oh there you go. Okay, aah, I mean it's a very, it's a very diffuse kind of site, it 's an interesting site, but it has nothing to do with umm, ahhh, electronic editing. 

I5: Okay.  

R5: Has all kinds of cool stuff on it, but it's just not relative, relevant for what I'm doing right now.

24:18
I5: All right.  So did anything, did you have any other comments about that tool?

R5: Well, in a way I don't, ummm I'm, I'm trying to figure out what the what the point is; Literary Critics, because we've got this book thing, other, so this is other books on the topic, so what is the literary critic thing supposed to do, it's supposed to take me to articles on the topic, other articles? Because Related Studies? 

I5: Yeah, I think that was taking you to sites that critique this article or related articles.  I guess sites that critique articles related that would be related based on the key words.  I think that's the idea behind it.

R5: Well that's certainly not what that site does for anything.  I mean site is a, umm, when you look at the title of the site, internet public library online literary criticism collection it sounds like it might do that, but when you actually go to it, ahh, it doesn't have.  Well let's try archives and records management, maybe that's the closest thing, I mean, it does have a search engine, shall we try using the, what can we use? e-book, does it have a hyphen in it?  (exploring site) I don't know, do any of these look like that they would do criticism articles related to.

I5: Potentially this one, but.

R5: Oh darn, I've lost it.  Pooh.

I5: If you go into history.

R5: Yeah well, unfortunately I can't go, how can I go to history.  Oh up here.

I5: On the top.

R5: Ah this history, oh good.  So where were we. We were here, okay, which one, thank you.

I5: There's one that says electronic book review, that's the closest thing that I can see

26:41

R5: Well that looks good. (exploring site) well that looks like an interesting site, it certainly took us a while to get here, actually I should have used their search engine from the beginning I suppose.  Okay interesting. (exploring site) It's interesting that the site is called electronic book review because you have book reviews here (exploring site)  Yeah so there might be something here that at the, at (exploring site) I don't think its going to take me there. Anyway so with much messing about, you might be able to find resources on related topic, but it certainly isn't book review which is down here and we click on this, at least these are all reviews sites whereas as this, this thing is not, is a great big resource that might lead somewhere. But its just a little, I don't know, I suppose that if these tools open on the largest world possible, it's a good thing, for many people.  For me, at this point I find it a tiny bit frustrating. You know if you're doing bibliography my guess in a way that it's yeah I mean if you're really if you're really thinking "okay this is, this is interesting, I'm researching this topic and I need to go out in all sorts of different directions", then okay, I don't know what else you could call besides Literary Critics, but I find that kind of misleading.

Book Reviews
I5: Okay.  So book reviews. Did this tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of the article?

29:48

R5: Aahh, not this article, and ummm, although, you know, it's like at least it's, it's, it's getting there, I mean this is about classics, and I'm, I'm not working on classics, but obviously they've done an issue that's you know, theoretically has some ummm (sigh) relation to electronic editing, but most of it's fairly arbitrary.

I5: Okay.

R5: And that's if we go back to the problem with the, search terms, it's going for bibliography, and so on. And I don't know why ummm, I mean I don't understand I mean I guess it's not doing a real Boolean search, its,  with this, the way, the way this is set up I mean it's going for well it's functioning more like Google where it goes, it's finding bibliography, if it can't find bibliography and e-books, it'll just do bibliography.  H-Net is great I mean I use H-Net actually. See this is another thing, that I found I don't know why I mean am I clicking wrong, does it need to have something up here?

I5: It shouldn't umm, is this, referring to what it's doing in there.  I wonder.  I guess not.

R5: (humming) If I click bibliography back (typing) I don't think it this one works at all.  Whoops (sigh) 

I5: Try clicking one time.  No.

R5: Yea, I had several buttons, maybe it's just the Mac that wouldn't work like that.

32:28

I5: It might be just the Mac but. it still should work on both.

R5: Yeah, none, eh, yeah, only the first one works.

I5: Okay.

R5: But it's curious that it does. It does, the very first button, but the others don't.

I5: Okay, so did you have any, any, so you didn't find anything in the book reviews, at all.

R5: No because none of the sites worked except the first one and it was just about bibliography and not about e-books.

Related Studies
I5: Okay. Did you have any other comments besides the ones you've already made about that tool?

R5: Only that ummm, all these, the Literary Critics, Book Reviews and Related Studies, Book Reviews are you know they're their own sort of genre  and I can certainly see that this would be interesting if it worked.  Ummm, the difference between the Literary Critics and Related Studies is not evident to me - the only difference is you've got different sites to click on.

I5: Okay.  So book reviews and Related Studies turned up similar results?

R5: No, no.  Book reviews are separate and I'd say good, good thing to have them, doesn't work, umm, only one of the buttons work and the one that did was not relevant to this ummm, topic.  The key word, on the one button it worked, the key word didn't work.  Key words didn't work, okay.  But it's a good concept.  What my real question I guess is, what is the difference between Literary Critics and Related Studies except that you guys put different sites in. So it's not, that's not clear to me.  Umm.

I5: So did you find anything in this tool that helped you, helped your understanding of the original article?

R5: I'd hoped that I would (laughs) but I can't say that I did.

I5: And did you find . . . 

R5: See I get this, you know results like this.  No items were found. Thats somewhat discouraging.  (exploring tool) So you see you how know, I'm playing with the thing, and this is the kind of result that I'm getting, so that you know, one is discouraged after a while.  I definitely need other key words.

I5: Okay.  

R5: And I guess if I weren't doing this just for you, if I were doing it for me, and this thing was entirely,,, although the techie points worked, then I would seriously think of putting in some different key words.  But just removing bibliography led to the same results, which was nothing.

I5: So, you tried different searches and they also didn't work.

R5: Yes but I didn't, you know,  I'm sure that if I had gone got on long enough I might have found some key words that would give me something, but, yeah, I wasn't willing to do that.

I5: Did you have any other comments about that tool?

R5: Just that I, I wish it would work because certainly, Related Studies is ummm, a good thing to have, umm.  I was a little curious about, about ummm, book versus ummm, versus Related Studies.  Okay, so you've got book and Literary Critics and Related Studies, book may, may ummm just be ummm, electronic resources, I don't know, I guess, yes I do have a key observation here. When we open one of these windows, it's the same paragraph up here,  What you, what the, what the concept is supposed to be is never defined.  I guess if you told us what you meant to be looking for in book, Literary Critics and Related Studies we would know how they are different and what,,, you know, I'm guessing, just from the types of sites that you've chosen to go to, but you know my guess, my guesses are leaving me you know kind of unclear

I5: Okay.

R5: So that if , so if  I really know what you had in mind, when you said book, Literary Critics and Related Studies and how they are different and why I need to go to three different tools, then that would be helpful.  

Dissertations
I5: All right.  So moving on then to Dissertation.  

38:09

R5: Yeah I think that seeing what people are coming up with ,,, Dissertation is a really

good idea.  You will notice that once again there are no records associated with these key words in these databases, in these, yeah, yeah, so, I suppose it makes sense to have a separate tool for dissertations, but note that in most, for example databases, if I were doing research I would get dissertation in with Related Studies.  But I guess that because we're, you know, you're in a way maybe it's because you're - you can't control the nature of these sites that you're sending us to, so I guess including dissertations as a category allows you to make sure that they get harvested.  So it's, so fine.  And it's just part of the nature of this project I guess, you have to do it that way.

I5: So hypothetically, theoretically you liked it but you didn't find . . . 

R5: Well in this case it didn't give anything at all.  But, but yeah, I mean because you're just sending us to outside sources you know, to other web pages and databases and stuff, sure it makes sense to have dissertations -umm Protected as it were, so that they don't get neglected . . .  

I5: Okay, so on to databases then.  Unless you had any more comments dissertations

R5: No.

I5: Sure.

R5: Yeah.

I5: Okay.  So did this reading tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of the original article?
 
R5: No.  But I would have been happy to know that there were dissertations, and I can't imagine there aren't and again it's just a problem with key words.  That's a big problem.  And it would be, the more I think about it the more I think that if you want to assist the reader, it would be really helpful to have more key words to choose from.  I mean we can do that ourselves, theoretically, but you know for example in that ummm, when you go use the library catalogue and it has some subject headings from the Library of Congress, they're chosen, I mean there is a whole system that works. And it takes a certain expertise, that's what why they have catalogers, to figure out what appropriate subject heading's are, now key words and subject headings are two different things, I mean key words can, you know appear anywhere in a document and not they're not, they don't have some sort of global signification from the document.  But the kind of terms that you're using here to me are more like subject headings rather than key words, I should be more precise in my comment. And that may be a reason for providing that assistance to, to readers and users of this site.  Ummm, because the authors and you guys are the people who presumably have the expertise to know what key, I won't even use that term, what subject headings are going to be most fruitful.  Or at least have some umm, clue. Cause in this particular case (laughs) they're not working and we need more choice.  Yeah, and, yes, anyway.  Isn't this interesting look at that, isn't that interesting - No results found, you might want to try bibliography (laughs). 

I5: Thats strange isn't it.. So that, you were talking about?

Databases
R5: I'm on data bases now, now, excuse me.  I was just (laughs).  

I5: So now for this question, for data bases, did it lead to any materials that added to your ?understanding of the original article.

R5: No but I think it's a good thing to have that as part of, as a tool.  Isn't that funny what that just did though.

I5: Yeah.

R5: But you see that there's stuff, except that it's, one of the (exploring tool) I mean, they don't seem to have a way to narrow the search, oh help advance, yes they do, okay that's good.  Because if they've got 2,657 results, and the first ones aren't really aaaa, we're looking for.  So we would need to do an advance search but certainly having links to pertinent data bases is a good idea.

I5: Okay.  Can you explain more specifically why this tool might be useful if it worked better?

R5: Because it gives potential access to more resources, and I think that whenever one's doing thorough research, it's all about using as many tools - I actually used that word, when I teach a bibliography class .  I talk about you know, you're making up your tool box, and that's what I think these tools are doing too. They're giving us various ways of expanding our knowledge of the topic.  That's all to the good.


I5: Okay.  Shall we move to portals, did you have any other comments on dissertation? 

R5: Databases? No.

44:30

Portals
I5: OK,  So portals, now did this tool lead to anything that helped your understanding of the original article?

R5: No I couldn't get into any of them except the Dante project. Oh, this is, here we go its going (exploring tool).  Yea, I didn't get anything, but yeah, that's nice to know, 

I5: Okay.  So theoretically, what do you think about having this option?

R5: Sure, sure, why not and it's interesting that, ahh so are these the same for every article?

I5: They're the same for every article in this journal that we've set up as being related to Humanities Computing.

R5: I see, I see, because obviously Dante and Romantic Circles have nothing to do with Chaucer or not … I mean they're like,,, South Asia I mean, yeah this one I don't think I could get into.  And this is the only one that sounded like it might, might even remotely, you know have something.  And it, aaaaa, and it is, it is nice I mean,. yeah.  There's some stuff here, it doesn't all look relevant but, at least this site looks more relevant than the other 5 or the other 4 on the list there,  because this article is about Chaucer and they're talking about South Asia and Dante and the Romantics.  Now maybe I should be more open minded and if I find an article about electronic editing of, or hypertext edition of a Romantic author, well that can be perfectly instructive too, you know, that aside, you know I should be more open, electronic editions, let's see what's going on in the romantics (exploring tool).  

I5: So in terms of adding to your understanding of the article, do you think any of this would help?

R5: Well, when, what's interesting about, about this, is that it's, it's, it's about, there's nothing about as far as I can see from this site, there is nothing about the process of electronic editing, it's all about content, here's what we have to offer. You know, we've got Shelley online and here, and Disraeli online and it's searchable.  Well that's great I could see someone's example of electronic editing, you know that's nice, and what kind of searches you can do, are we impressed? Well not particularly, (exploring tool) about this hypertext, Oh shoot! (pause) Acknowledgments - so it's all content oriented , here's design, but you know there's almost nothing, of course, yeah, I mean good, you know there's some basic information, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the process, and electronic editing.

I5: So it's not very relevant?

R5: No, no, but the notion of having web portals that talk about, potentially about the editing is good, but there's nothing on here.

I5: So if they were returned something relevant they'd be good.  

R5: Huh, huh.
48:53 

I5: Okay, any other comments about this tool?

R5: Yeah, well it helped portals, I mean it helps you see what other people have done - you just can't see from what's on here what, or how they've done it.  

I5: Okay.  And that's the most interesting to you.

R5: Yes,At this point, yes because I'm not a scholar of the early 19th century in England.  I'm sure, I mean it does have it's own intrinsic interest but, frankly I don't have time to read you know the edition of Shelley.

Pay-Per-View
I5: Okay, moving on to pay-per-view.

R5: Pay-per-view! I don't, I don't want to pay (laughing). I think most of us are fairly ummm, have a preference for umm, stuff that's open source, but it is interesting. (exploring tool) An overview of electronic books of bibliography  - I mean doesn't that sound like a interesting thing to know about - 25 bucks.  I'm not doing it.  I mean, you know even if I have a research grant that would pay for that, I would find it very objectionable and I really find it, I mean that I think that I mean I don't object to having it on here and if people do want to pay I guess they ought to be able to at the same time I would hate to encourage this sort of thing.

I5: Okay.  So what you found may have added to your understanding of the article if you had chosen to pay for it?

R5: Yeah, I think it would have.

I5: Okay.

R5: I mean it's a good project, and you know I'm very sensitive to the notion that publishing, even electronically can cost money, and that somebody has to be paying for a lot of this stuff, but, but we're also working in a university environment where what we're doing is usually made available to the public and you know we're all really involved in open source stuff, and I don't know, when I get this journals here, it's true that pay for them, if I get my own subscription, I can get it free at the library but I choose a couple of journals that I want to have in my office.  But the fact that I couldn't get this for free anywhere at all, is, is, problematic to me philosophically speaking.

I5: Okay, any other comments about this tool?

R5: Well it's sort of ironic that it's the one that I guess, of all these, it's the one that has the most, relevant stuff on it.  So it's, it's, kind of unfortunate, that that's one you have to pay for.  And that's not cheap, 25 dollars for an article, give me a break!  I think that's awful. So it were 5 bucks I'd say okay.  

52:20

I5:  Can you compare the kinds of results that you got with this tool to what you found or can you describe them a little bit more, or why they would have been useful?. 

R5: Because they were more relevant to the topic of electronic editing. And it could simply be a function of the subject headings we've used and frankly I mean, I trust you guys have chosen great resources to put into your tools but we're also limited by what you've chosen to include here.  As a matter of, if I were to use Google or some other search engines, ummm, especially Google Scholar, perhaps that would give me , sorry to jump ahead here, but we all know that there are advantages and disadvantages to Google and I mean we're getting all kinds of results here.  But, and I'm glad you have this search engine because it reminds us that we can all go back and be looking for resources on our own, and we're not limited to what you've provided here,  It's nice to have this sort of digest of stuff that that you think is of high quality, (laughs)  I think this is a good project, I think it reveals some of the challenges that we're facing

I5: Yeah, okay any other comments on pay-per-view?

R5: No, I mean I think I've said my piece.

Related Texts
I5: So related texts -

R5: Yep. Please tell me this is my, I get down to here and I'm thinking to myself please explain to me what the difference between all of these terms is, what I am supposing, what I'm imagining is that is that, ummm, it's giving, it's going to give me ummm, (exploring tool) "no results", which is bizarre here University of Virginia e-book library, but of course there's, the e-book library is about content, it's not about process, once again. But, ummm, okay related texts, related texts is going to be articles or books that are about similar subject matter? 

I5: Okay.

R5: Is that - you know, this is my interpretation and so I have no idea what the difference between related texts and Related Studies is.  

I5: The related texts for the most part is bringing you to places for primary texts, so.

R5: Yes, okay.  So the UVA thing is primary texts but it's primary literary texts, it's texts that have become, yeah, ummm, electronic texts - changed into electronic texts.  So it's, it's not about, as far as I can tell it's not about any of the articles in this journal, your Humanities Computing Vol. I No. 1.  Is not, I mean, I'm glad, I am glad to see this nice panorama of sources for primary texts, ummm, and they do come up these aren't same sites of course they're on some of the other tools you've listed, yeah, I'm glad to see that, but I mean what are they related to.

56:45

I5: Okay.

R5: I mean they're not related to this, to Humanities Computing journal volume, this issue.  They're related, we all deal with primary source text, but you know mine aren't related  to yours, I don't know (laughs).  So maybe, I just if you could label that differently so that's primary source text or something or e-text or something that's a little more descriptive.

I5: So from what you've found did you find anything at all useful there?

R5: Well I found it interesting to see all those primary sources know what people were up to

I5: But they weren't relevant at all to what you were interested in.

R5: Well they're not, they're not, no, there's some, there are many texts in my areas of content study, 17th century French literature that have been turned into e-texts, if I wanted to find them, I would use one of the big search engines and type in my title, I mean this doesn't seem to be a very efficient way of doing so.  I mean there are high quality sites you've included, but they're certainly not comprehensive if I want to find primary sources that have been, made available electronically, I'm real limited in this list of sites. 

I5: Okay.  Any other comments about related texts?

R5: That's enough (whispering)

Online Forums
I5: So Online Forums.

R5: Yeah, ummm.

I5: Did you find anything that added to your understanding of the article?

R5: Not this article (laughing).  I mean, ummm, the leader email discussions was well, this is non-scholarly as far as I'm concerned.  The scholarly ones are Hnet I belong to a couple of Hnet lists and so I know how useful a resource they can be, but this isn't helping me.  

I5: Okay.  

R5: And this actually this is, this is a neat kind of ahh forum that is, has potential.  I like this one. And I didn't know about it, Yeah I like this humanist thing. And I'm sure I could find something even relevant to this article, but I mean that's you know.  I like this kind of forum that allows people to share questions. 

I5: Can you give an example of how it might improve your understanding?

R5: Well for example, if I this one that I, that I clicked on, they're having this is an exchange that took place in 1983, okay, so it's a little dated.  But it's the kind of thing I could remember, I can see possibly helping with the bibliographical stuff, and I see that they seem to be open to this sort of question about bibliography.  So I would search, if I had a question I would search their database here to make sure that it hadn't already been discussed because it is really irritating you know, when brings up a question that's been discussed 10 million times on the site already and on the list already, so then I think "Oh this would be great place to ask my question and I didn't have the answer from somebody at UVic", which seems highly unlikely given all the expertise here, but I this seems like a good online forum.

I5: Do you think you would find anything here that would help you evaluate the quality or significance of the original article?

R5: Of this article? Well, it's not impossible, but it would take me a while to go through it.  It might well be the case.  It's not impossible at all.

I5: And for finding things to use in your teaching and your research?

R5: From an online forum? In general for general purposes, I do actually tell students about online forums I belong to when they have a tough question, a couple of times in the past we have used online forums to get expert advice, so I think it's a good thing. To have on here 

I5: Okay, any other comments about online forums?

R5: No, thank you.

Instructional Materials
I5: Okay, instructional materials?

R5: Yeah I kind of liked this, I played with the site a little bit, I think this is the NEH site, if I remember correctly, yeah, and no results were found for bibliography and e-books, but I put in some other stuff and I liked the site, it has nothing to do with this article, (laughs) I thought it was pretty, it was interesting because for teaching if you can find one of their little units on ummm, a certain subject you might not want to use it as they present it but they have of sites inside each unit that they recommend, so it's kind of I would use it for teaching.  Not having to do with this but.

I5: Okay.  Do you think it would be possible to find things that would relate to that article or did you look? Or did you immediately look for something else?

1:03 

R5: I wanted to see what else was on here when they told me they had no results. 

I5: No results.  Oh.

R5: (exploring site). Huh, well it's for kids a little bit younger (laughing)that the ones I have here, geeze,  "hands held computers in classrooms for little kids" - no, that's not what I'm not interested in,  but it's ummm, yeah I like the site but it has nothing to do with . . . 

I5: Okay, and having this as a tool in this kind of context, did you think that's a useful.

R5: Not really in that, ummm, if we're talking about, well I shouldn't say that, I mean this site is the only one on there, it's not doing anything if you're talking about having a resource for instructional materials as a tool, theoretically, sure.  But I mean it's, for example if people here wanted to develop instructional materials to go with the, with this project that would be cool, but I mean, yeah this is at it's current stage there's just nothing here, but in the future there probably will be places to go instructional materials.  And maybe there are and we just don't know where, and we should just go back to our Google and (laughing)

Media Report
I5: Okay. And media report?

R5: This, this ahh did nothing for me, but now I shouldn't be so closed minded because you never know when the New York Times is going to have something interesting.  (exploring tool) "Zero results" but what am I going to do, (exploring tool)  . Zero results still. Now, If I had been really smart, and had a few extra hours to devote to this I think I could have may be done better with those different subject headings. 

I5: Okay.  And do you think, had you found anything, do you think it would have you would have found things that improved your understanding of the article.

R5: I really doubt it.  I really doubt because I think here we've got some stuff from just e-books, but you know this is these are, these are, this is the popular media I mean even the, the New York times Globe and Mail, they're sophisticated media outlets but they're going to be extremely superficial compared to this scholarly stuff that's avail be on the other tools, and so frankly for me, I don't see the usefulness of media reports stuff but then why not throw it all in and somebody may like it.

I5: Okay, and if you, do you think you might find anything that you'd use in your teaching or research?

R5: Not, I teach about 17th century France so you know, no.  I could be wrong, in that it's, it's when for example there is an occasional media article about Louis XIV or a book review, a popular book about Louis XIV, or a review of a play about from the 17th century France and that's been done in English and you know that's always very encouraging, I show my students "oh isn't this relevant" but has nothing to do with Humanities Computing.  I think that Humanities computing is a sophisticated enough subject and a narrow enough subject that popular media is not going to have anything that we don't already know about.  I really don't think so.

Search Engines
I5: Okay, now search engines, I know you've commented on those somewhat, did you find anything here that improved understanding of the article?

R5: No but I bet I could if I spent long enough on it and changed those subject titles.

I5: Okay, can you think or can you  name some examples of what you might find that you would think would improve your understanding in some way?

R5: Well, okay let me put it this way, you came up all of those articles, Humanities Computing articles, for this first issue of Humanities Computing and I assume, and I know for a fact that there are a lot more articles about Humanities Computing that have been published over the last ten years and more.  And it's a question of if I'm talking about Humanities Computing in the large sense, you know how am I going to find those.  Now it might be by using some of these other tools, or it might, but my inclination, first of all is  I'm not going to research Humanities Computing because its too hard I'm going to  choose a narrower topic like electronic editing, and if I wanted to learn more about what this guy is writing about after having gone through this exercise, I have to admit that I would probably still go back and do what I would traditionally do and that is use the databases in UVic library and some of these popular search engines.: So that's sort of the conclusion.  

I5: OK. Do you have any other comments about the search engine tool?

R5: I think it should be on there ummm, in a way it encapsulates everything that's, all the other tools are probably findable in these search engines I think, ummm, no, I think that participating in this exercise has been a illuminating actually. I mean, it leads one to think about possibilities for the future, That I hope will indeed be realized after a heck of a lot work on the part of you and  others, and I appreciate you taking all this time with me and being very patient I'm sure you get all kinds of people who are just nuts with this stuff. 

Value of Reading Tools
I5: I'm getting interesting responses.  I have two concluding questions.  So the first one is, has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R5: Not about online access to research more generally, I mean I always, I've been trying to follow that, and I think it's a very good thing. Ummm, albeit a little bit dangerous in that in the content areas only a teeny teeny proportion of what we should be looking at is actually available online.  That said in the area of Humanities Computing, online resources, and being able to track down, do research online, track down sources online is absolutely essential and wonderful and it works. I mean in the field of Humanities Computing, it's super, but we go back to the content areas like early modern or something then over reliance on electronic resources means people neglecting stuff.  Umm, these read tools have added to my I hate to use the word knowledge, it sounds too, too  heavy and important,  but awareness, definitely the exercise has added to my awareness of what is going to be possible with search tools and reading online.

Value of Knowledge
I5: Okay, so the next question is, what do you see as the major challenges if any, for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R5: Improve the value of knowledge (laughing) - the value of knowledge at this point? You're talking about knowledge about Humanities Computing.

I5: It's probably easier to answer it more narrowly

R5: It becomes a very very philosophical question otherwise (laughs).  Yeah, well I mean the implication of the question is that Humanities Computing is improving knowledge. The value of knowledge? Now that, this question needs to be unpacked, this is a heavily loaded. Because when you talk about the value of knowledge I mean there's a notion of there's this, there's this, body of knowledge and how do you make it, how do you add value to it, I can think of a great example of this, and one that my colleagues here know about, there was somebody that who wanted to get a grant for doing an electronic edition of a preexisting print edition.  The print edition had been done very recently, and he wanted to now, do an electronic edition, and he was turned down on this grant because he couldn't show the value added to the knowledge available, now when we're thinking about issues in electronic editing, which is what this article is about, this person, Peter Robinson addresses very well that very problem which is to me at the crux of your question, and at the crux of Humanities Computing in general, I mean what is the advantage of having things available electronically versus in print for example, and he answers that you can read in many different ways and have many different layers of knowledge, if you will, approaches to reading and different ways of gaining knowledge, and so the enterprise that people involved in Humanities Computing are involved in, is really contributing both to the development of knowledge because when they get this Chaucer thing done, there's going to be a really different reading experience available, and it can be different for every reader that comes to it just like every reader creates his own text reading a book, that whole reading experiences becomes a lot more varied and complex through the electronic presentation.  So, so that's kind of cool.

Umm, and, it's also a question of accessibility, well, that's why I'm nervous with the pay-per-view stuff, because you know anybody with a computer can have access to probably now millions of texts on the internet, so the knowledge becomes quickly and more easily widely distributed but what makes it more valuable is the interesting question.  Availability is one thing, but making value out of masses of content is the other big challenge and that's what we're all trying to work on.

I5: Thank you for your time and . . . all those questions.






10:37 Jan 27
Author Bio
I6:  So the first question is in what ways if any, does having access to the author bio statement add to your reading of this piece.

R6: In this way, not a lot because I knew the bio - if I did not know the author I would like to know, and it would help me to know where he comes from which his discipline is, things like that.

Metadata
I6:  So the next question is Does any of the "metadata" in "View item's metadata" add to your reading of the piece? And if so, in what ways? 

R6: Actually I didn't know what to do with the page. Yeah. 

I6:  Any other comments on why maybe?
 
R6: I thought it was good that it's somewhere, but I didn't use it.  And I wouldn't use it for my own bibliography, for my own files.  

Define Terms
I6:  Good. The next one, In this piece, do you see value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the define terms box?  

R6: Yes.  And specially if I recommend a student to read the piece or if I give it as a required reading I really appreciate that.  For myself actually the define function is something I have in my bookmarks and I have done for years.  So it didn't change a lot for me but I'm sure that for the students it will.  

Send Link to Colleague/ Email Author
I6:  Do you ever see yourself using "Send link to colleague" or "Email author"; 

R6:  Yes. All the time.  

I6:  And would you want those on your own work?

R6: Oh yes.  
And I was very much disappointed because  I did a thing on-line, a colloquium on -line.  And I put everywhere, please write, write your comments and so on, nobody wrote anything. 

Add Comment
I6:  And how would you feel about a tool that allowed you to add comments on to the article?

R6:  I would like that.  And Fabula so  this site - fabula.org - that's a huge site in French which is colloquium online Reviews online, Bibliography online and so on- so that's why I wrote that. And they have a screen with a third - one third of screen is kept for commentaries.  And I really  like that, except that people don't go there enough.   

I6: And did you have any other comments on any of these first few Tools here?

R6:  My comment was metadata, I didn't know how to use them.  

I6: Okay.  Nothing else?

R6:  No.

Authors Other Works
I6: All right - so moving on to the second set of tools - under Find related items among  the first tool is Author's Other Works, and the first question is, Does this Reading Tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R6:  No.  But I knew the original article so I may have used them for another thing. I mean  if I didn't know the author, didn't know the article at all and then it was suddenly very interesting I may have gone. But I would have done actually something simpler than going through all these searches.

I6:  Okay, what do you mean? What would you have done?

R6:  As I do when I need to do that - maybe if I mean the . . . thing I would have gone through to Google Scholar or the online catalogue or library, see what they have Word Cat. And actually yes I would have done Word Cat first.

I6: Rather than these . . . 

R6:  Because that's too many.  And some of them are not relevant for what I'm doing.  So yes, I mean, I was pleased it was there but it was too long for me.  Would I use it for another one? I think I would go once more to my Bookmarks where I had the ones that I could use.  I can use Perseus and Online Books Page the other one's I don't have a lot - everywhere I go there I see your query gives zero results.  

I6:  Having the opportunity to look up the Authors Other Works do you think it would add to your ability to evaluate the article?

R6:  Yes.  If I had to evaluate the article, I mean for instance if it was a review submitted for evaluation before publication, first I would check that it would bring something new, and I would try and see where it leads where it's going to, for sure I would read whatever I could read from the author.  

I6: And do you think you would find anything here that you would use in your teaching or your research? 

R6: Yes teaching.

I6:  Can you give me an example?
 
R6: I would give someone that they don't know, and say okay go to Other Works by the same author tool, do you think that this is . . .  consistent and things like that.  For grad seminar it's a wonderful tool 

I6:  So recommending your students to actually use this.

R6: Yes.
And go and get lost, and then see, I mean only the last two ones are good for French Studies, but still they would know about the other ones.  

I6: And how did you feel this tool will compare to the others in terms of adding into your understanding or your ability to assess the article if at all? 

R6:  Okay, I prefer the Author bio and the define terms for my own understanding. (exploring site)  Surely, it's a good tool.  It helped me much more than the Government tool for instance and the other ones in there.

Government
I6: So moving on to the next which is Government - so did this tool lead you to materials that added to your understanding of the article?

R6:  It lead me nowhere.  I mean there was nothing, on the seven (search options) and so I tried with other things (key terms) that I was doing and no still nothing. 

I6: Why do you think that is?

R6:  I think first it's very English culture oriented, and I'm working on, I mean I don't say I'm not interested in English culture but my corpus is in, early modern France and I was surprised there was absolutely nothing in it.  And also I think it would it was too early 

I6: Too early?

R6:- the corpus was too early to be of interest. And so I mean there were a lot of interesting things that I had no idea about so that was nice to browse, but for me that was the methodology and nothing that I could use like that.  Whereas Christian VandenDorpe  is doing things that I can use all the time. OK?.  

I6: Any other comments about the Government tool.  

R6:  No. 

 I6:  Do you think is there any situation that it might be useful? 

R6: I'm sure it's useful when you study Canadian literature.  I'm sure of that.

Book
I6:  So next is Book.

R6: What is book, I can't remember. I can't remember what it is. OK So that would be looking for. For instance . . .  I can't remember . . .  Which is nice, but I have it in my Bookmarks.  But still it's good.

I6:  So did it lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the article?

R6: Yes it could.  

I6:  Can you give me any examples?

R6: On this one no because this article was on my bibliography list and I had already done that.  But actually yes I can tell that "Text d'ordinateur" this one I did not know it and I ordered it and I ordered another one that I found like that . . .  Ahhh,,,,So the "introduction to Theory of Text and Book" that I found like that.

I6:  So how did this tool compare to the others in terms of broadening your understanding of the piece?

R6: I would say that for me it was the best one.  It competes with Word Cat and things like that.  It's not as accurate but it's very fast. 

I6:  Are you meaning the Google?

11:48
R6: Yeah.  Here is the Fabula thing I was telling you about.  

I6: Oh ok right,

R6: So except Google what else do you have, lets see.  Online Books, that's another one I knew.  That would be the same comment that I like that. And that's how I work   And I would certainly Universal Library, I don't know that.  And I would certainly direct my students there.  

I6:  So having the opportunity to search for books in a number of different sites, how did you feel about that? So the broader tool.

R6:  Books, very good and I would really send people there and very used to it, because that's what I do all the time. Since I mean in my Bookmarks I have a little chapter called "Browse through books."

I6:  And for adding to your ability to evaluate or assess the article

R6: Sure, I'm seeing that it's quoting the right bibliography, it's in trend with what is being said about the topic and so on.  Yes of course.

I6:  And in terms of how did this tool compare to the others for evaluation?

R6: Once more, that's a very good tool.  And, if I were to teach a grad seminar how to read critical texts or whatever I think this and authors other works and define terms would be first

I6: for teaching? 

R6:  For teaching. And for showing them how to assess a text.

I6:  Do you have any other comments on this tool?

R6: No, umm, Yes, I mean  I'm sorry I missed when I tested . . . 

I6: The first time through?

R6: Yea

I6: That's ok,

Dictionary
R6: Dictionary.  There is no French dictionary. 

I6: Oh, ok, that's important.

R6: Well that's encyclopedia but still there could be for instance a great French thing. And that would be useful for texts of critics. You know, sometimes in critics you don't know if the French term is taken in English or if its translated and so on and so on.  I like very much Wikipedia I find that it's better and better every time and it's nice.  Info please I found it was a little sketchy.  

I6:  In what way? 

R6: I typed hypertext or whatever, and I think there was actually no entry and so I typed Vandendorpe, there was nothing there either.  You can see. (exploring tools)  Yes, here it is, so that was the only thing I had. 

I6: Ok it only found hypertext, 

R6: Which is sketchy and couldn't lead me to something interesting and so I tried with two other terms because I didn't know the thing and it didn't work.  

I6:  SO did the tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of the original article?

R6: Yes with Wikipedia. With Wikipedia the same topic I mean VandenDorpe is writing a lot in it to  so it was related and it's a wonderful tool but Yes it helped.  

I6:  Can you give me any other examples of how it added to your understanding?

R6: This tool?

I6:  Yes.

R6: Let's take another example - I was reading something about theatre in middle ages and so a term I just couldn't make anything out of it.  It was a technical term for the staging and I typed it in Wikipedia and sure enough that was there.  So, yes I like it. And that's,, I mean  Info Please was too sketchy for me, but I try and go if I need something like, I try and go onto Catholic Encyclopedia or something like that, and they have, because I find that this except Wikipedia is really oriented towards Canadian  modern  context and that's not my corpus of work once more.  So I try to find tools with things about Popes in Middle ages and stuff like that.  

I6:  So how did this tool compare to the others in terms to adding to your understanding?

R6: For me.  As it is now it's not as efficient as Book or Define or Other Works.  

I6:  And did this tool lead you to any materials that helped you evaluate the quality or significance of the original article?

R6: No.  

I6:  And did it lead to anything that you would use in your teaching or your research

R6: Except Wikipedia, no.  But I would put that in Other Works or something else. What I would do if I was teaching okay here is this tool it's called Wikipedia that's why it's very special, so how do you use it and  how you have to be careful when you use it, and so on.  But using Wikipedia I would tell go and see the author bio the other works and all the other tools that you have here.  That's how I would tell them to assess the reading.  

I6:  Did you have any other comments on this tool?

R6: No. 

I6:  And for usefulness in your teaching or research how did this tool compare to the others?

R6: Not as efficient.  Because I would do something with Wikipedia and that's it..  

Literary Critics
I6:  So Literary Critics is next.  Did this tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of the original article?

R6: It didn't work.  And umm, I tried with something else, and I don't know what it is exactly. (exploring tool) So for instance lets look for para text.   (exploring tool) Ah yes. I'm sorry, I did that during the holidays I can't remember what it is.

I6:  That's okay. Its slow too.

R6: Is it too big? Do you think I'm stuck?  

I6: Oh it's done.

R6:Done. (exploring tool) Well that's not bad. 

I6: Good but not for?

R6: I don't know I think I've left - I must have been stalled like that and just . . . OK?

I6: OK

R6: Ahhh, Let's see if I have anything like umm old . . .  Ok so, Books and Hypertext, we know that there is nothing, but lets see we have something on ahh (exploring tool) that's something I'm going to look up again.  

I6:  So now that you've tested this tool do you think you might find something that added to your understanding of the original article?

R6: It may.  I think once more its ahhh Anglo Saxon modern culture, but it may.  And I may at some time at point work on Anglo Saxon modern culture.  I'd be very pleased to know it's there.

I6:  Can you think of any ways that this tool compares to the others for building your understanding?

R6: Honestly I can't know just like that, but,  and I know the other tools.  So I would rather go to them because I trust them and I know where I can't trust them.  

I6:  The other tools on the OJS?

R6: Yeah, because I was familiar with them but maybe six months from now I will tell you Analisa that was so nice the IPL - I'm not used to it. I will try and inquire and go there and test and if the way I'm testing is what you're interested in.  I'm going to see for instance if when they give a webography this is commented if there was bibliography if the quote Copyrights and things and - how serious it is.  

Book Reviews
I6:  So lets skip on to the next tool then.  Book Reviews.

R6: This one I liked.

I6:  Did it lead to anything that added to your understanding of the article?

R6: Yes.  It led in the New York Times books and early modern literary studies.  It had two positive entries.  It was the only tool that had the corpus I'm working on.  And I don't know if it was done differently, or by somebody else.  But it was a set of links that were relevant for my research.  Yes and I find that Reviews are always interesting.

I6: So Can you give me an example of how what you found here might add to your understanding of …

R6:  OK so for instance there was I think in the New York Times books a review talking about that fact that you can't compare books on the internet.  And which is the question of  codex and hypertext and.  And the man was really clever, and saying "well if there is no page that's not a book, that's something else, but that's not a book.  So, Let's talk about something else."  And I thought it was very well written and it was a very nice way of treating the debate.  I mean he had it understood perfectly, the article.  And I thought for instance if I were to teach a grad seminar, this is the comment I would give.  I would Xerox that.  And say, what do you think, do you think this is relevant, do you think he has understood, how does he quote the article and so on.  And for my own assessment also I could say that, yes, there is a choice, and I made my choice.  But that was nice to read it like that.  And I found on the Early Modern Literary Studies other reviews on things that interested me so that I download as I was testing your...   And that was all very helpful.  

I6:  So for helping you to evaluate the quality of the article, how did you feel about this tool?

R6: Very good.  Excellent actually.  

I6:  And how did you feel this tool compared to the others with adding to your understanding.

R6: Understanding - not really.  

I6:  And for evaluation?

R6: But  Evaluation yes.  

I6:  In terms of  It was better than the other tools or ?

R6: Yes I would say so.  

I6: And  you've already sort of given examples of how you would use it in your teaching.  

R6: Yes.

I6:  So you thought it was useful for . . . 

R6:  I think it is a very useful tool.  

I6:  OK, Any other comments about the tool?

R6: Well there were things I didn't know and I was very pleased and very grateful to find them there

I6:  Okay, excellent.  So lets move on

Related Studies
R6: Related Studies

I6:  Related Studies.  So did this tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of your original article?

R6:  No, not really.  And when it lead to interesting things it was on the same data base as I think ahhh, other works, Author's Other Works. 

I6:  So did it return any results at all or were the results just not relevant for you.  

R6:  It didn't return a result except for two data bases. 

I6:  And of the data bases that you found can you comment on the value of those?

R6: I mean, basically that's Online Books and Perseus which I had already found with the other tool.  So I liked the idea but for me it was, and it was the same reference I happened to find.  So only the Vandendorpe thing so the Authors Other Works, that were related and that were Related Studies. 

I6:  So you found it repetitive of the other tool.

R6: Yeah.  

I6:  Did you have any other comments on this tool?

R6: No.  I'm sure it can be useful. I always had the impression, but also because I was in the French paper, but that's why it's interesting too, but I had the impression to be that it was marginal area of the tools. In the fringe. 

I6: So you didn't find that many that were.

R6:  Yeah, but also I could see that if I were working on Shakespeare for instance, it would have been just terrific.  But that's interesting too because you want people who work in French to be there too.  

I6:  Can you think of how this tool might be improved to return better results.

R6: Put Fabula.org and Revue.org on, that is French Sites?  

Dissertations
I6:  Okay, so Dissertations . . . 

R6: Helped me a lot. I didn't know, that I could have that.  So there was nothing on that, on the key words ,but there was a lot of things that interest me, and I didn't know either of the titles - which is silly of me, now I know. But no, I was quite, it wasn't helpful for this paper but I can see it can be helpful for a lot of other research.  

I6:  Okay, so can you give me some examples of on how it might be helpful?

R6: Okay for instance this  Estienne  which is my research project - 

I6: Estienne?

R6: So he's a sixteenth century printer so I typed that, and found that there is a thesis just defended at Columbia - I had no idea . I have the abstract - I can order it - wonderful.  

I6:  And do you think it might be useful for evaluating the article or another article?

R6: I'm not sure I would go through the long and difficult process of ordering long thesis, long dissertations to evaluate one paper.  I would check that it's not a topic that . . . interruption . . . yea, I would check that you know, for instance if there was something on Etienne and his daughter or whatever and then I see that there is a dissertation that was defended just one year before. I would certainly go and check that its not, that Either it's the same author or that its not someone who quotes without seeing it.  But I wouldn't order it just for the sake of it.  

I6:  And how about for use in your teaching or your research?

R6: My research, yes my teaching same thing.  It's long -  It's except if there is something that is really what I'm going to teach and even then I would wait for the published version.  And I wouldn't send my students there.  It's too long and too bushy.  

I6:  Any other comments about dissertations. 

R6: Thanks that's all.

Databases
I6:  Data bases is next.  

R6: Yes this one I like a lot.  Lots of things I didn't know - lots of things that I had, where I had no answers for this query, but for a lot of queries - and ahh, no, this is a good tool.  I'm sure it can be useful.  It wasn't for that but . . . 

I6:  Not for this article?

R6: We were on the fringe what you tried to do on the net.  

I6:  OK, So given another article that maybe was more relevant, can you think of how this tool might be able to contribute to someone's understanding of a piece or your own understanding of an article.

R6: Err yes, it can be - there are a lot in there I'm thinking of AAD, the Catholic Encyclopedia - yes - (exploring tool) why doesn't it? Hmm.. anyway it wasn't this one.  What I wanted to say was that all the Americana were for me nearly not -nearly useless.  But once more its because I'm on the fringe and I can see how they are very precious for people who work on that. Ahh, What helped me was something I didn't know.  So there was the Catholic Encyclopedia, maybe that's this one? Yes that's this one, and in the search, I did that, and then I did I think I found something -I was quite surprised - (exploring tool) there were no results.  But there was something I found there for something else, and I was pleased because it was a reference I would never have had  - it  (the source she found) wasn't as academic as the other tools.  But it was interesting - I think it was on child protŽgŽs Yes.  Which is one of my other research projects. (exploring tool) Search umm -(can't find the same thing) Yes that was there somewhere.  So I looked on there and I found something on a movie which is exactly what I'm working on - it may be children underground and so that was really interesting.  And unexpected - yes.  That's it.

I6:  And in comparison to the other tools - how does this tool compare for adding to your understanding.

R6: To my understanding - no.

I6:  For evaluation?

R6: For evaluation - no, for searching - yes.  Except that I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as what you would have used in Define terms and Related Studies.  

I6:  Any other comments of this tool?

R6: No. The maps are great too. I can see how you can use them.  

I6: The maps? Where did you find . . .  

R6:  There (show's online)_ - that's there, there, and I could teach with that. 

I6: So that's the university of Texas map collection

R6: Yes, But that's not bad.  And I didn't know it existed.  

I6: Okay great.  

R6: But once more it wasn't related to the article.  It was browsing.  

I6:  So more theoretically it was good but. But not for this particular article

R6: No.

Portals
I6:  , okay.  So the next tool is Portals.

R6: I was quite disappointed with this one.  I was hoping to find things - it was really nothing for me except the Dante project and the other ones were just dead, dead end.   

I6:  So in the Dante project did you find anything that added to your understanding of the article?

R6: Not of this one.  That could interest me some day, and even I'm not sure I would take the time to go there and I may prefer my usual set of Bookmarks.  

I6:  And for evaluating the article?

R6: Nothing.  I'm sorry for that.

I6:  That's okay.  Do you have any other comments on this tool, on how it might be improved ?

R6: Well, yes I have a comment, thanks to you I thought Oh, that would be nice to have a nice portal for Early Modern Studies and literary  critics.  Because we don't have one, and there is one for French literature which is quite good -and this is the National Association for Teachers - it's called Lettres.net and this is the only portal I've ever used, but even now I don't go there any more.  

I6:  And that's because?

R6: Too long.  

I6: Too time consuming?

R6: time consuming, yeah.

Pay-Per-View
I6:  So moving on to Pay-Per-View did you find anything that added to your understanding.

R6: Yes, in Ingenta and Questia, we could access both with McPherson - which I did, and I think I had something like seven reference in each of them.  All relevant and all interesting.  

I6:  Can you give any examples of how what you found improved your understanding?

R6: Yes for instance, Vandendorpe is very quick on the technical aspect of hypertext, and I'm not a computing person, I use it but don't ask me how it works. And ahh there was one paper, about coding, the encoding of text, which was clear, and which was also showing that they needed something else than html, hit or . . .  I don't know exactly, but I could figure out that the technique wasn't so despicable.  I mean that it had something important to say.  And that was a great one. Ahh I found two other papers by Vanderdorpe, which I didn't know and that hadn't found by the other 

I6: Through the other tools?

R6: Through the other tools.  And I was quite surprised for instance that Google Scholar. missed them. Ummm,  no that was good.  

I6:  How did this tool compare to the others to adding to your understanding of the original article

R6: By this time, I had quite a good understanding of the article.  I think that if I had put it before the Authors Other Works or instead of Related Studies, it would have been a great help.  

I6:  And, did the tool lead to anything that helped to evaluate the quality or significance of the article that you read? 

R6: Same answer.  By this time I had spent more than one hour and a half 	re-reading the thing and looking and thinking does it help me, doesn't it and so on- but it was late - but it would. And I would put it much higher in your Find Related Items - I put it before Government for instance.

I6:  Okay, if you didn't have free access to the articles do you think you would have pursued using those tools?

R6: Not all of them.  Not the seven.  Which I did.  And, no, no. 

I6:  And did this tool lead to anything you could use in your teaching or your research?

R6: Yes.  

I6:  Can you give me an example?

R6: This paper by ahh I can't remember who, but which I must have heard somewhere, actually I think I have it on my desktop, so lets find it (exploring) I hate that!

I6:  The popups?

R6: Where did we get that? (exploring the tool) Okay, yes that's Ingenta, just by chance, something about "Secrets of Women and Transformation of Gynecological Literature in the Later Middle Ages", don't know how but I found it testing your site.  And I think actually it was because I typed, hypertext wasn't working and I typed "para text, middle ages" and it came.  

I6:  Para text?

R6: Yeah, which is, you know hypertext is when you go up like that, and para text is what is related and what helps to understand the text, actually what you're trying to do now.  

I6:  And how did this feature compare to the other tools in terms of usefulness in your teaching or research?

R6: I would never ask a graduate student to pay for reference.  So for teaching I think it wouldn't be so good.  Because I would download it myself, I mean imagining that they have no free access.  But what I think is that what's fun when you're a student is  to find your own stuff. So if I tell them, okay here it is, you can read it and then you give it back to me when you've read it- that's no good.  For my research, certainly that's a huge gain of time.  not to have to go in the stacks and find the right issue on compact shelving that's huge.

I6:  Any other comments about this tool?

R6: No. We have to go back on your thing. No this one is not yours but this one is yours.(moving through the site)

I6:  Yeah.

Related Texts
R6: So, Related Texts.  

I6:  So this tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of your article?

R6: Nope.  I'm trying to think if the project Gutenberg showed something but otherwise no,(exploring site) ummm . . .  That's what I thought, no. I think that I found nothing on the topic.  And I don't think, let me check again, but there was nothing that I didn't know that was interesting for me and the things  I didn't know that was electronic text centre, and linguistic data consortium weren't helpful for what I'm doing.  Which doesn't mean that they are not good sites but once more they were very much for oriented for Anglo Saxon Modern culture.

I6:  So can you think of any situation where this tool may be made more helpful?

R6: You could add ahhh French collections and Spanish and foreign collections  and at the same time you don't want to have a whole . . . you don't want to have forty. Ahh..  No I don't know.  

I6:  Any other comments about this tool at all?

R6: That was good.  

I6:  So we move on to the next tool 

Online Forums
R6: Online Forums.  

I6: So did you find anything that added to your understanding? 

R6: Yes. Yes, in Humanist there was a discussion of the article.  I didn't know the tool, didn't know that it existed.  And ahh, I put it in my Bookmarks, thinking "oh I'll go back there".  I really liked it.  

I6:  OK Can you give me any examples of the how what you found added to your understanding?

R6: It didn't.  But it was nice - it wasn't . . .  it was just oh "this is a beautiful book" and someone saying "yes but he's done that and that that which is much better" and then VandenDorpe answered - and that was nice because you feel that you're not alone reading things.  So it didn't help me for assessment really.

I6:  It didn't help you for assessment?

R6: No. It was too casual.  But it helped me for motivation, desire - I mean do you have something like that?  Pleasure?

I6: Just general interest?

R6: Yeah, but also you know the fact that you're not alone in front of your computer and that's why I like all these sites where you can comment and you can add and so on.  And as you understand sometimes I felt in the fringe even here and so it's very good to be part of a community on the internet 

I6:  And for use in your teaching or your research was this tool of any use?

R6: Not really.  I wouldn't use it for teaching because I mean students don't need chat rooms they have, there are a lot of them  I mean I'm the one going to chat rooms - they don't use it, they don't need it, and for research, I mean in as much as it's good incentive

I6:  And in general how does this tool compare to the others?

R6: Less interesting for efficiency than the others.  

I6:  What do you mean by efficiency?

R6: I haven't found one bibliographical reference - nothing that I can use really.  But it was pleasant and this is important too.  

I6:  Any other comments on this tool?

R6: No.  

Instructional Materials
I6:  So the next one Instructional Materials?

R6: I found nothing.  But, maybe you're in the middle of building it

I6:  Maybe. 

R6: There is only one site.  And really it was not relevant.  

I6:  Ok, Nothing relevant.  Can you think of how this tool may be improved?

R6: May be with the Portal lettre.net which gives a lot of instructional material.  And there is a portal also with International Society for the History of Rhetoric and I go there and pick some things there.  

I6:  And has having the option of finding instructional materials in this context - do you think that is something useful, something you would use?

R6: Yes, now that I think of it.  It is something I would use if it was useful for me.  Yeah.

Media Report
I6:  So the next one is Media Report.

R6: For nothing except the New York Times that I already had.  And I had it by, I don't remember which data base. Questia or . . .  One of the data bases gave us the one report that I had.  I find it interesting though for teaching.  

I6:  But not for evaluation?

R6: Not for evaluation not for understanding, because I mean on certain topics you could contrast the large audience approach and the academic one.  

I6:  When you say the large audience approach …

R6: Okay, I'm going to tell you so when I had that, I said okay, good I'm going to try child prodigy?  Okay, what you have in People's Daily  Mail and Guardian, ahh New York Times and Washington Post and other things that I found by news directory is amazing.  That's crap.  So that was very interesting.  I would never have looked at that.

I6:  It was terrible?

R6: It was terrible, it was not documented, it was rumours, it was urban legends and that was interesting - so afterwards I though let's put King Arthur, and I'm teaching Medieval  literature here, and that's amazing here is a pre-Bush thing - I mean little man who is like everyone he doesn't want to be king but and he's going to be king and he's going to go to war and save his nation and so on and so on- that's amazing.  So that was interesting and I used that in my seminar for Medieval studies.  Telling them go and have a look - go under Globe and Mail Peoples Daily Times Colonist and try that and you'll be surprised.

I6:  Did you have any other comments about this tool?

R6: It's not a real tool for me.  It's you know on the side.  

I6:  And in comparison to the others how do you think it compared ?

R6: Same. I mean it's not serious but you can do things with that if you want to.  I wouldn't put it there.  

Search Engines
R6: Ah search engines ahh, the only one I didn't know was vivisimo and I didn't think it was as good as Google.  I mean I'm addicted to Google and that's it. 

I6:  So on Google did you find materials that added to your understanding of the article?

R6: Yes, but that we had found with Google's Scholars and books already.  So it was actually repetitive.  

I6:  And in terms of finding anything that helps your evaluation of the article.  

R6: Again repetitive.  I mean there was nothing new that appeared there.  And I thought why did you put that here because we have all that - so either you put that and then you leave people to sort by themselves or then you just forget about it.  

I6:  So the Google when you were led to the Google Book search, from there you did other Google searches anyways?

R6: Yeah.  And I would have gone to Google Scholar and Google Books without the tool, anyway.  

I6:  Okay, did you have any other comments on this tool

R6: No, I think it was great, big,  not great but a good comment  I wouldn't put it.  I mean the last three ones  for me or  four ones actually, were not relevant.  

I6:  Any comments about any of the tools?

R6: No the last three ones - Online Forums I really liked it.  Yes, I found that it was very easy to read very easy to access.  And there is a comfort, it's nice.  It can be very helpful for people who are scared by the online research and I think that this is the biggest praise I'll give you, to decide, is that, people who are scared and say, "no, no, I'm not going to research by computers" and so on, they don't even want even to write the address and that will lead them to see that it's serious, it's easy, it doesn't it's not aggressive.  I'm surprised there was a popup.  I'm sure it was in one of the you know, the one I had forgotten to check because other wise I would have..

I6:  The book.

R6: Yeah or maybe that's the IPL. IPL it must be  because I can't remember seeing it at home and I would have written to you how can you...  I'm put off by popups, it's disgusting.  

Value of Reading Tools
I6:  Okay.  So I have my two concluding questions now.  The first one is has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally.  

R6: Okay, I'm going to say yes because I want the numbers to show yes.  I think it's a wonderful tool exactly for that.  But I was converted already.  

I6:  So this interview hasn't changed anything?

R6: It has confirmed that yes we can do it, it is a wonderful project.  And this is what we should be doing. 

I6:  And what do you see as a major challenges if any for improving the value of  knowledge at this point?

R6: You mean in the tools?

I6:  In the tools or maybe online knowledge.

R6: Umm, should have asked me the question well in advance (Phone rings) can I get back to you next week.

I6:  Yes. Would you like to email me your answer?

R6: Yes.  

I6:  Okay that will be fine.  

R6: Is that good? Because if I answer …


Email Response: Value of Knowledge
Thank you for the interview yesterday (it was interesting to think about our practice, expectations etc.) And sorry for my hurry at 10. I thought a little about your question 5 : the biggest challenge would be for me the overload. I kept complaining that I could not find this or that, but also, I would not want to spend 3 hours just using the tools... Maybe, it could be useful to sort the tools according to languages, corpus etc. but we would then loose the sparks of transdisciplinarity! Well, I am pleased to think that I am not the only one thinking of it !Interview 7 Wednesday, February 15, 2006
. . . . (inaudible)

Author Bio
I7:  So our first, our first set of questions, the first question is, in what ways if any does having access to an author bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece?

R7: (pause) Umm well in this particular case it gives me a good sense of the varied backgrounds in the people who are involved in writing the article which in this particular case was particularly important, because this was a group of people, people who brought together linguistic expertise in Arabic and computer science. So it was important and I got a sense of what it is, what their qualifications were and also where the article might be going in that sense.

Metadata
I7:  Okay, and does having any of the metadata in view items metadata, add to your reading of the piece and if so how?

R7: I didn't, it didn't strike me that it did, ummm. (pause -exploring tool) no. Nothing that wasn't, you know either there and the abstract or the author bio or otherwise immediately available. 

Define
I7: All right.  In this piece do you see value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the define box?

R7: Umm, do I see a value? Now this was, ummm, (pause) yeah, sure, but it's cumbersome to do it. 

I7: Okay.  Can you explain that a little bit?

R7: Yeah,  ummm, if you don't get the answer you want from the first time you click, and you've got to go through the entire process again, in order to get back to the list, umm in fact there, and this was a problem in numerous occasions ummm and it quite annoyed me after a while and thus I felt the whole thing was just wasting more of my time than I was gaining. So that, y'know if I don't get the answer I want or whatever there's no way of getting back  to there so you've got to go back here, you've got to remember what it was that you just clicked on, in order to get there, and remember what it, which one it was that you clicked last time and all the rest of it.

2:34

I7: For,,, yeah go ahead.

R7: Also, just and, maybe this is something about using Firefox and the way I've got it set up but a number of these especially I think it was the One Look dictionary an incredible number of popups come up. 

I7: Oh okay, yeah there's a few that. people have flagged popups.

R7: Quite, umm, quite annoying.

I7: Huh, huh, okay, for the purposes of this interview, and future reference, I think, I'm not sure if it works in Fire fox actually, but right clicking gives you a back option. 

R7:  Huh.

I7: When there's no back button, so you can just go back that way

R7: Okay, well fair enough, fair enough then. 

I7: But that's not necessarily evident to everyone so.

R7: Huh, huh.

Send Link To Colleague/Email Author
I7: Okay, next question do you ever see yourself using send link to colleague or email author and would you want those features on your own work?

R7: Yes, yeah, no those, those were, were, were useful for sure. yea

Add Comment
I7: Okay, and what about a feature that allowed you to add a comment to the piece?

R7: (pause) Would I want that in here, ummm, so that it will be there for when I want back to see .

I7: Yeah anyone can add comments and so there'll be sort of a dialogue.

R7:  I see so anyone can add comments.  Ummm, yeah sure, why not, you've got a long list of features there, why not add another one.  

I7: Okay, and do you have any other comments on any of this first set of tools?

Capture Citation
R7: I couldn't get the capture the citation to work. That is, I couldn't get it to come up in Endnote, but once again you know that could be just because of the peculiar  way I've got things set up, ummm, (pause) no not this, that was up.

4:19
Authors Other Works
I7: Alright, so we'll move on to the second set of tools, starting with Authors Other Works, so did this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article? 

R7: No.

I7: Okay, and can you explain why or how?

R7: Well (laughs) for one reason, so it comes up with all four and then ummm, it would do, the different, one of the problems was that the different search engines which looked have different ways of analyzing when you put all four on.  So in some cases it would seem that they would only look for things which were all four in that precise way, another one I came up with absolutely everybody who had the name Judith.  Ummm, so it, it didn't seem to, it wasn't going to immediately useful that way without learning about it and so forth, learning which one was more profitable and all the rest of it.

I7:  All right.

R7: One of the, one of the things and I think this was a general comment that I had about many of these sorts of things, is that if I were to use something like this I would want it to be customizable so that ummm, the resources that I could click on to were ones which I had chosen, so that you could tell it which ones you wanted to come up in the future.  Or whatever

I7: Make some personal settings

R7: Add ones, at least be able to hide some of them which you found were useless, and but also to be able to add ones which you discover which would be useful for yourself or whatever, so to make it more of a portal kind of thing that is customizable. 

I7: Okay. Did you find anything that helped you evaluate the quality or significance of the piece?

R7: I certainly didn't find anything.

I7: You didn't find anything at all.

6:36
R7: No.

I7: Okay.  Did you try deselecting any of the authors?

R7: I did because I was particularly interested in Talmond who's a, more of a linguist but then, being constrained to these particular ones then,,,meant nothing, ended up with nothing, nothing came up.  

I7: Okay, did you have any other comments about this tool or suggestions?

R7: Not it's, well those I think I've conveyed them.

I7: Okay.  

R7: yeah.

Government
I7: So moving on to Government then.

R7: Government, yes.  I didn't pursue this very far, because it seemed unlikely that I was going to find anything.  

I7: Okay.

R7: Well this, this first time we get the search terms coming up, so this clearly indicated how critical it was which those search terms were, analysis in linguistics actually rarely brought up anything in anything, ummm, for what reason I would have though those were good terms but they didn't bring anything up.  And then in, so sometimes then in order to try and keep it both within I what wanted I would do, I'd tried Arabic linguistics recently and that brought nothing up either. And, so once again it's that's saying more about the nature of the things which were being searched through, and, it's not necessarily possible for anybody whose designing something like this, to know what the best search, search tools in that particular discipline would be.

I7: Right, okay.  So did you come up with any results in this tool at all, or anything relevant?

R7:  Well I don't actually remember whether I don't think I clicked on anything in government.

I7: Okay.

8:26
R7: But, in the other ones, it certainly came up with things by changing the key words and so forth, so it worked that way, it works, yeah.(laughs)

I7: Okay, so for this tool, does the idea of having direct access to a number of searches for government documents is that, do you find that valuable?

R7: In my particular interest it doesn't excite me, no, but. umm 

Book
I7: Okay. So we'll move on to book.

R7:  Right.

I7: Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R7: No.

I7: Okay.  Did you find anything at all?

R7: Well once again by changing the select terms I think once again analysis linguistics turned up nothing, it was good to be reminded of the on books, online books page from Penn because I've, I've seen that before and I always like to go there so then I checked out the ones on Islam and those sorts of things, so it was you know, it's, yeah it's useful but then I would wonder then why we wouldn't have links say into libraries? Why not into Library of Congress or something like that? That would have seemed to me ummm as I recall none of those came up, no actual direct library catalogues came up anywhere.

I7: Okay.  So in what you've found on your own, using your own search terms, did you find anything that added to your understanding of the piece? 

R7: Of the piece? No.  Not of the piece no.

I7:  Okay was any of it relevant to the piece?

R7: Ummm, no not as I, as I recall.  It's a highly specialized piece, so you know this is  partially dictated by that.

I7: So maybe if we consider, in any of the tools, did you find anything that was relevant to the piece itself?  

R7: Well, you know, the dictionary is good. So that's, and, ummm, I could see,,,  no once again I didn't find anything  on any of it that was directly relevant ummm, no nothing that, there may not  in fact be very much that I would consider particularly relevant. It depends what it is you're reading the article for right? (laughs)

10:56

I7: Right. May be I can ask you then, I'll ask you sort of more generally speaking if what you, if you think what you found might be useful in the case of another, another kind of article.

R7: Ummm, yeah.  Well potentially yes, sure, it gives you those, those links into things umm, but as soon as it becomes reasonably specialized then it's ,it's once again in general, internet work you don't it's not as though I expect to come across that much stuff which is going to end up being relevant.  

I7: Okay, so do you have any other comments about the book tool and how it might be useful in terms of broadening peoples understanding or evaluation of articles?

R7: Umm, the understanding or evaluation of articles - well, aaaa, now it didn't look in Google Print, but it would be interesting to know where this article was cited, ummm and so in some sort of citation index would be helpful, now whether that you want to put that in book or not it depends if they're articles or books or whatever.

I7:  Okay, and do you think that this tool might be useful for someone or for yourself in your teaching or your research?

R7: Well in theory yeah, yeah, yeah.

I7: Okay.  And how might you use what you find in your teaching or your research, can you give me some examples?

R7: well it would lead as in more research, one thing leads to another, so I would in this particular thing I guess I was, would have been interested to see if other things on computer analysis of Arabic came up.  Ummm, and it didn't as far as I can see, so,

Dictionary
I7: Okay.  So moving on to dictionary then. So did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R7: Well if there were any words I didn't understand in English ummm, then there was at least a way to look them up and, (pause) yeah no these, this, once again I'm doing analysis and linguistics turned up nothing in fact I think in Wikipedia nothing came up I don't think. But changing it at least lead me to the various sites and so forth.  Umm, and then just, no actually I forget now whether,,, 'cause I also used dictionary  in the same way I didn't actually quite understand what difference was being seen between define terms and dictionary. Ummm, or why you would need both of them. But so the idea of, of taking words that you don't know from the article that's always, always useful so

14:43

I7: Okay, any other comments about this tool?  Any comments on how it might help you evaluate the article? Or how what you find might help you evaluate the article?

R7:  15:11 (sounds like) No just in understanding it.

I7: Okay

R7: Yeah.

I7: And any relevance for your teaching or your research?

R7: Umm, well I suspect it's the sort of thing that will be helpful with students that's for sure.  Once again I guess I just you know I tend to see (pause) I tended to view the whole thing as ultimately as I think is yea, one of the ideas that its portal of allowing to pre-select resources which will, will facilitate research so as a theory it seemed good umm, once again whether these were, why will we want to look at a dictionary of Canadian biography online as a dictionary I don't know - but that just illustrates the point that I think the need for,,, to be able for individuals to be able to tamper with it.

 16:01

I7: Okay, did you have any other comments in addition to what you've already said for this tool?

R7: No, don't think so.

Literary Critics
I7: All right. Literary critics is the next one.

R7: Did I look at this one.  I did but well I'm fairly sure nothing came up. 

I7: Okay.

R7: (pause) well it does but, they were kind of odd. Yea I remember this one no did this take, actually then I started playing around with this site  (inaudible).  But, interesting enough all of those are very or strike me as very general so yes it's a good way of linking in to other resources but it's certainly not going to be an immediate tool by which I'm going to understand the article or anything  cause  they're  just sending me to various associations on the net which  happen to have those words and it's not going to help immediately, so lets see if we can back up (uses right click to go back) oh yes quite right. 

I7: And, so in terms of evaluation any comment about the materials this tool led to. 

R7: Umm, okay so one of the points here I guess is that the categories of these tools are not necessarily immediately meaningful, I don't know why one  would call that Literary critics and certainly what it lead to was not what I would think of is literary criticism.  Umm, and how is that different from any of the other things which it happened to lead to.

I7: Okay, so now that we've gone through a few of the tools, how do you feel this tool compared to some of the others that you used?

R7: Literary critics? 

I7: Huh, huh.

R7: Well there's only one choice it's not.

I7: Well.

R7: It's actually, I don't see that it's ummm, that it is any different than any of the others other than the fact that it pre-selects different databases to search, unless I'm missing something but I don't think so (laughs).

I7: No.   We're just looking for sort of, and I guess it's more it's more of a relevant question if you're finding results that help you in terms of comparing the kinds of, the kinds of material that you find with this tool compared to the others in terms of adding to your understanding and your evaluation and usefulness for teaching and research so that we can sort of.

R7: Right, well I can understand that one, after all, all these things are, are, links to other portals or search engines or databases of one sort or another.  All you're really doing is classifying them in different sorts of ways.  And, whether the classifications work depends purely upon the nature of what it is you're reading, I would think so, there are going to be lots of things where the literary criticism collection in the IPL isn't going to do anything for you, I would think myself. So it, it doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near as meaningful as something like books, book reviews and dissertations. 

Book Reviews
I7: Okay, so let's move on to book reviews.  

20:00
R7: Okay.

I7: So did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R7: No actually I'm not quite sure I even looked at this one By this point I was . . .   Well maybe, maybe I did well once again so it it's solely depends upon the key terms and the key terms  are the ones which got attached to the article and, it illustrates the point that key words are the critical part in doing research and, for my purposes as a researcher those key words were far too general and, and, anyway rarely turned anything up as the terms themselves, so.

I7: And did you try any different key words with this one?

R7: No I didn't.

I7: Okay.  

R7: No this one I didn't particularly try.

I7: So if , if you were to do a search with this tool and find meaningful results, the idea of having book reviews do you think it would helpful in terms of understanding for evaluation.

R7:Yeah, umm Well I guess, what I would have rather seen of course are if this was a book, would have been book reviews of the book, right, so (pause) that is interesting actually just clicking on the New York Times one using those key words because the results are totally meaningless.  Well not meaningless, but they're,  they're totally irrelevant. Because once again with terms like that you get ummm, things widely it's actually searching the text of the reviews, ummm and finding words like linguistics and analysis is not going to be highly unlikely in quite a large number of things. And, if we were to (exploring tool) so It's interesting that that there is a way that (pause) that actually would be very interesting to think if, to learn this would be totally irrelevant to the article itself. 

I7: Okay.

R7: Whether this is actually a review of "approaching the Qur'an" or not. (searching the tool) it just mentions him Umm, you know once again, Ummm, I guess I the way I work doesn't necessarily, I quite like the list of tools I'm not sure I need it linked to a journal or that sort of thing.  It's good to have an organized collection of tools, themselves, and then I would go it when I wanted to learn something about something.  

23:10

I7: Okay.

R7: Ummm but, in fact, so, the way I would tend to use this sort of thing if it was available would be, well it'd be nice if there was an article there which was relevant in fact I would use the tools for other things which were still in print format or whatever in order to pursue things further .

I7: Okay, and theoretically if you had found materials here do you think they would be useful in your teaching or your research?

R7: Yeah, well I, I quite enjoy book reviews, you usually do you learn more from book reviews because you don't have to read the book to learn things so.

I7: Okay and can you give any examples of how you might use book review in your teaching or research?

R7: Well especially in teaching because especially if they're current book reviews and then to talk to students about new books which are coming out on related topics and those sort of things specially if they're reasonably popular, so if you're using New York Times (mumbling) yea.

I7: Okay.  Any other comments about book review tool or how it compares to the other tools?

R7: Seems exactly the same.

Related Studies
I7: Okay.  So related studies is next.   Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R7: No. Umm and now I'm forgetting whether in fact some of these ahh, sources haven't been seen elsewhere.(searching OJS) So yeah, 

I7: I think some of them do repeat.

R7: These are, yeah.  So, yeah, so authors others, other works  are, you would have already checked a number of these search things through there.
25:39
I7: Okay.  And theoretically, linking up to related studies through any of these sites or other sites do you think that that would add to your understanding of any article?

R7: Oh for sure, yeah.

I7: And can you maybe give me an example?

R7: (pause) Well what you would hope to find are other people who have dealt with the same or similar topic and so it would give you a different approach to the topic and (pause) how the category of related studies umm, no. Fair enough yeah, related studies that's good, sure.

I7: Okay, and how about theoretically for improving your or allowing you to evaluate the quality of the piece or significance of the piece?

R7: Ummm, it's doubtful I guess, umm, (pause) It would sort of  depend on what it is you've found and what it said, but it's hard, I find that hard to answer in the abstract like that, so things I would find through here I wouldn't necessarily I don't' see these, these sources as necessarily authoritative in a kind of absolute way so I would want to trust whatever it is  so that if something I found here trashed what I had just read, and I'm not sure I would believe, believe it any more so ,,, or disbelieve it.

I7: Okay, and what about finding things useful to your teaching or your research?

R7: Well this, once again the notion of related studies is the way in which we develop the lines of research, so, so it's great. 

I7: Okay, any other comments about this tool?

R7: Same as all the others.

Dissertations
I7: Okay, and dissertations is next.

R7: Yes, so that I looked at.  

I7: Okay, did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the piece?

R7: Ummm, well I suppose one could say that that there was nothing else like it, (laughing) so that was good.  So the, the foreign dissertations only brought up a couple, when I changed it to the Koran, it only brought up a couple.  Actually and I don't think the other union catalogue brought up any.  One of the other interesting things, and I didn't click on About, that's right, to see how much information that was there.  Aah, (pause) one of the interesting things I found here was that when I found something this was particularly on the foreign one, it wasn't clear whether I could actually access it, it actually seemed to be just a database of them.  So,databases are useful, but then of course they don't actually help you in appreciating what it is you've just read. Because you have to send away to get the dissertation or whatever Ummm, to see whether somebody else has written on the topic. 

I7:  And in terms of helping evaluate the quality or significance of the article do you find do you think this would be a useful tool?

R7: No, no. As I say unless you can actually get access to the text of things, then, but it's a very useful tool still in order lead you to dissertations which, which is good.  

I7: But in terms of connecting up with an article.

R7: With ahh something specific it doesn't, doesn't get you far.  

I7: Okay.  And how about being useful for your teaching or your research?

R7: Well it's something I would point students to, say yeah you should,,, but nothing to do with the an article which people might have been reading, rather you know,  as a way of accessing into dissertations.  

I7: Okay, any other comments about this tool or how it compares to the others?

R7: Well, it's the same. 

Databases
I7: Okay, next will be databases.  So did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article.

R7: (laughs) no actually I didn't look.  Umm, this one I didn't check out.  I don't remember seeing any of these before.

I7: Did you not check it out for a particular reason?

31:02
 R7: I think by the time I was getting,,, I, might have looked at Pay-per-view to see what came up  but by this point I was feeling that I had a good sense of what it, what it was going to do, so ummm, yeah Catholic Encyclopedia is something I would trust and (inaudible) actually come up with something and both of them irrelevant on the, on the basis of that judgment umm, so. 

I7: Okay.  As a tool then, theoretically speaking, do you think that this could be useful in finding things that added to people's understanding of an article?

R7: Yeah, oh yeah.  So this is another it's a useful grouping of, of tools of databases.

I7: Okay, and how in another situation how do you think you might use what you found here, or how would it add, how what you find potentially add to your understand.

R7: Oh yeah, it would provide some of the background information especially since we're essentially,,, a number of these are encyclopedia type sorts of things, so it's background information and related information.

I7: Okay, and for evaluating the article?

R7: Hmmm, it might be helpful. 

I7: Okay.

R7: So as a, as a group of resources ummm, although when you look at them, it's hard to see precisely what would bring them all together and they're just databases of one sort or another - ones which almost can't be put in any where else (laughs).  

I7: Okay.  And in terms of finding things useful for your teaching or your research do you think you might find anything here?

R7: Yeah these are the kinds of databases where you find things which are useful especially for teaching and.

I7: Can you give an example ?

R7: Finding illustrations and so forth that you're using, in teaching pictures those sort of things strike me as, talk about,  heritage materials those sorts of things.  

I7: Okay, any other comments on this tool or how it compares to the others?

R7: Exactly the same as all of the others, I want to be able to put in my choice of what I thought will be relevant databases for the sort I thing I do.

Portals
I7: Okay, moving on to portals.
33:42
R7: Right this was a mysterious one, this one.  

I7: How so?

R7: Ummm, because it was difficult to know how those sorts of things all came together, but umm, (pause) I do remember I think actually whatever I did here didn't bring anything up of any relevance ummm, but then you for these sorts of things, actually I suppose depending on depending on what it was you were really looking for, ummm this sort of thing could have, could be interesting.

I7: Okay can you give me an example of how?

R7: Well here I might start to think, well, you know it might be interesting if I knew Sanskrit to see how the same kind of analysis had been applied to Sanskrit text.  

I7: Okay.

R7: But I would have to do a lot of digging before I would find that out and certainly before I would understand it, (laughs) and you're not going to find those sorts of words in the dictionary, so.  

I7: So did you find any thing in this particular case that added to your understanding?

R7: No, no, nothing that I would say did but I learned about new resources I suppose.

I7: Okay, and theoretically in a different situation do you think this might add to your understanding and can you give an example of how potentially?

R7:  Well, so if , umm that's a difficult one because, yea okay so you could see that you could this will be the sort of thing because these are, in fact what I would think of is pretty obscure or specialized portals in particular things and you might find parallel studies which would illustrate things which you had done but they're very specific,,, once again here I'm not quite clear on why those ones get deemed portals as compared to some of the others which take you to very similar sorts of things.

I7: Okay.  And, for helping your evaluation of the article, do you think that this kind of thing might be useful?

R7: In the same way as the others, you know.

I7: Okay.

R7: Once again it's not a, to me it's not a well defined or distinct tool. as compared to the others.  

I7: What would you expect to find in the tool called portals if anything.

R7: Well because I've been looking at the new source the new UVic portal I would have expected to find portal like things I suppose.

I7: Okay. And these were not like that?

R7:  No. well certainly not the way in which that sense of portals is being used.

I7: Okay.

R7: But you know a portal is just opening to other things, but all the other things are opening to other things too so.

I7: Okay, all right, and in terms of finding things that might be useful for your teaching and research, do you have any examples of how they.. 

R7: Well, once again these sorts of things  will certainly give you good illustrative material presumably lead you on to that sort of thing ………………

I7: Okay any other comments about this tool?

R7: It's exactly the same as the others.

Pay-Per-View
I7: Alright, pay-per-view?

R7: Pay-per-View was I looked at that and said to myself it'll be interesting to see if we have, oh because Ingenta was on it so we should have been able to get, be able to get some, some results from that (inaudible maybe "something to use") otherwise for searching through journals and so forth.  

I7: And did you. 

R7: I didn't do it in this particular occasion but, then it usually turns out to be a frustrating experience (exploring tools) there, that's why it's frustrating (laughs)  (pause) umm because you find all these wonderful things and then you have to pay thirty dollars to see them or you think you should have free access to them and then you have to go out again and go through the library and the rest of it.

I7: Okay.  So again theoretically speaking, having access to pay-per-view.

R7: Actually I would suspect that this would be more likely to be profitable in terms
of research for the sorts of things I will be looking for, that is they're taking you to not free material so in Ingenta one would find, would find things eventually.  

 38:54

I7: Okay and can you give me an example of how the things that you find here might be able to add to your understanding of the piece?

R7: Well umm, you would find other ways of analyzing the same material in other articles and you'd get a better sense of where current scholarship was at, or the history of scholarship (inaudible)  

I7: Okay and, in terms of it being able evaluate an article, do you think this kind of material would be helpful?

R7: yeah because ultimately there are probably ways in which you could get citations through this sort of thing, so you'd know whether what you were reading had been cited.

I7: Okay. And in terms of being useful for your teaching or your research?

R7: Research..Probably not for teaching in the sense that I'm not going to send students to them, although you know its a good way to get access, and to one's that the library does have access to.

I7: Okay, any other comments about this tool?

R7: No, Exactly the same as the others.

Related Texts
I7: So related texts is the next one.

R7: Well we've seen a number of these things before, it's exactly the same, no comment on this one.

I7: No new comments on this one?

R7: No.

I7: Okay, so in terms of being exactly the same are you unsure about the reasons for having all these tools in one place?

R7: Well some of these, some of these well I don't know why we have, well okay we have Perseus up there again.  I shouldn't say, okay so this is these are more direct access to texts, texts you find in a particular sort of way, ummm, because what one how one bla, la, la, What makes the Oxford text archive different than the (sounds like) Penn listing of online books? Ummm, is, there'll be tools within the Oxford text archive and those sorts of things, but project Gutenberg is  exactly the same, sort of thing, ummm, so everything else is, everything else we've been looking at,  Certainly under book is also "related text" in one way or the other.

I7: Okay.  So in any of these search options that are available, do you think that you would find anything that might add to your understanding of the article.  

R7: I would, I would expect so, yes.  

I7: And can you give an example?

R7: Ummm, well given that this that this article was on the Qur'an it would be interesting to see this would be one way in which you could link in potentially to an archive of, of the Qur'an as a text and you could (typing) do your own analysis or whatever and I think it's  (exploring tool) it may well be there . . .  different spelling Ummm, so this is, this is a way in which you could perhaps because of the nature  of some of these databases you'll be able to get access to original texts which subject to analysis themselves.  

I7: Okay and for adding to your understanding of the original article.  

R7: I suppose it would help, it is interesting, so you go to the actual texts sites and you find that now that they've only got the Qur'an in English and if you go to Gutenberg to find the same thing.  So it points out that, in fact one the accomplishments of, that the article is talking about is actually having the text in Arabic or at least encoded in that way.  So it gives you a sense of the accomplishment of the article so you can compare it to other sorts of scholarly activity going on.

I7: Okay and for being useful in teaching or research?

R7: Well, Once again, it's the same as, same as all the others.  It would get you to these sorts of places if you wanted to get there or something.

I7: Alright.  So online...  Oh did you have any other comments on this tool before I move on?

R7: No, no.

Online Forums
I7: Online forums is the next one and did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the piece?

R7: No.

I7: And theoretically?


44:00
R7: Theoretically it certainly could be interesting to, once again it's nice to have an immediate access to something like the Humanist list and to have a convenient way of getting at it.  And convenience is good and I'm all for that.

I7: And any examples of how it might be useful, in terms of adding to your understanding?

R7: To see if anybody had discussed the topic before, and who are the active scholars who were in the area and those sorts of things.

I7:  Okay and in terms of evaluating the article?

R7: Just to see if it was ever cited by anybody an interesting example.  

I7: Okay, and in terms of being useful for teaching or your research?

R7: Sort of thing where ummm, (pause) well, want to teach students about existence of such lists.

I7: Okay and any other comments on this tool or how it compares to the others?

R7: No.

Instructional Materials
I7: Okay next is instructional materials.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding. 

R7: Don't, remember looking , I didn't look at this one.

I7: Okay.

R7: So let's see what it is  (exploring tool) So you know it's always nice to discover new tools.  Umm but (exploring tool) Oh look at that Arabic poetry, and, (pause) this one's called instructional materials.  Well I think it just emphasizes (in audible "the point"?) ,,, yes okay, so this is good, and you want to be able to add in specialized instructional material sites, of which there are lots, and, and, and it could very, very helpful.

I7: Okay, and do you think it would be helpful in adding to your understanding of an article?

R7: Doubtful, doubtful but obviously great for students and those sorts of things.  So I tend to see those, you know there is a category instructional materials which now I understand and which can be quite useful in teaching and so forth so I'd use them often (voice trailing)

I7:  And any other comments about this tool or how it compares?
46:57
R7: No. Looks exactly the same as the others.

I7: Okay.

R7: Uniformity is good, uniformity is good, so it's the classification of them.

Media Report
I7: Okay, media report is next.

R7: Can't remember this one either  oh look at that.  Umm yeah, it's good.  I wouldn't expect to find anything, that would be of particular relevance, and it's, well it'll always depend  upon what it was you were researching or whatever, but umm, once again it's convenient and yea.

I7: Okay, so if you were to find anything relevant do you think it might add to your understanding of the piece in any way?  

R7: Ummm, (pause) so much depends upon the piece and, and, so you can judge an impact of something I suppose.  Umm, but if you were investigating something in modern politics it would probably be quite useful, totally dependent.

I7: Okay, and what about for evaluating an article?

R7: Yeah I wouldn't, well I wouldn't tend to trust popular media to evaluate scholarly writing. 

I7: Okay in terms of use for you teaching and your research. 

R7: Yeah it can be a good way of, of, illustrating whether certain ideas are popular or are circulating in modern, (inaudible)

I7: Okay, al right, any comments about this tool or how it compares to the others?

R7: Exactly the same as the others (laughs)

Search Engines
I7: Okay, and search engines. 

R7: Umm, never, I've never seen or used Clusty the Clustering engine, so I'm sure that's umm, that sounds cute I would probably give that one a try and  It, ahh, kind of obvious tool to have.

I7: In terms of returning materials that might add to your understanding of the piece?

R7: Well, I'm actually you know, quite a, ahh I use Google and Google scholar quite a bit and so, it would take a lot of work so in a certain sense you know what I see happening here is in all these other tools is that you're filtering that many of them went straight to Google and then, and then searched particular sites anyway. So, it's doubt, well it may be you come down here first I would come down here first and see rather than bothering going through all the separate tools I wanted to find out books on the same topic, why wouldn't I just go to Google scholar and be done with it.  So I'd have to go through a few more pages probably but ahh . . . 
 	
I7: And in terms of returning anything that would add help your evaluation of the piece?

R7: Well as in all of the above, if you found something relevant then it would, could potentially but ,,,I'm intrigued what Clusty the clustering Engine does(exploring tool)

I7: Okay.  
(long pause) 

R7: Ummm, far too commercial looking.  

I7: Okay. And in terms of returning things that would be useful for your teaching or your research do you think this is a good ?

R7: Well no, I do find search engines useful, you have to know how to use them, well you have to know how to filter what it is you find, but that's true of all of those things I wouldn't trust any of the others any more than I would trust this one.

I7: Okay.  

R7: That is a general search engine why would, I wouldn't necessarily trust any of the others any more or less

I7: And can you give me some examples of how you might use what you would find here?

R7: Ummm, I often actually Google's I often find an excellent way to find citations of articles so that if I have an article and in fact isn't that how we came across the article to begin with, as I recall. Did, I did search in Google under Morphological Analysis of the Qur'an in order to find the article to begin with. 

I7: Yeah.

R7: So.

I7: Okay, did you have any other comments about this particular tool?

R7: No.

I7: Okay, any comments about the tools in general?

R7: They're all the same.

I7: Okay.  
52:36
So, my follow up question is then.

R7: Can I ask you a question though.

I7: Yes.

R7: What is find items in this journal supposed to do, it doesn't it didn't seem to do anything.

I7: It's supposed to search this journal so that basically it's meant to search all these articles and all of the archives that would on this journal if it was ongoing, but it hasn't been seeming to work.  

R7: Right okay, so.

I7: It does work on occasion but it hasn't worked.

R7: Yeah, I guess that was my question, as to whether it's designed to give full text searcher.

I7: It would be I think the issue is that we've used all PDFs in here and there's always an option to have both PDF and html but we didn't put the HTMLs up and so I think it were html it would be able to search.

R7: yeah, but as it was it wouldn't even search the table of contents.  

I7: It wouldn't at all?

R7: No, well you type in the word computing and still nothing came up, so.

I7: Okay.  So yeah it's not working as it should, but that's how it should work.

R7: Okay, so ultimately it will be a full text search tool for the contents.

I7: Huh, huh.

R7: That's useful

Value of Reading Tools
I7: Yeah. Okay, so has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally and if so how?

R7: Okay, ummm, right.  Well interesting enough, yes I guess I would say that it has that I can see that there would be a good function in trying to group in meaningful categories various search tools to enhance, not so much I guess I don't' see it as a enhancing my reading of an article. although there were various ones, so dictionaries maybe.  But, as a tool for research, a well done, as this one is, a well done selected, that is well done in terms of presentation and so forth, a well done grouping of tools could be quite helpful. I would . . .  but at the same time, it's ummm, ultimately limited by the material which is available in the internet which is it's weakness.

I7:  Okay, anything else under that question.

R7: Umm, for me personally although I wouldn't, you know we all have our own particular habits in computer work, this is more some, this kind of notion of this of having a kind of front end reading tools for whatever it is you're researching whether it's directly through journal like this or just as a portal umm is not necessarily something I would use because I have my own particular ways of doing research.  But sending students through that way as a way of getting them to understand the different kinds of material and different ways of accessing things so it could be helpful.

I7: Okay.

R7: For me it would depend upon if I was trying to learn about something new that was also fairly general then that kind of thing can be very useful.  But if you're dealing with specialized things as in a journal, umm and many of these, it's nothing, I don't think specific about my article in fact when I look at the titles of some of these I haven't got  the faintest idea what in heaven's name would it mean to do lemmatization from a Persean perspective.

I7:  Okay.

R7: And I can only think that using medieval texts as examples, well I think it's going to be fairly technical too, ummm, and Exploring Homeric language with Perseus is going to be very specific to be Perseus not going to go a lot further, so the limitations are I don't think truly related to the specialized nature of my article, but that I wouldn't expect to do highly specialized research on the web, in my kind of field.  

Value of Knowledge
I7:  Alright, so the last question is, what do you see as the major challenges if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point.

R7: (laughs) Of human knowledge?  Umm, well one thing I guess I would say in terms of what we do in general that it's highly biased towards English ummm if in fact not dominated by. There are vast resources of Arabic material on the web and it's difficult to access them unless you go directly to the sites, the search engines aren't don't seem to be going through and searching all such texts rather than just taking the, what appears to be Arabic filters, Arabic things in English words in order to classify them and so forth. But that's mine impression anyway. Umm  And, and so in many of those kinds of search tools which are being classified are also oriented in that sort of way. So I think multi-lingual multi-character set challenges are significant. 

58:49

I7: That's all?

R7: Sure that's enough yeah.

I7: Okay, do you have other comments that you'd like make on that or is that all you have to say?

R7: Well I guess I'm somewhat confused about the purpose of the project as a whole.

I7: Okay.

R7: Of whether the interest is on one level it seems as though the interest is on the kind of creation of a journal as  a, and reading on the web, whereas on the hand, it's a way that it's a portal into finding information related on topics.  Do the two really need to go together, is one of the things which I wonder ummm, that the, okay so once again you know I understand,, so there's a third agenda here, if you like, and that is that this is an open journal so the idea of encouraging libraries and so forth to publish their material for open access and so forth, and but perhaps the agendas are getting mixed, if you like, so that the (long pause) though you could see that that creating the set of classified tools and so forth doesn't depend upon the journal in and by itself at all and nor does encouraging publishing on the web depend upon the existence of the tools, those two things can exist quite independently.  So I'm, I'm left wondering what the goal of, of this is.

I7: Of?

R7: Of the project, of the project as a whole and whether, whether the goal is to have an open journal system which will then be if you like enhanced, by the tools or whether it's to show that or why not create a set of tools which will be useful regardless of whether there's an open journal system, in that sort of sense.  Maybe that's my, my fundamental question here.

I7: Okay.

R7: The tools themselves were very interesting and freed from the constraints of the journal itself, it could be quite functional.

I7: Okay.

R7: And tied in and limited to or something to the journal, well you can still use them because you can put in your own key words and do whatever you like with them.  But its the way in which it then gets conceptualized and so forth.

I7: Okay.  All right. Shall we leave it at that.

R7: Sure why not.Author Bio
I9: So the first question is in what ways if any does having access to an author bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece.

R9:  That did make a difference because you want to know projects people have worked on, what their track record is and what their preoccupations have been because that would slant the article one way or the other

Metadata
I9: And did having access to metadata in "View item's metadata" add to your reading of the piece? And if so, in what way?

R9:  It would have done if the metadata had been correct, but it wasn't.  So it was actually distracting and the abstract is something you would read but what I was looking for was where it was published, when it was published, what journal it was in and all that stuff was wrong.  So yeah, it would have been.  But most of what I was looking for was there would have been either the abstract or obvious from the context of which I was reading it, if it was a real journal.  

I9: Is that the source that was wrong?

R9:  The source is wrong, the date is wrong the other stuff is kind of, I mean obviously the title, the creator  are in the article already the abstract was available separately, This information, the publisher was missing - the coverage stuff becomes so bland and general that you know, what's it really going to mean.  

I9: Any other comments on that?

R9:  No, not really.  
Define Terms
I9: In this piece do you see the value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the Define box? 
 
R9:  I tried it twice.  The first time I thought okay, the focus of the article is text, so I'll look up text and see how many angles on that word I can get before I actually read the article. Umm, It didn't show up. (exploring site) Let's just try that.  I tried it on a couple of dates, I though it might show up in the Philosophy (exploring site) and it didn't show up.  Yeah, and then I couldn't get back without actually remembering what the shortcut was but that's an Interface thing.  This was a little bit more useful but none of them, they were all too general to be helpful in the context of a specialized article which is what this is.

The other thing I tried to look was a word I didn't actually know the meaning of, Robinson talks about 'contracts, graphemic, graphitic and graphic variations in manuscripts' I knew graphemic, I knew what graphic is, but I didn't know what graphitic variation is.  So I searched and I searched and none of these, if I remember rightly, had the word.  So I had to go out and do what I would normally do anyway and search, and I did find it.  So I think the issue is if you know how to use the Search engine in the general web is more useful than any of these individual sources.  

I9:  Any other comments on that tool

R9:  No not really. It's kinda handy.  You can 't, of course, select, can you?

I9: Right.  

R9:  Because it's not text.  

I9: Yes.

R9:  Or is it text?

I9: It is. It would do it if it was in html.  

R9:  Yes that's right. Oh yes it is actually doing it here. It is selecting some text isn't it. Let's  just see what happens.  See it's not able to do it (select a term for the search box).  I think they are just graphical representations 

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I9:  Do you ever see yourself using "Send link to colleague" or "Email author" and would you ever want those features on your own work?

R9:  I usually put email links on my own work, but I never send link to colleague, well if I do I just email and do that automatically. Copying and pasting this is not difficult in fact, you just write that in your email.  So, these are kind of trivial things really.

Add Comment
I9: And what about a Tool that would allow you to add a comment on the piece? 

R9:  I guess that would really depend on the community, the community around the environment in which that the article is hosted and read.  I don't know that, I mean I would very rarely want to bother making comments unless there's an active discussion already going on or there is likely to be an active discussion going on.  I think the idea of accumulating layer after layer interpretive, reactive stuff around articles is a bit, I mean it sounds cute, but how much of that stuff would anybody ever wade through in real life.  

I9:  And did you have any comments on any of the first set of tools at all?

R9:  Capture the Citation was useful.  I mean I wasn't actually writing anything but if I had been that would have been very useful.  And I read the author bio and we talked about that I think.

I9: So we'll move on to the second set of tools and I'll just ask you our three questions and then also ask about any other comments you may have outside of those questions.  

R9:  Okay.

Authors Other Works
I9:  So the first one Author's Other Works, and the question is Does this Tool lead to materials that have added to your understanding of the original article?

R9:  It didn't. 

I9: And were there any specific problems with it?

R9:  It found a lot of vaguely related stuff.  If I want to find Peter Robinson's stuff I can just search on the web and find easily enough.  This was more, because you had to search each individual system one at a time, and each one had a different interface, so . . .  the results, took a few extra seconds because you had to figure out the layout and the nature of this kind of system was.  It didn't really help. And I think would always  just tend to go out and use my standard search methods to find related stuff.  And of course you'd look at the bibliography and the article for things that the author thinks that are relevant because with this you found masses of stuff that's only tangentially relevant or even by somebody else  called Peter Robinson.  And it didn't really help.  

I9: And did you find anything that would be useful in evaluating the quality or significance of the article?  

R9:  I don't think so, no. 

I9: And did you find anything that you would use in the teaching or research.

R9:  I don't teach, so not there. Umm, I guess I didn't know all of these online resources, and I might go and use some of these resources, or I might browse under these resources, but not particularly no,  I tend to find my way to things through chains of bibliographies where somebody specifically said this influenced me in the writing of this article, this is relevant to this article and then you go on from article to article that way, not through what seemed to me to be quite vague connections.

Government
I9:  All right, so the next one is Government.  

R9:  Umm, I didn't find anything of relevance here. He's not a Canadian.  So, well. I didn't really understand what this was for. Why would I care about the New Zealand government portal?  I tend to never go anywhere that calls itself a Portal because they're all nonsensical really. But what like,  local.gov. UK what relevance does that have to Chaucer?  How did these get selected out of all the thousands of government web sites available in the world?

I9: I'm not actually sure specifically I know they've been tweaking these as time goes on and adding new sources and I'm not sure how these ones made the grade; if they're recommended by people or.. I'm not sure.  

R9:  It just seems like random. A random selection of a few of  millions of government sites. And I'm not sure what governments have to do with this kinds of stuff anyways.  

Book
I9: Alright, so moving on to Book then.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding in this piece?  

R9:  I didn't really cause I wasn't really sure, I mean Bibliography and E-Books - the search terms are so astoundingly general that how could you ever find anything.  I think if somebody had taken the trouble to read this article in great detail and assign some highly specific search terms, that could have generated a small number of useful hits, then fair enough, but then that's what the author's supposed to have done in his Bibliography that's one of the functions of authorship.  And if you're an editor and you're providing that function then that's fair enough but you have to provide a function you can't just type, you can't just pull out some very general concepts around the topic of the article and expect to find anything useful.  

I9: Did you try switching up the keywords at all?

R9:  I didn't touch them so for example, putting nothing in there or just searching just for something else. 

I9: Yeah you can type in any sort of.

R9: See what was I supposed to be searching for here?  Was I supposed to be looking for specific information?

I9: I guess you're looking for any books that relate to the article that you read.

R9:  If this is my field, them I'm going to know 80% of the relevant material anyway.  If it's not my field then I'm probably not going to start with a detailed article like this, I'm going to start with general introduction, perhaps like the Susan Hockey article.  I don't know really I couldn't see much in what this was really for.  

I9: This particular tool or?

R9:  Well to be honest this applied to a lot of the search type tools.  They're just too general.  Either it's my field and I know quite a lot about it already and I'll know a lot of the standard web sites and I'll know the journals and I'll know the personalities and I'll have a background and I'm going to be searching for specific things, in which case I'll know where to go and I'll know exactly what search terms I want to use.  If I'm brand new to the field, then I'm going to start with an introductory article of some kind, and it's unlikely I'll find myself reading this article with no background at all in Humanities Computer and textual analysis. So these tools kind of just seemed vague, and anything they could do I figured I could probably do perfectly well in Google anyway. I could be wrong but I did press buttons and look at results and I found stuff in as we did then on Chinese Lexicon and, well  let's say I wanted to know about graphetic variations.  I've only got two boxes, right?  I don't think these kinds of results are going to be that different from what I would find in Google. And I don't see the point in searching for Books really, unless I'm going to buy a book, in which case I'll search in Amazon.  


I9: Do you have any other comment specific to the Book tool?

R9:  No, not really.  Yeah that was it.  When you're search terms are so general and vague a surprising number of times I got no result at all from all of these search tools which is odd.
  
Dictionary
I9: Okay, so Dictionary.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R9:  Yes Dictionary was useful when I was looking for my thing and I think I found something in Wikipedia. And I think I might have gone to Wikipedia anyway. No,  I didn't find anything in Wikipedia. I must have found something eventually.(exploring tool) I did eventually find something in Wikipedia which was helpful on that topic but,  how is this different from Define Terms?

I9: This one is more similar to an Encyclopedia than a Dictionary.  

R9:  Again if there was editorial preparation around the article, if somebody had gone through and said these are absolutely key terms, that you really need to understand in order to get what this article is talking about, and those were in some way highlighted or you were pre-sensitized to those or they were listed in the abstract along with links to good definitions then that would have been helpful - but again that requires somebody else doing a pile of work that most readers do for themselves. Umm, A lot of the stuff looked like an attempt to provide, without much work, automatic easy ways of doing things that good readers do as a matter of course.  And they don't work as well as reading properly, you see what I mean? 

I9: In terms of you do it better on your own?

R9:  Yeah I know how to look up words and I know how to read a bibliography and follow up to other articles, and I think all scholars do.  

I9: Did you have any other comments on the Dictionary tool? 

R9:  No.  

Literary Critics
I9: Literary Critics?

R9:  Again interesting, this is an interesting site which I didn't know about.  But using it would have - so I linked to this site - or this was a nice introduction to this site   But again, if I'm looking for something as vague as was supplied here I'm not going to find anything really relevant I don't think.  

I9:  Do you think if the key words were better do you think that you might something useful

R9:  Yes, But then I guess you would have to go to the trouble of deciding on all a whole whack of keyword searches and terms that need definition and all the rest of it.  And so you'd actually be doing a sort of pre-processing of the entire text.  So the reader doesn't have to do it.  On the other hand if you do that, I don't know what the net effect is. Does a reader has all that done for them in advance end up with a better understanding of the text or do they just read the text more superficially because they think the meat of it has been extracted for them already, or perhaps they don't even read it they just read all the pre-processed stuff. It's not a substitute for just reading the text.  

I9: So, you didn't find anything with those key words?

R9:  No. I think what I might takeaway from this is two or three sites that were on the, like the Literary Critics and the Book Reviews sites, that I would stick in my Favorites menu or whatever and go to search for things when I want them. But I don't know if it was particularly helpful to have them here (OJS)  in those little groups as opposed to here(bookmarks)  where I have lots of stuff like that already.  

Instructional Materials
I9: So did you find that with all the tools you really didn't find very much

R9:  No I didn't - again it might depend on the articles I was reading and there may be other articles, whole batches of articles where, for example instructional materials would be handy. The instructional materials one I was kind of looking forward to because I write a lot of instructional material, that's part of my job, and, so I was again looking for stuff relevant to the subject of the article, which is textual variance really.  And I didn't find anything and it was sort of disappointing.  I don't know what else is available on this site, and how likely it is.  If there was a strong possibility that if I discover in the middle of the article that I need a quick primer on reading a particular scripts in medieval manuscripts, and I could just go to a thing that would in 15-20 minutes give me a basic introduction, let me test myself kind of thing, before I go back and carry on with the article, that would be great.  But you would have to again, Humans would have to identify the fact that, that would be a useful skill to acquire in order to read this part of the article and again, somebody else doing your reading work for you.  

I9: Did you have any other comments on educational materials while we're here.  

R9:  The stuff found through the site you mean?

I9: Yes.

R9:  I didn't really, I didn't really brows through the site. I was just looking for anything that was just relevant. Is this a clearing house for sites from other places or were they all on this site?

I9: I think it might be a mixture.

R9:  Umm, It looks like it might be a useful site really. I don't like things that  open in windows that don't give me my menus and buttons all my stuff that I have across the top. Is there any reason to suppress all those tools? 

24:30

I9:  No.  

R9: I mean effectively you're taking away a functionality that I'm used to using.  

I9: Okay, that's a common comment.  I'm going to go through each of the tools just in case you remember something that might have been useful or a specific comment to that tool - so I think we were at Book Reviews.

R9:  Uh, uh.

Book Reviews
I9:  We'll just skip back there.  So did you find anything here that helped your understanding of the article?

R9:  I didn't.  I didn't search too hard because having hit two or three buttons and found nothing at all I tended to give up.  And I wasn't sure whether, I mean if this was a link to reviews of this article, then yes I would really be interested, but not generally is there something that vaguely has the same words in it, you know what I mean.

I9: Any other comments about this tool?

R9:  No I don't think so. I should have clicked on some of the "abouts"  but I didn't.   How did these words get selected?

I9: Well the way the site works right now you can only really have - if you had too many key words because it automatically takes all the key words that you enter for the article and plugs them into the search engine. So if you have too many then you're definitely going to get no results or very few results, so we tried to choose the most all encompassing, general key words ..

R9:  Wouldn't it be great though - how about if you chose a large number of very precise key words and then enable people to run their search on all of your tools that you can think of and expect to get back one or two hits from the totality of the tools that would be exactly relevant.  That would be useful.  But general searches on lots of tools that return thousands of general only slightly relevant things are not so good. Actually I like that idea

I9: So to search all of the.

R9:  All of the tools with a very long precise list of key words.  

I9: And do them all at once.  

R9:  And do them all at once so that when you get only a couple of hits back from all of them combined, that's still useful.

Related Studies
I9: Okay, so we'll skip over to Related Studies. Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the piece

R9:  No, this was again general searches that threw back thousands of things (exploring tool) -well one thing, this one here is about woodwind instruments. 

I9:  So it's not relevant whatsoever

R9:  No.  Isn't that odd, isn't that strange, I wonder why.  Now I'm intrigued.(exploring) Oh, Because it mentions the word bibliography and I don't know where E-books comes into it.  

I9: Did you try any searches using other key words with this tool?

R9:  I basically went to Google because presumably if stuff is available online where I can see it then it's available to Google and I can search everywhere at once with my precise list of keywords, so that's why I went for it to find information I needed.  

I9:  So again then, the idea that you sort of already have your ways of searching and that this didn't - this took more effort.

R9:  Yeah it did.  It would have done.  Earlier on with the word 'graphitic' I tried sincerely to find anything relevant and I ended up going to Google because I needed to know.  

I9:  Any other comments on Related Studies tool or anything you found there.

R9:  How are they related?

I9: Oh that's Related texts again.

R9: Oh yes sorry ok,  Related studies - so what's the difference between related texts and related studies?

I9: Related text is more aimed at primary texts.

R9:  So how do you decide what's your primary and what's a and secondary text?

I9: Well I think in this case you might find you like a text of Hamlet or something, some primary text that might be mentioned in this article whereas this will find other studies about potentially textual variants

R9: OK so you weren't treating this as a text (the article) you're treating text which are the objects of study as texts and texts which are themselves studying or discussing those texts as not text at all in the same way.  I'm not criticizing that, it's an interesting distinction perhaps one that is inherent in a lot of stuff you read in in this field  So a study is a piece of is an academic text.

31:00 

I9: Yes.

R9:  And a text is an addition of an historical text.

I9: That seems to be sort of what searches under this tool in most cases lead to or seem to be targeted at I suppose

R9:   Okay.  

Dissertations
I9:  So Dissertations then.  Did you find anything here that.

R9:  I didn't find anything. But this, again, searching for what. And why would dissertations be treated differently and separately from any other text it seemed strange to me just because  its somebody's dissertation.  I'd rather be searching these data bases at the same time.  Let's try Textual variants on here (exploring tool), ah, that doesn't work very well does it.  This looks like Geology (laughing). Well  we have a lot of useful stuff here in the field of Geology here. 

I9: Interesting, I wonder how those came up?

R9:  I don't know it doesn't make it very useful.  So, I wonder if it's something to do with the way that this is fed into - because each search engine is going to have a different kind of interface. A different API so perhaps it doesn't use "and" in the same way.  Do you see anything to do with textual in here?  

I9:  No. 

R9:  That's the first one we get that has textual, and that's the second one - that's in German.  Ah, it's finding "Or", it's using "Or" isn't it.  I'm sure they all have variance in them or the ones that don't have textual have variance. I wonder if that first one has variance, (exploring tool) no it doesn't, so how did it find that first one which contains neither textual nor variance.  

I9: That's picking up the "And".

R9:  Oh is that what it is, - oh of course it is.  So that's an implementation bug

I9:  Any comments on the usefulness of having this.  

R9: It might have been yeah taking you to this site, that's now let's try this (exploring too).  Here we go.  So now once we know how to use the particular search engine we can actually get results from it personally, but the clearing house that is feeding stuff in from the tool isn't aware of differences between search engines so that might have been part of the problem right through - I kept getting completely off topic results. 

Data Bases
I9: Any other comments about that. Okay, data bases?  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding?

R9:  I think by this point I kind of I think I tried a couple of things and didn't get anything useful - again this is a kind of an odd selection of- why is the Catholic Encyclopedia under Map collection, why are those two of eight data bases.  And you know, it just seemed almost a random selection of things. If this list was a huge list of data bases but it was self selecting based on the topic of the article itself so that  I did see only 8 data bases but all of them were precisely relevant to this field then that would be useful.  But either this is going to be a wildly varying tiny selection  or its going to be an enormous number it  needs to be something in-between, if you're going to collect a wide range of data bases you need to pre-select them for a search like this I think

I9: OK, They're meant to be related to Humanities Computing - generally speaking, but that's still not necessarily - I mean there's lots of areas in Humanities Computing so they've had to cover a lot of ground on those as well. So in terms of having direct access to data bases from this site, aside from the selection of data bases that were chosen. 

R9:  Yeah I think that would be good if they were data bases that really related to the topic of the article.  That would be useful.  But again I think I would tend not to separate out searching data bases from searching theses and dissertations from searching articles available online. I don't know that these are qualitative, I mean they're still basically online search engines finding you text, so who cares whether it comes from a data base or a dissertation search engine or where it comes from, as long as I get to it.  Instead of having to flip on three different tools it might as well all be on one tool 

38:53.

I9: Any other comments on data bases?

R9:  No, I didn't find anything useful but I didn't try all of them  because some of them seemed off topic.  

Portals 
I9: OK, on to Portals then. You already said you didn't like Portals.

R9:  The word portal just makes me think there's a scam there just a big grand scam basically.   

I9:  So did you try any of these?

R9:  No I didn't no (laughing). I hate the word.  But how are these different from web sites.  What makes these portals as opposed to just web sites?

I9:  I think that the idea behind this is that it, well,  I mean many web sites will direct you to more information but I think the hope is that these are meant to, meant specifically to direct you to information related to Humanities and Computing I suppose.  

R9:  But did people really care what the label is whether it's a portal or web site or a data base or a what else did we have there.  They're all just web based interfaces to information.  Yeah, I don't know that, I mean this is a library but it's a data base isn't it, a database. What puts it here as opposed to on a data base page?  That's kind of confusing I think .  

I9: Okay.  Any other comments about this tool, Portals?

R9:  Not really.  

Pay-Per-View
I9:  Pay-Per-View.  

R9: Yes.   

I9: So did you find any thing that added to your understanding of the article?

R9:  Well these being pay per view, I'm not expecting to be able to see anything, so.  Ah, let's see what we get, I'll look again for my textual variants and  see what we find (exploring tool) ah there you go,  these are more useful hits. OK so I want to read this, and. I have an abstract.  Yeah that's useful. That is useful, but why are these -   I guess these are different in that  I have to pay if I want to read the article. But wouldn't I find this-  (exploring tool)  Let's go to Google and just search. There we go (exploring tool) So I could find this anyway, it's not finding me anything that I couldn't find just through regular search tools I don't think.  	

I9: So the articles that came up on the pay-per-view, how, in what way do you they would add to your understanding of the article.  

R9:  Well they're not - they're no different just because they are on pay-per-view, except that I can't read them.  I mean they're still just articles. They're not going to add to my understanding any more than any other article is as long as I can read it, it's going to depend on the article not the fact it's pay-per-view.  So again, I might as well be searching all of these resources with precise terms getting a few hits back and if one of them turns out to be pay per view - big deal - I can evaluate whether I want to buy it or not, in just the same way.  I don't think there's anything about the fact that the pay per view that makes them any better in that you could say that they're worse because you have to pay for them But that's a different kind of decision.  

I9: But this is the only tool that you found anything relevant?…

R9:  This one actually found more stuff. Yea it did.  It found smaller numbers of more precise hits.  

I9: Do you think that what you found would add to your ability to evaluate the quality or significance of the original article? 

R9:  I mean to answer that question I would have had to buy and read all the articles I found in pay-per-view.  So again I -  if the question is whether articles you have to pay for are better quality than the articles you don't, then I disagree in my experience. But on this particular topic, I don't know, because I didn't pay for any of them.  

Related Texts
I9: Okay, so let's move on to Related Texts.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R9:  Well, I could search for here for -  'cause Peter Robinson is talking about his Chaucer project here.  Oh yeah this is what I wanted to check which I didn't have time to look at. Tom Stoppard's Macbeth (exploring tool).  Okay, I guess I'm looking for a modern text which is not likely to find itself online in a free form.  I don't know what connection any of these have.  Yeah, Peter Robinson mentions two things ("from Squibs?") by Tom Stoppard  his one-minute version of Hamlet and his Macbeth written in dog language.  So I wanted to find those texts.  And I didn't find them.  But I didn't search as much as I'm doing now.  So let's do that and just make sure - this looked like pay-per-view to me.  And I can't go past this window so this doesn't look - although it looks like it may have something under there. Let's do this (exploring tool). Yeah that doesn't help.  Perseus, it won't be in Perseus will it? Whereas let's go and look on the web (move to google) There it is boom.

I9:  Okay. 

R9:  We're not getting anything else back from  WesWeb so far, Aha two opportunities to buy Tom Stoppard. Oh, this is linking me to Lycos anyway, which is a general search engine, which will probably find something I think.  Oh there you go (exploring tool)  

I9:  So Google is much quicker than going through all of those.  

R9:  Yeah, generally, because I use Google all the time, and I know all the quotes and pluses and minuses and all that sort of stuff so I can easily find things. 

I9: So any comments about the related texts tool?

R9:  It would be useful if it was preconfigured with a list of related texts or with precise search data.  But in this case its difficult to know what related text would mean.  Is that texts that are mentioned in the article or.

I9: It could be and I think it's partly up to the reader to sort of  select that.  

R9:  Yeah I wasn't really sure whether related text should include other articles on the same topic or whether it was primary text or whatever. But if it's primary text then you could troll through and find all the primary text and then, I mean again though what's the relation - what does related mean.  Texts can be related in all sorts of different ways, and this is about electronic texts.  Any electronic text could be related to any other electronic text just through the technologies it uses, even though it's topic is or it's period and author and all the rest of it are completely separate. 

I9: So any other comments.

R9:  No don't think so. 

Online Forums
I9: Online Forums is the next one. 

R9:  Oh let's go back to my Textual variance search (exploring tool).  

I9: So  anything that might add to your understanding of the piece.  

R9:  Yeah, this is useful because of the selection of Humanist here because that is directly in his in the field of the article and it's a small community and he's a member of that community and you're going to find a lot of stuff on the same sort of topic.  (exploring tool) So it all depends on the tool that's presented here

I9: The search sites?

R9: the search sites. ….  (exploring tool) new South Africa, that's kind of off topic really.  But again, I would know to search the Humanist anyway.  

I9: So you did find a few things in the Humanist.

R9:  Yes.  

I9: Can you give an example of how, what you found might add to your understanding of the piece.  

R9:  Well in the same way that reading any related text would help fill in background - I'm not really sure what you're asking other than I found some text that are in the same kind of area and reading other articles in the same area helps you to evaluate and understand an article generally.

I9: Okay.  

R9:  What kind of answers have you been getting to that question?

I9: It varies quite a bit. Some people talk specifically about something they found, a specific point that they made that may be resonated with them or just listed a few examples of what they found and how it was useful, some people gave the same kind of answers you are giving - so it varies. So that's find  Can you give an example of how you might use some of the stuff that you found in your research or your work?

R9:  I think what I would tend to do in reading an article from as long ago as this one, would be to look at the ripples from it. So the one's that wasn't here, that I wanted, was search the bibliographies of other articles for citations of this article, 'cause then you can trace the influence and the evaluation of it through the community. Um, it's much harder to do because you have to digitally encode all the bibliographies of all the articles that matter and so it's probably going to take a little while until enough of this stuff is tagged up usefully. Bur on the ACH site I did something like that (exploring site)  who cited whom for example, it takes a while to do but because all of the articles have tagged up bibliographies the machinery can just go through all the bibliographies and find every person who was cited and then link back to the article that cited them. But it takes about 30 seconds to do because its doing it on the fly every time. But we could just search for Robinson here (exploring site) that's interesting he doesn't show up - with nearly a thousand entries he doesn't show up.  So, nobody cites this article in the 2005 conference abstracts. which is you know, 120 articles with a thousand items in their bibliographies, so that gives you some indication of how influential it still is now - it's not very but if you did this from text from 1998-99 you probably you'd probably find lots of citations and that would be kind of useful.  

I9: So did you have any other comments about this tool?

R9:  Oh the other thing was I expected this to be forums which it's not.  And forums would be useful.  Newsgroups and Forums that are archived are very useful.  

I9: You didn't find any within these.  

R9:  I don't think so is there? See these are publications aren't they. These are not forums. (exploring tool) Ah here we go wait a minute, ah yes, this is the Humanist archives that's right, but it's not a forum it's newsgroup archive.  So that's  a terminological quibble really but a forum's a web based system where you post on a bulletin board kind of thing and these are newsgroup archives, which are different. (exploring tool) yea again that looks like a newsgroup or a mailing list rather than a forum. Yea It is isn't it.  OK?

I9: OK So instructional materials.  Oh we've done that one. 

R9:  We did that one.

Media Report
I9: So Media report.

R9:  I did look in here and I didn't find anything that mentioned - the topic of the article is fairly obscure, it's not going to show up very often.  Again why these media and not all the other media? You know what I mean.  

I9: Are Media resources something that you would typically look for, is that something you would find useful reading the article? 

R9:  Depends on the subject area - you wouldn't expect this kind of stuff to find its way into the media in any meaningful way.  I mean when people get big grants then they get little splashes in the news paper and it tends to be vague and factually incorrect  and whatnot- so it's not a great, you're not going to the Globe and Mail to find out about Humanities Computing are you? You might go to Globe and Mail to find out who recently got big fat grants from SSHRC in Humanities Computing if that's of interest

I9: Any other comments on Media Report. 

R9:  No. 


Search Engines
I9:OK,  Search Engines?

R9:  I was going to them anyway (laughing) so. I wondered what clusty the clustering engine was to be honest, ah lets try my textual variants in here (exploring tool).  I went there and it looked kind of odd.  This is just another metasearch tool I guess. But this is only really useful if I know exactly how to use this particular tool and then I start really refining my search terms in here.  Get into it from that interface is not particularly useful because it's only letting you put two things in here - that's another thing I should read the "abouts" here (exploring tool) it's not really an about that's just a link to their webpage - Perhaps this stuff (the "about" link) should tell you why you picked these engines and why you think they're relevant to this particular kind of environment because this just looks like a particular technology doesn't it?

I9: So in any of these, I know in Google you found some relevance sources, so I'll just ask again, how did all of these add to your understanding of the piece.  

R9:  The metadata stuff had it been correct really added, the author bio stuff was good, the abstract was good - nothing else really was precisely configured enough to be any more than a vague interface to a random selection of a few search engines some of which I was familiar with and some of which  not.  It was always easier to use my own background knowledge in the field and the search tools in sites that I am familiar with than it was to figure out what was going on in a page like this for example. (exploring tools) I don't think that's the same Peter Robinson is it

1:04:37    

I9: So do you have any other comments overall about what you found and how you might make use of it.  

R9:  I really would like - I would find the pre-processing useful if somebody went to the trouble of reading the article carefully and identify key terms and related stuff ahead of time.  But I don't think there's a way to - there's no quick and easy way to do this by automation.  Just trying to use software to shortcut the reading process -it doesn't work - and we're supposed to be reading aren't we? Why don't we just read? 

Value of Reading Tools
I9:  So I'll go on to the concluding questions. So how has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the Reading Tools and online access to research more generally? 

R9:  It's reinforced an opinion I already have that throwing automated processes at text is not very valuable.  Whereas, having humans read text and make judgments and decisions about them, is a) useful b) what we're supposed to be doing.  

I9:  Anything else to add?

R9: I guess the attempt to categorize all of these tools when basically most of them were web interfaces to search engines of data base type systems is I think not successful and the quality of difference between what shows up in database page as opposed to what shows up in the dissertation page is not that great and they might as well all be lumped together.  And when you're searching, very precise sets of search terms are the only useful way to get good results I think.  
Value of Knowledge
I9: And what do you see as the major challenges, if any, for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R9:  What's the value of knowledge? That's an interesting question.  

I9: It's a big question, and feel free to narrow it down any way that  

R9:  Well what do you mean by improving the value of knowledge?  I don't understand that at all.

I9: Because the value of knowledge, I guess these tools are meant to enhance the knowledge you would get simply from reading an article, so in that respect. So I guess these are meant to add value to . . . 

R9: Yea, so I don't know that, I didn't get anything from the tools when I tried to use them I spent more time fiddling with them and trying to use them trying to figure out what they are for and how best to se them, than I did just going to tools general tools that I know exactly how to use. Umm, but generally speaking, reading the text, reading the bibliography and following up the bibliography I think is more useful than this kind of general scatter, shot gun approach to the whole thing. You know what I mean?  

I9: So any final comments at all.

R9:  No I don't think so.  This has kind of clarified things as I already thought. I've never really been impressed by any of these kind of - the idea that you buy a piece of software and it enhances your knowledge seems ridiculous to me in the humanities. And the idea that reading - we should read things differently in software environments seems odd to me as well.  

I9: In what way?

R9:  Well the transition from - well put it this way, as long as we're reading text that were written in order to be read sequentially, in other words, when an author creates a text which is, consists of perhaps an abstract an introduction a bunch of points and a conclusion and a bibliography, to read it the way it was intended to be read is way more likely to be a successful way to access knowledge in it, if that's what reading is for than to start breaking it down or analyzing it, or running it through shredding engines or blasting it's contents into the web search engines - I've never been impressed by any of these things and they all seem like little here today and gone tomorrow gimmicks to me.  And reading is ancient and central to everything humanists do and I like doing it and I'd rather do it than mess about these things.  I'm a skeptic about the value of software in humanities. 

I9: OK Thank you for your time.Interview 10

Author Bio
I10: So, in what ways if any does having access to an author bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece?

R10: It helps me find out the type of research that the author is involved in, it gives me specific information on the author and that way in that case, it was the first article I read from the author so it would lead me to other articles, to search for other articles because I find it, I find it quite interesting.  

Metadata
I10: Okay.  And does any of the metadata in view items metadata, add to your reading of the piece and if so, in what way?

R10: It's interesting 'cause I read the metadata in more related to my own research, because I'm developing a system myself - it does help actually in terms of key words, type of material that it is, trying to remember, could I look at it again?   

I10:  Yeah go ahead.

R10: (exploring tool) The metadata was, where was it again?

I10: It's at the top, closer to the top.

R10: Oh yes, view items, metadata.  Yeah, the, in terms of exactly, the discipline, the type of subject exactly, so lets see if I had to write an article and I wanted to refer to this one then I could use some of the, I thought I could use some of the metadata to help me be more precise about the article, that's how I, I saw it anyway.

Define Terms
I10: Okay, and in this piece do you see value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the look-up box in Define Terms.

R10: Yeah, that's when I had a question about Define Terms. (exploring tool) I like the box, now it says here that I can double click on any word of the text and that's when I cannot do it.  So then I would put a word I guess, I would pick a word?

I10: Yes.

R10: So can we try it then?  Is that what I would do? 

I10: And sometimes it doesn't work in the PDFs for some reason?

R10: Yes, I could not do it in my pc.  Like I could not click,  I could not double click on any word.  So what I found is, ummm, (exploring tool) I have reopen it, define terms, then I would put "imagninaire" for instance, oh no, and now what's interesting here is because my article is in French, there's no and that was one, one issue I have, there's no, I don't think any of those would lead me to anything.  Because they're all, let's see, that gives me, the one I tried it didn't give me anything.  Yeah, because they refer to English terminology, so that's something you might want to take into account.  If there is French articles then you would want to have a Francophone dictionaries.  And I have, I can give you some actually, if you wanted to have some.  

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I10: Okay, and do you ever see yourself using send link to colleague or email author and would you want these features on your own work? 

R10: I've had the occasion to email the author before reading an article, so, if I had that I think it would be useful when you're doing research.  Because you could have ummm,  well you could want to engage in a discussion about the article, either you agree or completely disagree and you would want to have some part of the articles explained to you - you would assume that email to the author, I'm just thinking of the author, if he gets so many emails - in what way is he going to be able to answer all these emails?  I was wondering being an author thinking, would I want to receive 15 you know what I mean? So I'm not sure how much the people would use it.  But it, it seems like a great idea.  

The other one was, was emailing to a colleague.  Yes, I think that's a good idea.  I would use that for sure.  I would find an article and knowing that some colleagues you know how it is, if you or anyone else would want to read it because it's related to our research for instance, then I would just automatically email it instead of going to email and copying the article, so it's just faster, just time saving basically.  So I would keep that for sure.

Add Comment
I10: And what about a feature that would allow you to add a comment directly on this site?  

R10: Yes that would be good because Umm, isn't there a feature where you can, I thought there was a feature or maybe I'm thinking of something, yea it was the Online Forums would that be different from the Online Forums?

I10: The Online Forums that directs you to sort of outside sites, and so this tool would be directly on this site

R10: So you're thinking about comment on this. Okay.  I think it would helpful for other readers, database like that like Merlot or other database where every piece of information is being evaluated by external people or by readers, so I could put a comment I could evaluate. Knowing that you have to take it with a grain of salt, I mean you have to be careful to what other people are saying, right.  But it would give you maybe a better understanding of the article - or lead you to understanding it in a different way may be.

5:57

I10: Okay.

R10: I think it would be good, as long as it's not as long as you have the option to go and look at, it's not like it's not in your face.  So if you want to look at it you have the option but you don't have to.  I think it should be in a separate window.  Definitely.

Capture the Citation
I10:  Did you have any comments on any of that first group of tools?

R10:  Those ones here?

I10: Yeah.

R10: Yes I had a comment with this one - there's one that I'd like to.

I10: Capture citation?

R10:  Yeah, endnote I have, endnote on my Mac I don't have it on my PC.  But something I use a lot is RefWork and I'm just wondering whether that, you know RefWorks?

I10:  We have that one in the library.

R10: Yes I'm just wondering which one, I didn't know Reference manager, Prosite I clicked on those and, and that's windows only, so if I click on that for instance I don't have it, I'm not sure what it's going to do, I don't know whether it would be possible or whether any of those could go right away in RefWorks. Yes, but I thought that might be something for you to look at because I know that a lot of people are using RefWork because it's free compared to Endnote.  Yeah.  

I10:  Okay. Any other comments on those tools at all?

R10: No. That's useful.  So what I understood is, well actually I did have another, not a comment but a question is, you can download the citation so that means you would be able to highlight the citation.  Is that what it means?

I10: In which spot, where were you looking?  For downloading.

R10: Well let's say, well there was one aaaaa, I like this. Unless I'm thinking citation in.

I10: Capture the citation.

7:57
R10: Yes.  So, or do you mean the article would go - that's what it means citation, yeah. 

I10:  I think that's what it means yeah and not direct quote

R10: Yes because "citation" in French it means quotes oh that's interesting.  But that's definitely a yes, that's definitely a good feature - to be able to put it right in your - well I'd like to put it in Ref Works myself, but I do have Endnote on my Mac but if I'm at home, I use Ref Works 'cause I'm on my PC.  So then to be able to put it right away in my citations list, then it would definitely be good, yeah.  

Authors Other Works
I10: Okay.  So we'll move on to the second set of tools, starting with Author's Other Works.

R10: Unh, huh.

I10: So did this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the article?

R10: Yeah it did in the same way as the biography.  This is more precise so it tells me what the author has done before and what type of research the author is involved especially if it's on like in my case, it was a new author so it helps me understand the article if I see the context of the authors research and work. Yeah definitely helps, yeah. 

I10: And can you give an example of what you found and how it added to your understanding?

R10: Not really, 'cause I, I used that, I didn't use it yesterday, I used it the time before, I didn't take a precise note.  Umm, (pause) yeah, because of the way it works, if I'm correct is, I have the author and then I would go into this one, for instance, and it will give me a list of, (exploring tool)  actually how does it work again (pause) Do I have to write the author again?

I10: Which button did you use to click? The search button?

R10: Oh I have to use the search button.  Okay, yeah again I wonder if it's because it's French author but I did find in one of them, huh, this one, yeah, in this one I did find, and then I can, I can go and read other articles, so in that way it would help to be able to go and read other articles, because it might help me understand that one better.

I10: And how did this tool compare with the others in terms of helping your understanding of the piece?

R10: Compared to the Bio for instance, this is more precise because I can go and read other work directly if they are cited on the, if I have precise reference.  Ummm, compared to the metadata - the metadata is more limited because it's more terminology, 
right. so key words and areas and all that - I like that because if I'm really interested in the articles I will want to go and read others of the same authors and sometimes you do that - 'cause you look at the list of reference and some of them are web based, so you can go and read them.  But in this way you have direct- it's just faster, it's just, for me I like it because it's time umm, effective - efficient.

11:33

I10: Okay.  And did the tool help lead to anything that helped you to evaluate the quality and significance of the article?

R10: The quality and significance - the quality I would, I would think that if the author has written a lot of pieces related to the same material in refereed journal for instance, it would give me an indication of the quality.  If I don't find any other work from the same author then it would, doesn't mean that it's not good it could mean that the author is a new author, like in my case, if someone were looking for my article there would not be so many because I'm still new, right?  

I10: Okay.

R10: So that gives you an idea of quality and how long the person has been working in the area and all that.

I10:  All right.  And how did this tool compare to the others in helping you evaluate the piece?

R10: Again the same one?

I10: Yeah.

R10: Evaluate? Evaluate in terms of quality you mean?

I10: Huh huh.

R10: I don't think the other ones, well the bio give you an idea of what the research has done, so it does give you an idea of quality if, if it gives precise indication of the research whether the author is in a collaborative cluster and you know who he is working with and all that, so you would recognize names.  This one I'd like to have access to other works because then it's not precise on what the author has been doing. And related studies too actually, that was another one that would help me in terms of assessing the quality and significance as well. Yeah.
13:41
I10: Okay.  And did the tool lead to any materials that you would use in your teaching or your research?

R10: Like right now? In my actual research Umm, it's a bit different what I'm doing but where I found ideas for my research was in the description of the metadata.

I10: Okay.

Portals
R10: And in the, which one was it again, ummm the portals.  Now that was interesting for me because that's what I'm trying to develop a portal, so I liked to look at the History guide for instance.  Well I looked at "search" But I looked at "about" to see how it was organized.  So it's completely unrelated to the article, but then it gave me ideas so I, like I put that in my Favorites now because I want to look at it and see it did give me some specific ideas.  Ummm, I'm trying to remember; yeah I didn't find anything that makes sense because it's not related to History.  Ummm let me see other one, ummm, (exploring tool) those are pretty generic terms, so do you think that you would find, yeah, here we go, no zero category, yeah I was surprised actually because the terms are quite they're not really specific, well they are in a sense, and one of the question I had is whether you would add other portals probably I guess?  Do you know what I mean?

I10: You can yea

R10: Yeah you could right, yeah because it can, like this one is not going to probably lead to anything, no that doesn't - you know what  mean, so the words that had been picked by, I think it's the author that define those words?

I10: Actually we. 

R10: Did you?

I10: We chose the words.

R10: And I'm wondering how, oh there we go (exploring tool). So it's not always going to be related - but there's nothing you can do about it.  

I10: Okay. So did you have any other comments on this tool, Authors Other works?

R10: Err, no actually. No.  


16:38

Government
I10: So we'll move on to Government, and did this tool lead to anything that added to your understanding of the original article?

R10: That's one I didn't use a lot actually that's a trick question.  Ummm, I would say, I remember looking at it and it didn't catch my, my interest as much.  

I10: Okay, can you explain that?

R10: Maybe because it's, maybe because it's maybe related to the, to the article, because I don't remember finding.  I didn't see the relationship between Government and the article, maybe because I read it in a completely different way, so, so trying to remember.  (exploring tool) Huh. So it will give you something (inaudible sounds like "if or something") or?  

I10: Are they not working.

R10: No.  I remember looking at it, I'm just wondering why, why did you put, (exploring tool) what, yeah, I'm not sure why we have that in tool actually related to government but , you probably know why it was put there right?

I10: The Government tool?

R10: Yes, the government tool, yes, do you remember?

I10: Well just so that someone will want to search for documents that the government might have.

R10: Related to this same material?

I10: Yeah. But in fact many people haven't found anything under this tool so.

R10: Yeah, yeah, Okay.

I10: But maybe for this, for Humanities Computing it's not particularly relevant.

R10:But obviously it is relevant for, for someone if someone had the idea to put it here.

I10: Yeah. Okay so you didn't find anything there?  

R10: No, for me I don't think it's, it's one that I would use a lot.

Book
I10: So on to Book.

R10: Yeah book is good.  Umm, again because the article is in French, it's good as long as I am trying to find related materials and I remember to put English terminology.

I10: Okay.

R10: Yeah, that's the key, ya?

19:38
I10: Okay, so did you find anything that helped your understanding of the piece?

R10: Umm, I didn't look, I didn't use it as much actually to be truthful, so, I can't really answer your question - I don't want to invent anything. 

I10: Okay, that's fine.  In in, do you think that being able to ah, access this tool in this site do find that a good idea?.

R10: It would lead you to. I think it's good, The idea is to find related books?

I10: Yes.

R10: So definitely it would be good for research, yes, yes.  I didn't use it a lot, I think probably because I spent more time on other things out of curiosity and I knew, like I looked at book and I knew what it would lead me, and I thought that's a good idea, so that's why I didn't spend much time. But I would definitely yeah, use it if I was really spending time on the article and wanted to find other materials related to it, that's the idea right, so it would help my research. 

I10: Do you think that you would use books to help you evaluate an article?

R10: Yeah you could yeah, possibly yea, because then you could compare points of views so it could lead you to better assessment of the quality and significance of the article.

I10: Okay.  And for use in your teaching and research?

R10: Yeah for the research in a sense that it will lead me to books I don't know, so in that sense.  In my teaching, it's difficult because of, the type of courses I teach, if I was teaching I don't teach literature, if I was teaching literature then probably, although if I was teaching a course on the computer and humanities in French, possibly yeah.

I10: Okay.

21:40
R10: Yeah, yeah.  It's actually, I found the article quite interesting and I could see using it in my grad course.  So, then in that sense it would really help the grad students to lead them to better research.

Dictionary
I10: Okay then on to Dictionary.

R10: Yeah dictionary that's something I was interested.  And again this I had the same comment to add but, I don't know, if the, is the journal always, will you always have articles in French and English, it's the two main language, or is it just the, or you just put the article in French because you know that.

I10: Ah, the we put them on in this case because we knew we had …

R10: Yeah.

I10: And so, but there's no reason why it couldn't be in French and English in the Future

R10: Yeah exactly. So the only comment I had is, if the journals were bilingual which it could a lot of journals are bilingual some are not, so if they're not then I like the choice it was pretty good I'm sure we could find. Ahh, Wikipedia is definitely a  good choice, like everybody is using it nowadays. If it was bilingual then you would want to add francophone reference for sure, yes.  That would really be useful for, I would say more for teaching in terms of I'm thinking of students being able to have access to extra materials to understand the piece better.

I10: Okay.  And did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R10: Ummm, not really because those terms I know already so I didn't spend too much time looking at them, and then the terms that I would want definition on were in your article in French and then I can have access to.  Umm so I would say no, but it could.

I10: Okay.

R10: Yeah.  If I put different terms.

I10: And do you think that the things that you find with this tool would help you evaluate the quality or significance of the article?

24:04
R10: Umm, not as much as the other one, for me it would be more in terms of understanding in the sense of as compared to quality.

I10: Okay, and you already mentioned for your teaching and what about your research?

R10: For the research yeah, because there will be terminology that might not be clear, so if I can find reference to other theory or if I can have the term explained to me in another way that could help for sure.

I10: All right.  Any other comments about this tool?  

R10: Err, no what I'd like.  What could be great I don't know if it's possible but you know when you're reading the article and (sounds like "in the mike it doesn't") work, because the article is in a different windows but it sure would be great to be able to instead of writing the term to be able to highlight them but you can't, right? You know what I mean,  to highlight and, or click and it would automatically open in the dictionary like it did for - like it did for, what was the other one, Define terms.  

I10: Yeah.

R10: Now what's the difference between define terms and dictionary? (laughs)

I10: Dictionary has more kind of encyclopedic sources.

R10: Yes, well define is really for definition of the term itself.

I10: Yeah.

R10: And that's why this one is more relevant to research and even teaching because it could lead you to more materials, or different theory or critics and all that - this is more like a dictionary.  What I would call a dictionary. Maybe you could call it dictionary and encyclopedia or something. Dictionary for me makes me think of looking in a dictionary for the meaning and that's why umm, -  I understood when I open it I could see, it's actually those are encyclopedia, more than a dictionary.  Maybe you should call it encyclopedia actually instead of dictionary.  Dictionary for me it's looking for the meaning.  But I know that's what you mean by Define terms. Which is good.

Literary Critics
I10: Uh huh.  Okay, on to Literary critics.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article.

R10: For me that was, that was for me close, umm, literary critics and related studies for me were sort of similar so I spent more time in related studies.  It would, it would help me if I find other people who have evaluated the piece I'm reading, definitely, so it would lead me to, it would help me in terms of assessing the quality again.  Yeah, in that sense.

I10: So it would help you for evaluating the piece?

R10: for Research.

I10:And how about for understanding?

R10: For understanding ahh possibly, yeah, if the critics is quite detailed on parts of the articles.

I10: Okay, and for your research?

R10: Well It would if I'm using the article for research and I'm unsure of what the quality or what the relevance of the article is, it would help me of course, 'cause it possibly would lead me to look for other type of related materials.  For teaching, ahh if I'm using it for teaching, yes because I like to put if I use an article yes I like to put it in a larger context.  So then it would help me relate it to other materials and to show how it was evaluated by other people.  I think a higher level of 4th year or graduate studies, possibly, I'm just thinking 'cause of this article is not something I would give in my second year class for sure.  (laughs) Its always kind of the same answers, but.

I10: It's okay. Can you give any examples of what you think you might find there how you might use it?

R10: Literary Critics? If I understand it properly, I didn't spend too much time on this one actually,  Let's see can we try one, can we try that here?

I10: Yeah.

R10: Cause I remember when I used it a lot of what I found was not completely related so, I'm.  (exploring tool) Why is it doing that here, Umm, (pause) well it's,  so it's related to a bigger picture on the hypertext, so I got because of the words that were picked - e-books and hypertext which is wide like a large subject.  It would help me if, lets say for teaching I'm teaching a course on hypertext, e-books and hypertext in French, (exploring tools) let's see it would help me to locate umm materials for instance, yeah.  I didn't,  I find it, I found that it led me to interesting materials but not directly related to the article.

29:28

I10: Okay.

R10: You know what I mean.

I10: Huh, huh.

R10: So it's interesting, but then it goes in a wide, wide area and that's probably because of what was chosen.

I10: Okay. Any other comments about this tool?

R10: Umm, whether we would, should keep it or not? For instance.

I10: Sure.

R10: Yeah why not.  I think it's good, Umm.
 
I10: Okay.

R10: There's only one, there's only one, something I had noticed, it was on,  maybe later on you would add other, I'm not sure whether this other online literary criticism collection, so. I'm not in literature so it's hard for me to give you good, good feedback.  Umm. but I think if you are in literature or even it's any piece any way, you would be interested in seeing critics.  What I found in this case it didn't really give me critics on, (pause) on specific items, you know what I mean, so.  

I10: Okay. 

R10: I'm just thinking of when you, you're so short of time, you want to have access to specific things. So with other words maybe it would give you really specific information.  And it's easy to find like if I click on it, when I clicked on it, I looked at, so I did search, no huh, that's interesting (exploring tool).

I10: It's giving us an error.

R10: Yeah. So that's it, before there were no errors that's interesting, I'm not sure why.  Huh, very strange.  I can see from the title whether it's fairly related or whether it's just not related to what I'm looking for. So I'm not going to spend too much time on it, which is okay, because I don't want to be wasting too much time.

32:22

Book Reviews
I10: Okay. So on to the next tool. 

R10: Book Reviews.

I10: So did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the article?

R10: Not, well.  Well not really it's, it's a bit similar to the one before.  I was more interested in Book reviews because there is more reference to, there's more choices. Again the search terms are quite ummm. general.  

I10: Okay, did you try switching in your own search terms.

R10: No. I didn't spend too much time on that to be truthful.  Well mostly because the article I picked is a French article so, (exploring tool) but I could do something, just thinking with one author that is being referred to, so the problem is, again it's I have a problem with the type of ah, (exploring tool) ah there we go so, then that's good.  I think that's the one I used, I just used, that's one author that is being referred, but again it's not completely related to the articles but he's making a quote, he's making a reference to a quote by (sounds like "Malhroup")  which I didn't know.  So if I could find more materials on that piece of work from (sounds like "Malhroup) I'd be interested because I thought. So, it's good.

I10: Okay.  And how did this tool compare to the others in terms of adding to your understanding.

R10: I like this one better than Literary critics, mostly because there was more choices of reference.  Umm, can I try to put the same thing in Literary Critics, do you mind? (exploring tool) Because that's something I didn't do actually.  Like what would it give me?  It should give me, no, yes, okay.  I didn't try it.  But that makes sense because i guess they can't have everything right. I like this one better the book review is better.  

I10:  Okay, in terms of helping you evaluate the quality and significance of the article?

R10: (pause) Book review I would say the same answer, it, it would help the terms, again the terms that were e-books and hypertext were not completely related, well they were   related to the, to the article, but the article talks about how there's a new way of reading text with the hypertext and e-books, but it's more general reference.  And again it's because the article is in French, so, that's something to consider for you though, if you keep having bilingual. So it's I can't really give you a good answer. 

35:07

I10: Okay, and in terms of finding anything for your teaching or your research?

R10: I would definitely, definitely yeah like what I did just found on  (sounds like "Malhroup.? ) Yeah that would be, either for research or teaching. 

I10: And do you have any other comments about this tool?

Related Studies
R10: No.  I like the next one the Related Studies which is similar to, a bit similar to book reviews, but it gives you a ummm, I wonder I if could put, could I try that, something I'm just thinking I didn't try now, what I found in the, in the related studies, there was some very specific, (exploring tool) I was curious on the how you, that's the one that gave me more and I think we looked at it before didn't we?  I thought we did. 

I10: We briefly did yeah.

R10: Yeah, that's right yeah.  Yeah we did, and if I add French it gives me three instead of two.

I10: Okay.  So in terms of your understanding, adding to your understanding how did you feel about what this tool did

R10: I didn't get a lot of result, well I didn't try with many, many words.   Ummm, and I'm sure with other articles, some of the other articles that are in English I would find more materials.  Umm, Like I said before it would help me assess the quality if I find other materials from the authors, also if I find other materials related to the same subject by many other authors, then it would lead me to assessment of the relevance of the article, which I could use for research and for my teaching if I use that at a high level it would help the students for sure.

37:46
I10: Are there any other ways you would use this in your teaching or your research?

R10: No, mostly I would use it to put it back into perspective and to put it in a bigger context, yeah.  And to, if I was writing an article on a subject related to it to help me find other reference to the subject matter.

I10: Okay.  How did you think this tool compared in terms of understanding or evaluation?

R10: Umm, sort of for me it was comparable to book reviews except that it's not a review, its more like reference to other materials.  So you could use it with a book review, you could find materials and then go back to book review and see if it has been evaluated for instance, that's what I was thinking.  So in combination, those two in combination I thought were quite good.

I10: Okay, and for use in teaching or research how did this tool compare?

R10: To the other one? Ummm, that's the same, I would say it's not, for me it's it would be used it would be similar to ummm, ummm I'm just thinking students would be going to go Google and looking for other materials, and would go to the library and look for other materials, but this one is more precise, so you would have better chance to find related materials.  So it would be as useful as book reviews, more useful than literary critics for sure.  So the dictionary encyclopedia, the book review and the related studies combined, I think that would be good.  That would be useful.

39:08

I10: Okay.  Any other comments on this tool?

R10: No, nothing.

Dissertations
I10: So Dissertations is next.

R10: Yes, dissertation - oh yes that would be really good for the students, definitely, grad students to find out, and for me too.  Umm for research anyway, for the research for research for myself, research for students to find out what has been done on the subject before, before you go into your own research and find out that it's been done before, so definitely.

I10: So did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article.

R10: Not really no, (laughs) no.

I10: Do you think that this tool would help in that, in that function do you think that it's a relevant?

R10: Oh yes probably yeah.  Let's, now it would give you, yes in the sense that you would find dissertation that has been, that have been written on a subject then you could you could have them directed to you, you could go to library and have the dissertation brought to you, so it would.  And any, any reference to the same material will help you.  Now I'm not sure whether, umm I think the way I saw it, it was more useful to find out, I'm thinking for grad students or even for any  researcher, to find out if any dissertation has been done on the subject so to help you define your subject better. So in that sense, related I didn't put it in relation to the article as much as in relation to the subject matter, to make sure that you would engage in original research, and not redo the same thing.  So it's related to the article but you know what I mean, not in terms of understanding the article but more to see whether there would be other areas to explore in the related subject.

I10: Do you think this tool has any role in helping you evaluate the quality or significance of the article?

R10: Yeah it could if you find a lot of work on the subject.  It could umm, but if I'm correct I didn't use it to yesterday again,  but when I used it, (exploring tool) so let's say I do, I'm going to put French there again, because when I do a search it gives me, yeah it gives me a catalogue one (exploring tool) Oops, we should go back to what we had before. (exploring tool)  So this, this one is better because it gives you an abstract.  The other one didn't give you any results that's why.  But I'm just thinking for the student it's good 'cause you have titles, you have an abstract, and you can click on more info  so you can get pretty good reference, so in that sense, yeah, it would help you assess the relevance, more than the quality, I would say.  

I10: In terms?

R10: For the articles.

I10: And how would it, and how would by the amount that it's cited, or?

R10: Yes exactly. Cited or the amount of work on the similar subject.

I10: Okay.  All right.  Any other.

R10: It could possibly I mean you'd have to spend a lot of time on it but.

I10: Any other comments on this tool?

R10: Not really.  

Databases
I10: Okay.  So next is databases.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

43:47

R10: Ummm I can't remember. I spent quite a lot of time on it.  I actually got into, I started to read other materials actually.  It would actually, the question I had was the difference between the database and the encyclopedia.  I was not sure, you know what I mean, and then you have portals.  Because most of the database are encyclopedia so I was, I was not sure why they were not in the same category.

I10:  Oh I see. 

R10: You know what I mean.

I10: Yeah.

R10: For me they all, like those are, well I don't know,  but that was one that's what struck me. Because let's say I go and look for that (exploring tool) and that's the one I used a lot was this one, (exploring tool) no I didn't, again it was so huge that it gave me, I think it gives you a lot of results (exploring tool) Refine your search. (typing) Catholic encyclopedia, that's an interesting choice I was scared but, this one, map collection.  There was not ummm, (exploring tool)  I didn't find anything really related to what I was looking for, maybe it's because of that type of database that has been selected.

I10: Okay.

R10: Yeah.  And another thing that would be useful is, well actually no it's good because it opens in another window but I found in terms of usability I don't know if you're interested in that, but ummm, like I find out that I don't find anything here, I want to go back, I have to go back and do database, you know what I mean? If this goes away it would be good to keep that, to keep that box.  Because I found out that you know, I'm not going to find anything there (exploring tool) But it's obvious that you could have access to a database that will lead you again, it's always the same thing,  that will lead you to other materials and then help you understand the one you're reading and put it in a wider context.  It depends on what has been selected.  One question I had is when the articles are being put is the author, that say I would like to have reference, like how do we select the database?  I'm curious about that, you know what I mean?
47:02
I10:  The databases are selected, there's a bunch of different topic areas for journals, so these ones were selected for Humanities Computing.

R10:  Yes.

I10: And we didn't choose them here, they were chosen by the people who have been setting it up at UBC, so I'm not exactly sure the rationale behind all of them, but I think they just tried to make it fairly broad so they would.

R10: Yes, fairly broad and make sure it's reliable too, that's the database that will be always be available.  Yeah, huh, huh.

I10: So, you didn't find anything with databases, do you have any comments in general about it?

R10: No the only comment was not, I wasn't sure about the difference between dictionary which for me was more encyclopedia and database, and I was wondering whether you want to have two?

I10: Okay.

Portals
R10: Yeah, just thinking for the user, right, in terms of usability.  Umm, and again portals is another type of database.  

I10:  Huh, huh. Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R10: Ahhh, not really to my understanding but, that's where, what I was saying in the beginning that's where I found, I was interested to see how those portals were organized and all that because I'm interested in, I'm trying to develop one for French so.  Umm, so in terms of the articles, I didn't find specific information because the article was in French, so if I wanted to, if I put French words then I'm not going to find anything.  As long as I, as long as I put something in English - I did find, which one was it(exploring tool)I think this one - they were interestingly enough, it took me, like this one, it takes me back to (exploring tool) I thought, oh no, I thought this was the one that was in the database. (Pause) Ummm. I didn't find, I found it led me to pretty ummm, not really precise information, but that's probably because of the words that are chosen, and if I put very specific words then it's hard for the, it's just too precise so it's.  Depending on the type of research you're doing, it could help you, probably because of what I'm doing I didn't.

I10:  In what cases can you give some examples on that might be helpful in your understanding of the article?


50:05
R10: Well the portals, the idea of the portals if I understand it correctly, I should (laughs) is that, let's say, let's say there was a portal, lets say you were doing, the article is relating more to history.  If I click on that, on search and I have, I have specific words - like Okay, so let's I'm going to do a search here, it's going to work a bit like the related studies. It will lead me to other materials on the same subject.  Yeah, so it is good. The advantage of a portal is you can do your own search by subject matter and all that.  It didn't give me anything ummm. Okay, I'll have to go back, (exploring tool.)  do you know what I mean?  Again it's quite it's related to database, portals and dictionary for me (exploring tool) If I put French (typing), this one is a German portal.  (typing) (exploring tool) =  Let's put something that's completely, let's put that for instance and then you go to history guide its totally unrelated to the article thought But it would it would help you if you find anything.  If the portal that you select has - it's kind of hard to tell

I10: Okay. Any other comments on portals?

R10: Ummm, no except that it's just the same comment, it's, it's limited to specific areas like history, ummm, the Dante projects, it's very specific this one, romantic circles, so  I'm just wondering whether you would add other type of portal.  And if you had articles  in French then definitely you would want to have other type of portals. It would be useful for sure though.  Because the portal will help, will help you define your search better than the database usually.

Pay-Per-View
I10: All right.  On to Pay-per-view then.  Did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R10:  Ummm, (pause) no actually the pay-per-view I didn't spend time on it, I assume that pay-per-view is ummm, is related, you're going to find articles that you can, that you can, buy, right?

I10: Yea. Exactly.

R10: Yeah. So it would be good if it's not too - but I think I'd be more tempted to find articles that I don't need to pay for definitely, but it's good to have it if, I didn't find anything specific, but my idea was, if I find an article that I cannot find anywhere else, then if I can do it from home, if I can just do pay-per-view and it's not so, so expensive in terms of time, timing it would be faster than doing an inter-library loan for instance .  In that sense I thought it would be useful. You know as long it's like iTunes if it's 99 cents or something like that, you know what I mean?

I10: Yeah. 

R10: So I'm not sure, I didn't look into like how much they are or whatever.  I didn't spend much time on it, I understood from the title that it was so Yeah.

I10: Okay.  Any other comments about pay-per-view?

R10: No.  Just wondering if there are a lot of people that use it, as long as it's, it's just another ways to find other materials - it's good and if people want to pay for it, that's good.

I10: Okay.

R10:  You know.  It doesn't, the good thing is it doesn't you don't have to click on it, so it doesn't, it doesn't slow the system or anything so, it's just one more option for people to find related materials, so I think it's good.  

Related Texts
I10: Okay.  Related Texts.

R10: Related Texts - ummm.  no and again, related text, the related texts, what was the other thing, ummm, and related studies! I was curious about the difference.  

I10:  Ah, for the most part this one is a lot of primary texts.

R10: That I'm not into.

I10: So I guess for literary stuff this might be more useful.

R10: Yes. 

I10: But that would be useful for sure related texts.  That's something that you would use for sure, because you always when you read an article it's rare that you'd read an article and just leave it, if you really want to explore the article, you will have to read the related. Yeah, so it's definitely a must.  Or,  Related studies.  Related studies I can see it's bigger, it's a bigger picture.  So you will want to have access to related texts it will help you understand that, the primary article.  It will help you with the, in terms of quality, assessment and relevance assessment definitely.
55:58

R10: Okay, can you give any examples?

I10: Well what I would do myself is I will look at related texts before I look at the related studies, if I understood it correctly.  Yeah, yeah, it would help me understand the article better in some respects.  That's something that student, it would be good again in terms of teaching a grad course for instance, and doing an in-depth research on the article or the subject.

R10: Okay.

I10: Yeah.

R10: Umm, would it be relevant for this particular article in any way, this tool?

I10: Ummm, (laughs) to me it's always the same problem Ummm. (pause) I'll try (exploring tool) It's trying (waiting for page to load).  Something I didn't try is to put the author, you could put the author probably, presumably. I've got to go back (exploring tool)  let's try that.  Huh. 

58:31 

End of recording (last 10 min's of interview missing)Interview 11  

R11: I looked at the abstract and then I looked at the PDF's.

I11: Okay.  

R11: (long pause) Your computer has larger print than mine when I look at it on mine I really wanted to maximize the PDF and use the reading tools off and on maybe, rather than have them there all the time.

I11: Oh okay.

R11: And, so then I read through the article kind of started skimming after a while till got to a bit that interested me more near the end which was a current stuff, although I found the early stuff was interesting too about Thomas Aquinas 

I11: Okay.  So I'll just start off by asking you some general questions about these first, the first set of tools.  And the first question is, is in what ways if any does having access to author's bio statement contribute to your reading of the piece?

Author Bio
R11:  By Author's bio statement you mean the author bio thing here  

I11: Yeah.

R11: I didn't look at that this morning.

I11: Okay.

R11: But it was something I would be interested in.  (pause) 

I11: You can have a quick read now if you like.

R11: Okay.(long pause)Yes so I would interested that she's a librarian for example 

I11: Okay.

R11: It was mentioned in the article that I read that involvement of librarians earlier on in the TEI would have been a good thing.  

I11: In the.

R11: TEI - text encoding initiative.  

2:09

I11: Oh okay.

R11: (long pause) Okay.

I11: Any other comments about that then, about the author bio?

R11: No. 

Metadata
I11: Okay, so does any of the metadata in view items metadata add to your reading of the piece and if so in what way?

R11: So you're going to skip capture the citation?

I11: Yeah.

R11: Okay.  Oh yeah I looked at that earlier I thought that that because I can't download citations right now that I thought that that was something I could have done a select all on and copied and pasted it in my own files.

I11: Okay.  And any other comments on that?

R11: (long pause) Not really I guess.  

Define Terms
I11: Okay.  And in this piece do you see value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the look up box in define.

R11: So you have to put it in there and then choose which one you want to search it on?

I11: Yeah.

R11: Is there much of a difference in them? Why would you choose one instead of another?

I11: I guess it was, if you're familiar with them already you would know which one you want to choose.  What happened there?

R11: I accidentally clicked without having selected. And it looks like they don't have it in Miriam Webster, metadata.

I11: Huh, huh.

R11: Oohps.  Online dict - I see that's one of the reasons you have different ones because online dictionaries will probably have a - yea they do. Yeah, so that's handy.  

I11: Okay.

R11: I guess, (long pause) 

I11: Any other comments on that tool?  

R11: No.

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I11: Okay, do you ever see yourself using send link to colleague or email author and would you want these features on your own work?

R11: Yeah, I, I've used send link to colleague sometimes when I'm using furl, Furl, it's a file for URL's. So they're stored on a remote server rather than on your computer.

I11: Okay.

R11: SO I'll occasionally use that,  ummm, yeah,  email the author when I'm working on my PHD might be handy.  

I11: Okay, and would you want people to be able to email you as an author or email you a link to an article?

R11: Sure.

Add Comment
I11: Okay, and what if there were a tool that allowed you to add a comment to the article that would be posted under the abstract or on another page?

R11: Ummm, I probably wouldn't do that.

I11: Okay, any reason why?

R11: Well, if you, if you do that in a paper that you're doing at a conference or something you're, you're give it a lot of thought and if do it spontaneously like this would be you might not be as careful as you should be.

6:45

I11: Okay, and do you have any further comments on any of these first few tools?

Capture Citation
R11: Well there's the frustration of not having the necessary software for capture the citation. I guess you could have a link to UVic's RefWorks, but as I say when I tried to use it I didn't get it going.

7:08 
I11: Okay, one thing that you can do is just copy and paste this. But it's not a direct export.

R11: Oh I see, yeah, which I'd also  said I could do with the metadata.

I11: Right that's right.  Okay, so we'll move on to the find related article -  items among, set of tools.
 
R11: Okay.

Authors Other Works
I11: So the first one is author's other works, did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the original article, or and if you haven't had a look you can go ahead and try it out.

R11: Okay.  I'll look in OIAster cause I've been  reading about it lately.(exploring tool)  You don't get an abstract was this one?

I11: Not with this particular one.

R11: Okay.  It would be nice if it just.

I11: You can go back by right-clicking.

R11: Okay. (exploring tool) Well this one takes you to Google. (exploring tool)  Yeah, so I would use this one looking  for other articles.

I11:  Okay. And can you give any examples of how what you've found here would add to your understanding of the article?

R11: (pause) I might look at the editors for an MA course to see what they're doing there out of curiosity, this is one on existing tools but what I'm more interested in is images and text so. I don't know. So you can't search this once you've, can you put in find or.

I11: Can you search it again you mean?

R11: Well can I search a particular topic of in her articles?

I11: Umm from within, if it's Google you can.

R11: So up here?  

I11: Yeah.

R11: Except for that's not her

I11: I guess if you tried to and, Susan Hockey.  

R11: I can't click, oh you said I could right click to go back.

I11: Oh you went off the page, so just go back, and if you, yeah there you go.

R11: Yeah, so something like this would probably interest me.

I11: Okay and how would that add to your understanding of the article?

R11: Ah well I guess it takes me beyond the article and to what I'm interested in doing (laughs).

I11: Okay.

R11: Which is the reason for reading the article in the first place I guess.  

I11: Okay, and did you find anything in.  

R11: This is, this isn't an article this is, this is a blog or?.  

I11: Ummm, this looks like a forum, a record of some correspondence, this is from the Humanist archives. (long pause) Okay. Did you, did you want to look at any of the other sources on the tool?

R11: No.

12:14

I11: Okay.  So did what you find here help you to evaluate the quality and significance of the original article?

R11: I guess so.  So she has written a lot on the topic.  

I11: Okay.  And have you had a chance, have you looked at many of these tools.

R11: Not these ones here.

I11: Okay. So I won't ask you to compare it just yet.  

R11: Ummm, I, I was going to cancel it today but because it was just a late appointment I've decided I'd better not, but because of this cold.

I11: Well thank you for coming in. 

R11: So I mean I looked at the first set of tools but I didn't get to the second ones.

I11: Well that's okay, we'll just go through them, you can try them out and then I'll ask you and we'll just get through as many as we can in the time that we have, is that all right with you?

R11: Sure.

I11: So still on author's other works can you give me any examples of how it might help you to evaluate the quality and significance of the article?
 
R11: Aha, that's interesting that she's not on Voice of the Shuttle at all I don't (exploring tool) I looked at that one didn't I?  

I11: I think so yeah.

14:20 

R11:. It's taking it's time.
(long pause)

I11: Huh, huh 

R11: Yea, It doesn't really seem to be about her either does it?

I11: Doesn't seem, which? 

R11: To be about Hockey.

I11: Oh.

15:10

R11: (exploring tool) So I don't think she'd be the re. I'll look.  Hockey games (laughs).  

I11: Huh. So any examples of how this tool might lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality of and significance of the study?

R11:  (long pause) Of her article?

I11: Yeah.

R11: Ummm, well I guess the significance is where it turns up like an OIAster and other things.  

I11: In terms of what do you mean by?

R11: Well that (pause) 

I11: Did you mean if it shows up a lot? Or? 

R11: You can  see other works that she's done.

I11: Okay.

R11: And I didn't you know. I wasn't questioning the validity of her article it seemed fine to me , it didn't ring any alarm bells to think you know.

I11:  So you didn't feel you needed to evaluate the quality and significance?

R11: No not in a general overview article like that.

I11: Okay, and did this reading tool lead to materials that you would use perhaps along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R11: No.

I11: Okay.  And did you have any other comments about this tool?
 
R11: Well as I was saying earlier when I was scrolling down, I found it, it was annoying that when you get to the bottom of the page if you scroll too soon you jump to the next one, I'd liked to have it so you could have half a page and half of the next page in the window.

I11: On the PDF?

18:36
R11: Yeah.

Government
I11: Okay, so let's move on to the next reading tool which his government.  I'll give you a minute to explore that.

R11: So I can change these terms?

I11: Yeah.

R11: Why do we have government stuff ?

I11: Well this is just the nature of the tool if you were reading this article and you were looking for additional resources, you can choose any of these tools that will lead you to, this would lead you to sources that were provided on government sites.

R11: So this is Australia.  I keep forgetting the right button.  

I11: So the first question is, does this reading tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R11: Not  just looking at it quickly but, I guess I'd need  to spend more time.  

I11: Okay.  Did you want to spend a little more time looking at it?

R11: Not really. (laughs)

I11: So, just to check, did the tool lead to any materials that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study.  

R11: No.

I11: Okay.

R11: Should I try changing a search term or?

I11: If you like.

R11: So I have to choose one of these?

I11: Yeah.

R11: Don't know what Europa is, but I'll have a look at the About button. (long pause) I, I don't think Government interests me very much. 

I11: Okay. That's fair enough,

22:22
R11: I think I would want you know libraries or institutions,
 
I11:  Okay, and again just to check, does this reading tool lead to any materials that you would use in your teaching or research?

R11: No, not as it is right now.

Book
I11: Okay so we'll move on to book then.  And I'll give you a minute to explore there.

R11: Well system error doesn't, oops, help, shall I try it again? (exploring tool)
Internal server error (exploring tool)

I11: You can also try changing the key words if you want.  

R11: Titles, (exploring tool), okay so there's things here were useful, first one "Digital Images and Archives in the 21st century". 

I11: Okay.

R11: So that's an online so you have to have a Google account.  (hear clicking), Now it disappears again.  

I11: Oh that was strange.

R11: And this time I've got different books.

I11: And they , it defaulted to the original key words.

R11: Oh okay. (exploring tools ) oops.  

I11: You have to click on the one above.

R11: I woke up at 4 am so.

I11: Oh no.

R11: Ummm, so that defaulted again?

I11: No.

R11: Oh I didn't see the book that I was originally looking, yeah, about libraries. Here it is. Okay, so that's sort of the marketing type metadata they're talking about there, not, not so much about the images maybe, but that's the book I'd look at.

I11:  Okay, so I'll just ask again, does this tool lead to any materials that have added to your understanding of the original article?

R11: Yes.

I11: Okay, and can you give me an example of how it adds to your understanding?

R11: Well it was a history of humanities computing and where it's going so this adds to where it's going.  

I11: It adds to your understanding of where it's going?

R11: Humanities Computing. is going

I11: Okay.  And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: Umm, for me it was more useful.

I11: More useful okay. And can you explain why?

R11: Because it came up with results.(laughs)
 
I11: Okay.  And, did this tool lead to material that helped you evaluate the quality or significance of the original study?

R11: I guess so.

I11: Okay.  And can you give me any examples of how it adds to your ability to evaluate the quality and significance.

R11: It led to material I was interested in.

I11: Okay. And how does this feature compare to other tools in this regard?

R11: It yielded results didn't I already  say that?

I11: Yeah, I just have to go through my list, I'm sorry if it's a bit tedious.  Okay and did this tool lead to materials that you would use perhaps along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R11: Ah Research. 

I11: Your research? And in what ways might you use what you found can you give me an example?

28:49
R11:  Well I'm interested in digital images and metadata so, for my PhD so for those reasons, so.

I11: Okay, and how does feature compare to the other tools in this regard.

R11: It was more helpful.

I11: Okay, and can you explain why?

R11: (laughs) I seem to be going in circles.  It yielded results, it found something I'm interested in.

I11: Okay and do you have any other comments about this tool in general?

R11: No, I'm going to look at more results from this book though and see what else shows up. (exploring tool). So when I look at other books and things and it gives me page numbers with little clippings for them that umm, definitely research material. I like that aspect .

I11: Okay.  And so moving on to dictionary, unless there's other, are there any particular tools there that grab your interest that you'd like to go over first?

R11: Well this one that I was just looking at so can I email this to myself?

I11: Umm, If you were signed in to the site you should be able to send, email this link, I believe.

R11: And I can't try that now.  

I11: Well you can, what you can do is you can if you right click and you click send link. Let's see what that does. Doesn't do anything.(exploring site) So this gives us the url, so if we copy that and then you could paste it into an email to yourself. That was just by clicking view page info

R11: Yes, so it's clunky, you can't just do it,

I11: No.  But that's something we could consider ………… so it's good.

R11:  Okay. 

Dictionary
I11: So shall we move on to dictionary then.

31:48

R11:  All right. How is that different from the other dictionary? (exploring tool)Oh Wiki.

I11: So did you want to take a minute and explore this one?

R11: (exploring too)   So wiki has  nothing.  Although, one thing I like about Wiki is the way it handles it's images, so.  I look at digital images and copyright.

I11: Okay.

R11: But it went back to the old topic.  Even though my new one is still there.

I11: That's strange.

R11: Seems stuck.  

I11: Maybe if we reopen this window.
 
R11: Although it doesn't help me too much because, copyright, cause this is for the States and not   Canada. (exploring tool)  Ahh, copyright

I11: You mean the Wikipedia is.

R11: yeah.

I11: Okay.

R11: (exploring tool) So that didn't do anything. Maybe I'll take out the word 'digital' and see what it does.  Nothing there either.  Well it went back to copyright.  See I put in, it keeps going back to my first terms. So that could be a little frustrating.  


I11: Yea, that's obviously a problem. 

R11: (exploring tool)  This one took my terms,  InfoPlease the new terms that I typed in.  

I11:  I'm not sure why it did that.

R11: Although what it's found is sort of not useful.

I11: It's not useful?

R11: Well no, like I put in creative commons and it's found like common cold and most common last names in the US, stuff like that, so there'd be a lot of that garbage to sort through if there is anything about creative commons, I guess, so.  So that's, that's not useful.

35:07

I11: Okay, so I'll just ask does this tool dictionary, lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R11: No.

I11: Okay, and did the tool lead to anything that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original article?

R11: No.

I11: And did the tool lead to materials that you would use in your teaching or research?

R11: No.

I11:  So Literary critics is the next one. Oh did you have any other comments on that dictionary tool.

R11: No I could have, Dictionary, I could looked at something other than this Humanities stuff (exploring tool) although actually (exploring tool) Give Wiki one more try.  Oh I keep looking for things no page with that title that says and I know that Wiki has lots of images of Norse Gods so

I11:  Okay, are these anything down here? 

R11: Ummm, yep.  (exploring tool)  something like that looks like fun but I'm not going to use it for teaching but. Oh this for panorama tools.  I'm going to sneeze pretty soon so.

I11:  Okay.

R11: Okay so if you put the right terms in there, it's useful.  

I11: Okay, so I'll just go back.  I'll just go back over those questions for dictionary then.
Does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article that you read.  

R11:  Ah, no. I have two interests since so they're not generally ones that are put together I suppose, so. Umm, the reason why I'm interested in humanities computing is because of the Norse  images so I've wandered I guess from the article.  

38:24

I11: Okay, so it found materials that were useful but just not related to the article.

R11: Useful for teaching.

I11: Oh okay. 

R11: Like I've just taught a course on Old Norse Gods and Heroes and I'm going to be doing it again.  And I'm going to be working with the images for my PhD, so, they're related, as far as I'm concerned 

I11: So do you have any other examples of how you might use this in your teaching or research?

R11: It suddenly occurred to me that I wanted to look at the metadata they put there.. Sorry what did you ask again?

I11: Did you have any other examples of how you might use what you found in your teaching or your research?

R11: No.  

I11: And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: I'm going to sneeze again.

I11: Okay.

R11: It's a sneezy cold.

I11: Okay.

R11: Have to disinfect the mouse after this.  Ummm, where were we?

I11: So how did this feature compare to the other tools in regard to usefulness in your teaching and your research?

R11: Well it's useful, for teaching and research, yeah.

I11: And more so or less so than the other tools that you've used.

R11: Umm, can't you say the same.

I11: You can say the same, yeah.

40:30
R11: I've looked at this particular item in Wiki before and it's different than it was before so, I'm not quite sure why I've come to a different spot.  I haven't seen this image before.    

I11: Oh okay.

R11: So in fact excuse me, I'm just going to email it.  

I11: And, any other comments about Dictionary?

R11: Ummm (exploring tool) why would you want, dictionary Canadian bibliog . .. biography why would you want that (exploring tool)   No.

Databases
I11:  Okay.  Now when you look at the list are there any there that particularly stand out as ones that you might want to look at?

R11: Well, databases maybe and.

I11: So lets go ahead and look at that one. 

R11: Okay.

I11: I'll give you a minute there.

R11: So I don't have to stick these author's search terms, but then that takes me away from the article.

I11: Yea, you don't have to use those but try and sort of because the questions that we're asking are related to the original article. 

R11: So, you want me to stick to computing rather than ahh, Gods (laughs) 

I11: Well we're looking at how these tools enhance your, your reading of the article, I suppose.

R11: (exploring tool) It's taking me a long time.  

I11: Huh, huh.

R11: So the ones that I would look at here would be UIUC Digital Gateway and I would look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I would look at Literature Arts and Medicine database I guess because it's says Arts.  

I11: Okay.

43:18

R11: And so the UC, UIUC didn't have anything (exploring tool) and neither did the Catholic one. (exploring tool) No I don't think I'm interested in that (exploring tool)	  So this one would have been nice, could just weed out the medicine and stick to the art. (laughs) As far as I'm concerned

I11: Okay.

R11: I don't know what this A2A is.  Access to Archives. (exploring tool) I don't know if this is will pan out anything or not. (exploring tool) people, places, subjects,  Probably not. Okay.

I11: Okay, so did this reading tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R11: No.

I11: Okay, and how did this feature compare to other tools in this regard?

R11: Could have been the search terms of course but it didn't yield results. 

I11: Okay, and does this reading tool lead to materials that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R11: No.

I11: Okay, and how did this tool compare to others in this regard?

R11: It wasn't helpful.

I11: Okay, and does this reading tool lead to materials that you would use maybe along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R11:  No.

I11: Okay.  And how does this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: It wasn't helpful.

I11: Okay, and do you have any other comments about this tool?

R11: No.

I11: Okay.  So, I have to go back to the main tool page. Are there any other tools that stand out that you'd like to try?

47:12 
Portals
R11: Well I'd like to look at portals I suppose though I expect that you would need passwords for them usually

I11: I think to view these one's you don't need password, maybe to contribute to them you do. 

R11: So this is for text.  Oh I see. (exploring tool)   Okay, well, I don't think these will be helpful to me. I'll get there. 

I11: Looks like it's gone into tabs.  

R11: Oh okay I'm back there. The Dante Project, I just look for something I knew should be there and couldn't find it at all.  I don't think these are useful 'cause I think these are all text things.  (pause) No, not for what I'm looking for.

I11: Okay.  So we'll just go through the questions.  
Does this reading tool portals lead to materials that have added to your understanding of the original article that you read?

R11: No.

I11: Okay, and how did this feature compare to other tools in this regard.

R11: It wasn't useful.
 
I11: Okay, and did the tool lead to materials that helped you to evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R11: No.

I11: And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard.

R11: It wasn't useful.  

I11: Okay.  And, did the tool lead to materials that you would use maybe along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R11: No.

51:23
I11: Okay.  And how did the tool the feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: For this topic I didn't find it useful.

I11: Okay.  And, did you have any other comments on this tool?

R11: No.

I11: Okay, and do you have any ideas as to why this tool wasn't useful, or comments on why it wasn't useful for you?

R11: I could take another look but I think it wasn't, (exploring tool) although it should be, it's not yielding anything about Humanities Computing, so I don't know why it's not doing that. If it's, if it's text of the divine   comedy I don't know why it wouldn't find a word that I know is in the comedy.  I did my Masters thesis on Cato and Pierce Ploughman and Cato is in there as well as Pierce so, that word should have been a good one to use.

Instructional Materials
I11: Okay.  Any other tools that you'd like to use in particular.

R11: Well I would look at this instructional materials to see what crops up. 

I11: Okay.  

R11: There's only one edsitement, should have seen what it was about first. So it comes up with one thing heritage scrap books a digital archive of vintage scrap books dating from 1700 onwards,, variety of topics, so. That's something I'd be interested in.

I11: Okay.  

R11: Waiting for browser to come up. And it timed out, (exploring tool) So this Edsitement site is handy, the best of Humanities on the web from the national endowment for humanities, etc. Humanities resources of some of the world's great museums libraries, cultural institutions and universities. That might be useful.
54:49
I11: Okay.  And, so are your ready for the questions, did you want a bit more time on it?

R11: I wanted to look at something here (exploring tool) Yea, so this is the site I  would like to look at again, it's handy. 

I11: Okay.   And did this tool instructional materials lead to materials that added to you understanding of the original article?

R11: Huh, huh, yeah.

I11: And in what ways does it add and can you give me an example or two?

R11:  If I can look back at the article I suppose at the end it where she's talking about where things are going, Ummmm, (exploring tool) yes, here it is.  And she's talking here about Humanities Computing contributing to the putting cultural heritage on the internet.  It's the kind of thinking I was looking at a minute ago there, scrapbooks from the  1700's on, so, it's an example of what she's talking about.  

I11: Okay.  And, how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: So it was useful

I11: Okay.  And can you explain why?

R11: Because found a definite example of something mentioned in the article.  

I11: Okay.  And does this tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R11: Yes.

I11: Okay and in what ways does it help and can you give me an example or two?

R11: Well it helps because it gives concrete examples of things that she's talking about.

I11: For example?

R11: The scrapbooks which was the only example that came up actually but I know there were others out there.

I11: Okay.  And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: useful

I11: Can you explain?

R11: You seem to go around in circles. It had results. 

I11: Okay.  I just have to ask everything.

R11: I know but I would redesign this

I11: Does this reading tool lead to materials that you would utilize perhaps along with the original article?

R11:  Yes.

I11: In your teaching and your research?

R11: Research probably.

I11: Okay.  And in what ways might utilize them and can you give me an example?

R11: Well I'm interested in metadata so I would look at how they had marked up their images.

I11: Okay.  And how does this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: It's useful.

I11: Any examples?

R11: I found results.

Search Engines
I11: Okay.  So back to the tool list.  What would you like to do next? 

R11: I wouldn't really use much, I mean search engines must, pretty much the same as the dictionary wouldn't it, there you have Google and Google scholar.

I11: Do you want to give it a try, we do have, we have.

R11: Well I haven't heard of Vivissimo so  I'll look at that.

1:00:08  
I11: I think we have time to do at least one more tool, so why not try it?

R11: Well this one is software.  "creates  innovative software to access and cluster" (exploring tool) so I don't know how it (exploring tool), that's nice that UVic Humanities computing shows up first.

I11:  That's interesting.

R11: That's just their homepage isn't it? Yes. We're famous (exploring tool) Whoops and there's this Clusty the Clustering engine, which I've never heard of.   I think it's a terrible name.  (exploring tool) So this is also vivisimo. (exploring) Sorry I have to try this.

I11: Sure.

R11: (exploring) So this is interesting I would use this for teaching and research because it's come up with pictures I haven't come across before searching on the web.  

I11: Okay. So its got your tabs again. Did you set that up or did it just start to do that?

R11: It just started to do that. So is this a search engine I can only use on this program or?

I11: No, it's something that is accessible online.

R11: Okay so I'm done with that one

I11: Okay.  So did this reading tool Google search lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R11: But this isn't Google search.

I11: Oh I'm sorry, search engines. That's an older version and we only had Google. Did it add, did it lead to materials that added to your understanding of the article that you read?

R11: Ummm I'm afraid not, I was wondering again in to my other interests.

I11: That's okay.  And . . . 

R11: That's because I don't think it found things for let me quickly try again.  Well it does pick up things for Humanities Computing and interestingly enough it's UVic again.  A recent conference last June and things, here's  UCLA, so yes, for both research and teaching it would.


1:04:25
I11: So lets just go back to. So does it lead to materials that add to your understanding of the original article?

R11: I think it would yes.

I11: Okay.  And in what ways does it add and can you give me an example or two.

R11: Well here's an article, Humanities Computing from the Digital Classicist.  That I would probably take a look at.

I11: Okay.  Any other  examples?

R11: Yeah there's the Oxford University computing services guide to digital resources for the humanities.

I11: Okay.  And how, how would these add to your understanding?

R11: They would take me beyond the article so.

I11: Okay.  And how does this feature compare to other tools in this regard?

R11: It was useful.

I11: Okay.  Any explanation of why it was useful?

R11: Yeah it found both images and articles that interested me. 

I11: Okay.  And does this reading tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R11: Yes.

I11: Okay.  And in what ways does it help and can you give me an example or two?

R11: Well if she gave a history of humanities computing and talked about where it's going and these articles especially show what's happening now so, it's, the original article is relevant.

I11: Okay, because the stuff that you found sort of exemplifies what she's talking about.

R11: Yeah.

I11: Okay.  And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?


1:06:23
R11: It was useful.

I11: It was useful?

R11: Yeah. 

I11: Okay.  And any explanation of why?

R11: It was useful because it found results

I11: Okay.  And does this reading tool lead to materials that you would utilize perhaps along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R11: Yes.

I11: Okay.  And can you give me an examples of who you might utilize them.

R11: I would use the images in teaching and in the research I'm doing for the digital repository  The articles would help also. 

I11: Okay.  And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: Well it is quite useful.

I11: Okay.  Do you have any other comments about this tool?

R11: No.

I11: Okay.  So since we're almost time up let's go the general concluding questions, so has what you've learned today changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R11: No.

Value of Knowledge
I11: Okay.  And what do you see as the major challenges if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R11: Knowledge in general?

I11: Yes, it's a big question.

R11: (laughs)Well, I prefer reading things on paper rather than online, so it's bit of a stumbling block that needs to be overcome I guess.  I'd say that's a  major challenge persuading people to read stuff online.

I11: Okay.  And do you have any comments at all about this in general. 

R11: No.

I11: Okay.  So since we have more time, we'll go back to the reading tools, did you want to choose another one there?

R11: We did abstracts and bio and citation and metadata.

I11: Let's try one of these ones here.

R11: Oh down there.

I11: Yeah.


Book Reviews
R11: Well book reviews wouldn't talk about an article would it?
 
I11: It might talk about books that would relate to the article.  

R11: (exploring tools)  so those terms didn't bring up anything. (exploring)
I think that early modern literary studies would have something about digital humanities, but it's timing out, having problems.

I11: Okay. 

R11: And I, and I looked at the other ones without finding anything except 
(exploring tool) So there's a lot of stuff here in Bryn Mawr.  …………….. 

I11:  Mawr, 

R11: I'm going to go back and ah (exploring tool)  

I11: Oh it's done the same initial search again.  So we'll have to reopen that window. Book Reviews

R11: It's done the same one again, it has even though I changed the terms it didn't change.

I11: No it did.

R11: Oh it did.  I was fooled because the same text came up again.

I11:  Huh, huh.

R11: Just don't seem to relate to my terms. My search terms aren't turning up in the titles at least

I11: Okay. 

R11: Now Ill look at the first one. 

I11: Are you ready for those questions.

R11: Oh probably.

I11: Okay.  So does this reading tool, book reviews lead to materials that have added to your understanding of the original article?

R11: Yes.

I11: Yes, Okay. And in what ways does it add and can you give me an example or two?

R11: It talks about the author Susan Hockey as being an authority in the field.  And that she's produced things that are useful for people doing their own electronic texts.

I11: Huh, huh, and how does this feature compare to other tools in this regard?

R11: It's useful.

I11: Okay. And can you explain?

R11: I found items related to the article.

I11: Okay. And how does this reading tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R11: It verifies the author's authority

I11: Okay. I skipped ahead to how, so yes it does?

R11: Yeah.

I11: And the how, you just said, did you have any other examples of how it helps?

R11:  No.

I11: Okay. And how does this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: It was useful.

1:15:26
I11: Okay. Any examples?

R11: Well, this article that I'm looking at, and there were other articles that I thought looked useful.  There's a directory of electronic journals, newsletters and academic discussion and stuff, helpful.

I11: Okay. And where was I now.  You were talking about how it compares.

R11: Oh I said it was useful because of the sort of things that turned up. 

I11: Okay. And did this tool lead to materials that you would use perhaps along with your original article in your teaching or research?

R11: Yes.

I11: Okay. And in what ways might you utilize and can you give me an example?

R11: Well I'd use them for research for example this directory of electronic journals newsletters and academic discussion is interesting.

I11: Okay. And how did this feature compare to the other tools in this regard?

R11: It yielded results. 

I11: Okay. And can you explain what kind of results.

R11: Ahh things that I'd look further at.

I11: Sorry.

R11: Items that I would look further at.  

I11: Okay. And in comparison to the other tools?

R11:  It was useful.

I11: Equally so?

R11: Equally so.

I11: Okay. So any other comments about this tool or any others before we finish?

R11: No I've made notes from several of the tools that we've looked at things I want to pursue in the future. 

I11: Okay. 

R11: It's pretty good.

I11: Okay.Interview 12 

Author Bio
I12: The first question is: In what ways if any, does having access to an author bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece.

R12: umm, I would normally read an author bio statement on a book for example, something that's difficult online to find on occasion umm if I'm looking for things for research purposes, I'm usually aware of who the authors are in the field, but I did look on it, at this as a preliminary just to what it has to say.	

Metadata
I12: And Does any of the "metadata" in "View item's metadata" add to your reading of the piece and if so, in what way?

R12: No it doesn't really add to the reading of the piece, but because I'm interested in metadata, and humanities computing issues, I did take a look because I think most people in the field might take a peak at it to see the structures of the program and how its served.  But no, it didn't really add to my understanding of the reading of the piece.  

Define Terms
I12: And In this piece, do you see value in being able to look up a term (by placing it in the lookup box in Define) in the available sources?

R12: Well I see value in that, except that you can't really place that in the look-up box because it won't allow you to copy and paste a PDF file you know words in a PDF file.  So you have to, the instructions are a bit misleading there because you can't click and highlight and paste, but you can type it in.  And I feel that it's somewhat a useful tool especially in a specialized area which much of this is however, it takes you to ahh options for glossaries, doesn't it?

I12:  Yeah, yeah.

R12: I found that very frustrating because every time you type in something and go away, you would have to close the window and go back to the glossary, and redo the whole process.  So, that was frustrating and would turn me off and I would stop using it pretty quickly.  People in the field tend to know which glossaries they want to go to, so they will go to Google.  Or they'll simply type in the Glossary, keep it in a separate window if they need it, and have it one available that they want to use.  

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I12: And do you ever see yourself using "Send link to colleague" or "Email author"; would you want these features on your own work?

R12: Yes.  I think I would use those I think its somewhat gratuitous because all that send link to colleague and email author, is usually one of the last things you read or find in a bio and it's easy enough to do, if you want to do it - would it prompt me to do it more often, because it's easier than just finding that information, probably not.  

I12: And would you want that on your own work, just for your own article?

R12: Yes, in this case I would in some other publications I wouldn't. 

Add Comment
I12: And what about a feature that would allow you to add a comment to the piece on this web site? 

R12: Well it depends on how it's displayed and who is going to read it and whether it would be of value to the community If there is a web board or a discussion list that is available and it's viewable by those reading it, and there's some indication or prompt that says that certain people have added comments on this article etc., then it might be valuable, but otherwise I think many people would rather email the author with direct discussion versus just posting it in a discussion - people don't have time for that.   

I12: Great, do you have any further comments on any of this first set of tools.

R12: No I think it's probably useful to have that there - it's one step removed from various things.  Those who come to a section of a journal such as this, to read these kinds of articles, are pretty well versed in this area and have the knowledge of Humanities computing and thus, a pretty good idea of how to find those types of things and do it anyways  - so whether it saves you time and energy or actually adds confusion because it's not a well designed navigational  structure, or there's glitches in the program such as the glossary issues, where you know where the instructions are not quite right and you have to keep going back - that will actually turn people off, at least it would me, from using it after the first few times.

Authors Other Works

I12: Alright, so let's move on to the second set of tools Author's Other Works.  And the first question is, does this Reading Tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R12: No. There's nothing in here that added to my understanding of the original article, partly because there's no other works by this author and there's no other works that you can actually get to based on the journals that are offered there either within the source journal or other journals that are posted there which all have free access.  

I12:  And how did this feature compare to other tools in this regard, with regard to adding to your understanding.

R12: Are we just talking about  just other author or all of these.

I12: Just other author works compared to all of those.

R12: Well I think it would actually be a really useful feature and maybe the most useful feature if the journal were populated well, with other works.  So it's really a question of scope  and I think it's the same with all those tools the truth is that that on a micro scale the open journal, umm this tool author's other works  could become very useful if there is a range of other works especially within the different sub-headings that might be difficult to find otherwise, so you know the tool is really a time saving device as far as I'm concerned and a research resource and if it helps you save time and get you to the things that you need then that's useful.  

I12: So just to clarify so this is taking you like it takes you out of the site?  

R12: Yes, and I couldn't find any of his other works on any of those that I checked, 

I12: And I think you have to deselect the other authors if you want just him.

R12: Lets give it a go and see if I remember this quickly (exploring the tool) So lets do...more likely to be here..., so yeah, so that one I would find useful - the problem again is that on a macro scale, it may be just more useful and that's  exactly what this does, is you punch the name in in Google.  And Because you not only get articles from Virginia but, anywhere else online.  

And it gives you a basic understanding of who is from and what the title and sometimes opening line but the searching through whatever amount that you get, to try and find something relevant is a little bit too much time.

So, yeah I would say it's a relatively useful tool - it eliminates a step or two but again someone who has the knowledge of search protocol could probably do better just by using Google and advanced Searches.

I12: Just so that I hit on all my questions does this Reading Tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R12:  No, there's nothing there that really helps me to advance, well anything that leads me to evaluate quality and significance - Uh, hard to say, I mean, to me that is a broad category that really is better understood with knowledge of the field.  And umm the web is good as any open journal etc. on a macro scale versus micro on what is available by that author within that context within that discipline.  And, it's growing but it's not there - what is peer reviewed or not, we're not always sure. What  is a good article or not in the field, it's very hard to define - much of it is access only either password protected some of it's pay.  So, it's difficult to find and get to certain resources that might help me evaluate this article - certainly you can get to tools that might help to analyze this article, but evaluate that's really a knowledge issue not much of a tools issue.  

I12: And how did you think this feature compared to the other tools with regard to evaluating the quality and significance...

R12: Authors other works?

I12: Yeah.

R12: We're still on it?  Oh okay, I was speaking a little bit more general - well that in particular might help if again you could find enough relevant articles by the same author.  And then it could be useful, because again it's a knowledge issue, because the more you can build your knowledge of a particular persons writing, within the discipline the better you are able to evaluate any particular article. So yes, I would say, if the articles are there and the availability to them is open access then it certainly could - getting there via this or via Google as far as I'm concerned is pretty much the same thing. 

I12:  And, did this tool, Does this Reading Tool lead to materials that you would use--maybe  along with the original article-in your teaching or research?  

R12:  That I would see would be useful. And it could be useful within a teaching setting and research - I actually did that - I read the article and went and looked for some other works and since the tool was there and  in front of you I think a lot of people tend to use it.  In a teaching environment I think, umm it's relatively simple to use, so I think defining the steps of use to students - at this level the Graduate students that would be reading these types of articles, likely would have a pretty advanced sense of computer use.  Likely with Google, or go to the library to find text from this person or other resources - computers don't answer questions, so people with knowledge would be the primary resource, so would probably come with an instructor and clarify what is good what is not, and of course, the instructor will pre-arrange all that in a syllabus or other materials.  But I see it useful as long as it works and functions simply and well umm and at the moment it doesn't.  
At least that Glossary section has a little bit of a problem.  
And overload is another issue; you have to be able to define what is useful and not when you have 18 pages of returns.  And so in syllabus or in learning materials  that an instructor would define likely we would define those to begin with so someone could just go to that site, regardless of what is available here as a tool.  
I'd say yes, it could be useful but in place of other things? Hard to say.  

I12:  And how did you think Author's Other Works compares to the other tools with regard to usefulness in your teaching in research?

R12: I think some of the same things we just discussed - it really depends on the level of preparation an instructor puts into a course how well defines the resources and what needs to be read, I think leaving students open-ended to find articles by another author that and they are not aware of the author's works or even the context of the discipline, is going to lead to a lot of frustration.  

I12:  And did you have any other comments on this tool?

R12:  No, overall it's a pretty good tool, it has potential for use depending on the course whether the author populates those sites that you make available.  

Government

I12:  Okay, so we'll move on to the next tool, which is Government, and we might not get through all of the tools in an hour and a half, so were there any in particular you wanted to comment on?

R12: Well I don't even think I looked at the Government . Its probably the one that least interested me so the ..

I12:  Are there any that, I just want to know are there any that  stood out to you that you particularly wanted to comment on or that you used more than the others?

R12:  Well I really liked … we can go through them, how about we go through down the line and I'll try to rack my memory on those I didn't use or I didn't find useful, we can just gloss over them.  

I12:  Okay, and so is Government one of those?

R12: Yeah I didn't use it.  If I look at it now and I think about its use and what its available for, I guess I can see some potential for those who are doing research in certain areas in looking at grant funding perhaps, or agencies that might be involved in that particular discipline for funding perhaps purposes or research in that area, it really again just depends on what's available on those particular sites that the university has.

I12:  Okay, so we'll go over the list and skip over the ones you're haven't used, and if we have enough time, we'll come back for comments on them.

R12:  Yeah.

Book

I12:  So, How about Book?

R12: Umm, let me see.. yea, I think this is a pretty good tool.  I didn't spend much time here because I just kind of picked and chose certain things that I wanted to look at.  But I do remember seeing this, and I think this might be particularly useful is only if you can refine your search and get to very specific things, because we're talking to about hundreds and thousands and millions of books here, and, the biggest issue always within tools is, mechanisms for defining, refining searches and limiting materials, and more than gathering them because you always come back with way too many hits.  And then the biggest issue again you know along with that is that the nature of the web, is what's valuable and what's not.  

I12:  OK, So does this tool Book, lead to materials that have added to your understanding of the original article?

R12: Well, I think it probably would, I didn't explore it that much, so, but I see potential there and I think its potential is to do just that.  Whether there's materials out there and you can find them, is the big issue through search mechanisms and that's where guidance always comes into play and that's why we have professors.

I12:  Okay.  

R12: Or at least people who can point you to relevant reference materials.  

I12:  So potentially then, can you give me examples of how this might add, lead to materials that add  to your understanding.

R12: Yea you know Willard McCarty  in particular is editor of, founder and editor of a forum called The Humanist, has quite a few pieces online. umm Whether there's literary criticism about his work available online - likely not.  There's very few secondary materials in some ways available online for, that would lead to greater understanding of a particular piece or a particular book.  For that you would have to go to print mainly.  But you could find other contexts in which, you know Willard writes, and the online forum Humanist would be something that would certainly and probably add to your understanding of this article due to the nature of what the Forum does.  And other articles too by Willard, and perhaps others by these folks as well who publish very much on the same topics. So  I see potential there.   

I12:  Okay, are you speaking specifically to Book or are you speaking more generally.

R12: I'm speaking more generally, but I'm speaking specifically too because the Book function within these parameters, and Google is probably the biggest one there, it really again, it really depends on what's available.  So I don't think it's a limitation of the tool, as much as it's a limitation of the web and the criteria under which we have to all sit, you know, when we use the thing.  

I12:  So with regard to adding to your understanding of the original article how does this feature compare to the other tools?

R12: Well I think it's a good feature, are you going to get to your question on teaching and learning and . . . 

I12:  Yes I will.

R12:  Okay.  I would probably use this feature as much or more than the others.  The actual heading of the book though, is a bit ambiguous; it's hard to know what that exactly means.  

I12:  Okay.

R12: When you look at it and what it will do for you, so, I don't think it's intuitive.  

I12:  And does this reading tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R12:  Well as a tool, it can only take you to the resources that 'll do that, so, uummh, these are good resources to go to and if you're not aware of where to go to, this is probably a good place to start. In that sense I think it would be good but again people who are familiar with the field and the discipline and likely ones are those who are going to be using this , other academics,  they'll probably know where to go and how to find and evaluate this article or have professional knowledge -that just allows them to do that.

I12:  In what ways does it help you evaluate the quality and significance of the study - do you have any examples that you could give?

R12: In what ways does it? 

I12: Yes.

R12:  Well it could take you to other works by the author it could take you to other people and disciplines who might be discussing works of this kind - articles of this kind - it may be depending on how you're able to search these four categories, these four repositories , you may be able to find discussions or arguments for this particular topic so, that would help you to understand your article,  The more that you can find within this context of modeling, data modeling, humanities computing the greater you can, the more you will learn about the discipline and the more you are able to fit this article within that context, so I think it can.  Again, does it do it better than simple Google searches - I think you could probably Google a very good search for specific items if you knew what to look for and people in this field, advanced in this field, would probably just as likely be able to do that.  

I12: And how does this feature compare to other tools in this regard, specifically in terms of evaluation?

R12:  Again this is a tool, so it doesn't really help you evaluate anything.

I12:  Or the materials that it leads to.

R12: Yeah.  These are all big questions because you really have to go through materials within these search offerings and see - and it's difficult to do, but I see potential to find things again that would help you to evaluate this article.  It could certainly take you to other tools that might allow you to analyze this article, through the Tapor Portal or other areas that have Analysis tools available - so that might be useful, as something to add to that it would take you to text analysis - tools that might be able to allow you to push this in there and analyze certain aspects of it.

I12: How does this feature compare to the other Tools in this regard?

R12:  Well I liked this Tool because it takes you to a repository that I recognize and like, some of the others take me to repositories that don't interest me because they deal with other subject headings that aren't as relevant to Humanities Computing per se, whereas, Books online and Google Print , and online books these types of things are very broad and general and allow you to search again if you know what you're looking for and they're so large that they have pretty good collections.  

I12:  And does this tool lead to materials that you would use perhaps along with your original article in your teaching or research? 

R12: It couldn't lead to that, I think its, it would probably be just as useful to have students at an introductory level learn how to use the tool well.  And learn search functions and become familiar with finding relevant materials and evaluating them and not necessarily finding materials that are relevant to this article.  So that would be one way to use it in teaching.  Again, having a ummm, really knowledge of the field is what matters and being able to guide students to relevant content on the web is the key.  

I12: And any examples of how you would use this tool in your research?

R12: Well I kind of had fun doing this. Just because you come to a new site and you haven't been here yet, I haven't explored this site,  you always look at the headings in the Tools and you read the article and you think, Oh I wonder what they can do for you, and so you look at things and you test it out and sometimes you get lucky and Find  something you like and and that's obviously the result of the tool.  So you hit something and, again you can do the same with Google and find things - there's very good chance if you're looking for other books you would go to one of these so having them here available certainly saves you steps so I think that's significant, so yeah I think it could help in research in a sense it will save you time and brings you in contact with what's available on the web  

I12: And how does this feature compare to other tools in this regard with regard to use in your teaching and research?

R12: Well yea I think pretty much- my answer to that is pretty much the same for all of them, which is the tool itself - you really have to play around with it and take a lot of time to use it - books in particular, people search for those, they want to find them - what's the difference between book and book reviews? - you're going to find some of the same stuff in these sites.   And same with related studies, databases a lot of these as far as the web's concerned - get piled into the same kind of repositories.  So whether it's all ummm more useful I think it all depends on what you want to find.  

I12:  And, just to go back a little, we talked about examples of how you would use the tools specifically in your teaching or your research, what about the materials you would find with that tool? 

R12: Well I think, I think I would use these tools and I would use the materials. The material  that's in there right now - some of these are staples in Humanities Computing curriculum, so these would be used, I would use them.  

I12: When I say the materials, I mean whatever you find in these searches.

R12: Well there's a good chance - I'd  have to again evaluate them, read and evaluate, umm, if I find things that are already familiar to me by certain authors that I know are relevant, then there's a good chance I would use them and, that would be useful. So, I would say I would. Yea.

I12: So I'm moving on to the next Tool, do you have any other comments about this tool - Book?

R12:  No, sounds good.

Dictionary

I12: I'm moving on to Dictionary, is the next one.  So does this tool lead to material that added to your understanding in the original article?  

R12: No I found this tool particularly frustrating because it takes you to, as far as I remember a lot of different types of dictionaries and some of them you're not all that familiar with initially by the descriptions they give you and don't give you what you want to find - I tried these and, I can't find the terms I'm looking for.  So, I didn't find it very useful.  I ended up going to you know, sources I was familiar with, so I think there is a limitation there in the materials available -and I turned up nothing on all three of those searches, so.

I12: Then we may as well skip ahead - so you found nothing at all?

R12: No, I tried a number of different terms.  I think I did find one or two that I did pushed in there just to ahh, more familiar stuff that I'd find but, I didn't find it that useful. 

I12: Okay, so we'll move on to Literary Critics then?

R12:.  The other thing is that you've got a Glossary of Terms that take you to Dictionary and maybe Dictionary's not the best term to use there.  And it's hard to say because it seems a bit redundant, so.

I12: Okay so  Any other comments about Dictionary?

R12: No, that will do.

Literary Critics

I12: So literary critics, did this Tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R12: (exploring the tool) umm, no I didn't think I found anything on this search - it just may be that the collection doesn't have the material - secondary materials are not so easy to find on the web, at least not articles directly related to other publications - criticism on literature - at least in my opinion, there's plenty out there but I still find going to the library more useful.  

I12:  So, you found nothing in your searches.  Did you have any other comments on this Tool?

R12:Well, I would love to see this tool developed because this is where I think a tool if it took you to relevant sources, and that's what a lot of bibliographies do in particular articles, and I think it's kind of redundant in a way in that you can go to bibliographies and they are posted here, as with most articles, and I think a lot of researchers tend to if they want to learn more they look at the bibliography to see where the materials come from - but if there ware some  really  good collections that were very specific to this particular topic and discipline and available on the web I think this could be a very useful tool and it's one I'd use in teaching and learning and for research to follow up.  Because it's often very difficult to find good secondary reference especially in a field like Humanities Computing that's growing and in essence the last body of work is criticism anyways, so.  It would be helpful I think to find more material easily.

Book Reviews

I12:  So moving along to Book Reviews. 

R12: I don't think I went here, and if I did I don't remember it, so - no I did go here.

I12: So did this Tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article.

R12: No I couldn't find anything that relevant in - it seemed like a time drain trying to refine a search that would find something - I did a search if I recall basically on these terms and then I did a few others more general and what I got back specially from New York Times and Literary Studies was a very general - not very useful stuff.

I12: So do you have any other comments on this tool?

R12: No, Umm Book Reviews are great for people who are not familiar with the field or discipline especially umm, but I think very quickly, once a work is published within the discipline people are very familiar with it at least familiar whether its you know,  the grape vines pretty fast and accurate as to you know what's good and not useful.

I12: And Just to check, Did this tool help you to evaluate the quality and the significance of the original study

 R12: No

I12: And did it lead you to that would lead you to anything that you would use in your teaching or your research?

R12: Probably not. 

I12:  And how do you think this tool compare to the others?

R12: Well it seems a little more useless than the others or less useful - in this field in particular, you're just not going to find many book reviews in Humanities Computing publications - you just don't, it's not something that is that common, so in this particular area I don't think umm, it's not something you're going to find.  And again people go to Bibliographies or go to books, other books, maybe literary criticism, at least I would before I go to book review.

I12:  Okay.  And just maybe back tracking a little bit, how did you think that literary critics compared to the others?

R12: Well as it stands right now I didn't think it very useful because of the sources and, I don't think it's an issue with the sources I think again it's a general macro issue with the web and what's available period.  And what we can have access to.  You know, the world is digitizing right now, so it's in process.  So libraries are not available in a lot of em aren't free  so, journals as well.  

Related Studies

I12: So we'll move on to Related Studies, did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the original article?  

R12: Umm. Yeah I did, I went to the ahh, here I went to the, IATH, the institute for Advanced Technologies for Humanities because just because I'm familiar with it - the other areas don't interest me because they are more discipline specific meaning, I should say ahh,  yeah discipline specific and Humanities Computing is so cross disciplined and multi-disciplinary that taking us to an Institute that does exactly this, Humanities Computing, is probably more useful than going to an English or Perseus digital library.  Again, if you're in Greek and Roman Studies or Classics then Perseus is very valuable tool and you might find something there that instantly clicks - this article you relate it associate it to something you've read - you're familiar with Perseus then you might go there and use it.  But for me it didn't do it.  So number four there I did find related works that would interest me.   

I12: Can you give me an example of how it might have added to your understanding of the original article?

R12: I was able to find other works by this author and that's useful and other works within Humanities Computing specifically, that basically touch on the same topic - so that's useful - again you build context, you build your knowledge of the topic area, so that I found useful, and I think the other areas too would do the same for those who are in those disciplines.  So its ah, these are great, ah, I'm familiar with three or four aids and they're all good tools good repositories in the field, so.

I12: And how does this feature compare to other tools in this regard - with regard to understanding? 

R12: Umm. Well For someone who is not familiar with this area of study, may be in English or Anthropology, and has a tangential interest in Humanities Computing would probably really appreciate access to these sources and may or may not know about them, and that would be very useful - these are excellent sites and I think there's a wealth of material on them, and so I think it's quite useful. And those who know their disciplines would likely go to a number of these anyways, so I think they're pretty useful tools.

I12: And did this tool lead to materials that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R12: Yeah I think so.  I think reading, umm, anytime you read you have a fairly defined collection of articles within a discipline and the topic within that discipline an area of study and research - that's quite useful.  The big issue with the web again is getting to it.  And these particular areas are areas I think people would go to for that.  So I think um, and trusted areas, so that people would point their students to it, umm to do general research and those who are doing research in those areas those tools are valuable online sources.  So those who use the web for this, and do Humanities Computing in these areas would use them and I would too.  

I12: Can you give me an example or two of how what you might find, what materials you might find through this tool can help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R12: Well in this case, the Institute of Advanced Technology has a lot of different headings and access to articles and tools and teaching curriculums and programs - so I think so much of this again the whole thing just depends on how well you explore the tools -and that's a big task right .  How well you've explored the sites that the tools will take you to.  So in this case I'm somewhat familiar with this site, so and I know that it offers a whole wealth of good material.  So I think it can be very useful.  And what its useful in doing is exposing you to and giving you access to things that will help you evaluate - the only thing it helps you evaluate is knowledge of the field understanding of a wealth of different writings in the field, so it gives you access to that and then with that just apply your experience and knowledge.  

I12: And how did this feature compare to other tools in this regard?

R12: Well I really liked this one because I would go to some of these areas anyways to find information and I think having more there would be even better I mean there's certainly other disciplines in Humanities that have really good sites available so, the more related materials you can provide access to the better.  And I think in this particular tool the materials they take you to are quite good.  And partly because they're academic sites that everyone has free access to versus book reviews dictionaries and other books.  

I12: And does this tool lead to materials you would use maybe along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R12: Ah yes, I think there's a lot of material here that would be useful and I would certainly point to students because I trust these sites, and it would be a good place for general learning, perhaps give the students a range of articles at the site that your familiar with, to read for background purposes or very specific articles in site or tools or whatever you're trying to teach within that area cause some of these are very large sites and have huge amounts of material, they're good repositories that I think are trustworthy because the vast majority of them I don't know if all are, other academic institutions, so you can trust the peer review on it.  

I12: And in what ways might you utilize the materials this tool leads you to and can you give me an example?

R12: Well as I just said, you can, many of these sites have access to search refined search tools, text analysis, large headings of different categories within the discipline - all of those things are useful when we're trying to find relevant materials because the issue of the web of course isn't so much the availability - things are pretty available - it's quality and review of those items, the more you can refine those and that's what these areas have done and made it interesting,  the more you can use them.  

I12: And how did this feature compare to other tools in this regard ?

R12: I like this one quite a bit. I think it would go pretty high on my list - partly because it just takes you to real exploration - it's the type of tool you go to - you look and you can open a lot of doors for you - whereas if you're looking for very specific things, then that might help you with a particular article or area or criticism or other books umm, I'm not as big a fan of repositories as I am of focused sites such as these such as fairly discipline specific.

I12: Okay.  Any other comments about this tool?

R12: No, I think the thing there is I think these are good materials, these site offer and you can widen that for other disciplines.  

Dissertations

I12: Okay, so moving on to the next tool which is Dissertations.

R12: I'm not sure I went here. Lets see.  Yeah, I think I did a quick search of these very terms and I didn't find anything so - well that's not true I did find things but nothing relevant because I think it was just a key word search which takes you to every discipline across the board and that's not very useful.  Again that's why its something a very large collection or original works and I'm thinking something like Perseus that's part of the related materials that umm is discipline specific and focused really allows you to explore the site and find what you want within a discipline, whereas a keyword search into these data bases isn't going to give you much. 

I12:  So you found no relevant results here.

R12: Yeah I didn't explore it that much but I didn't see the potential for it because you know what I got back it didn't, none of it was relevant.  


I12:  Did you have any other comments on tool then?

R12: No not so much. No

Databases

I12: So the next tool is Databases. (phone call interruption). So moving on to databases,

R12: Alright what did I do here lets see. (explores site)

I12:  So did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article.

R12: I don't think I did this one. (exploring site) And I think because I read it there is nothing in there that caught my eye that seemed it might be useful in relation to this article.  At least not specifically.  Anyways I don't remember exactly I just didn't do it.

Portals

I12:  So we'll move ahead to Portals.  

R12: (exploring site) Yeah I didn't really do much here I might have searched these specific terms but there is no Portal here that really caught my eye that on the surface seemed like it would return something useful.  At least not for my interest.  

Pay-Per-View

I12: And Pay-Per-View is the next one

R12: Yeah I didn't do it because I don't want to Pay-Per-View 

Related Texts

I12: And the next one being Related Texts?

R12: Yeah, this Related Studies and Related Text is pretty similar because you have a lot of the same, you have a number of the same items up there or same sites but these are all very good archives, and I would pretty much say the same about this as I would about Related Studies and may be the most useful ones here.  But, Related Text, Related Studies - what's the difference you know?  Maybe that could be combined into a single heading.

I12: Okay.

R12: Related Sources - whatever maybe it seems a little redundant.

I12: Okay, so do you mind if I go through my questions.

R12: On this one?

I12: So that I cover my ground.  

R12: Well I pretty much said this - I'm going to say the same things as I did for Related Studies.  

I12: Okay. Well if you think of anything new, otherwise same comment. 

R12: Okay good enough.

I12:  So does this reading tool lead to materials added to your understanding of the original article?

R12:  Same comment.  

I12: And would your examples be the same?

R12: Yeah I pretty much - check every box because it's going to be the same.  Because they're the same sources, so for me - I look at this and I see these - and they're not all the same sources but they're similar - and they'd be used in a similar manner as far as I'm concerned.  

I12:  OK, fair enough, So did you have any other comments to add on that one?

R12: No I like this heading, I liked these materials I like where it takes you, so I think these are valuable headings, tools, so I think that this direction is something that interests me on this site, these are the areas I would think first you know being in the field - these are the areas I would think first of. 

Online Forums

I12: Okay.  The next tool is Online Forums.

R12: (exploring the site) You see you have to click it twice.  First time it doesn't come up.  Yeah I like these forums and I think these forums are very useful I receive the Humanist everyday, I don't receive the others.  You know I don't read everything in these, but there's enough there that's useful and it's very much at the forefront of the discipline or the area so overall I think, having a Forums heading is a great idea.  Because it's a different type of material, and there's things that can be learned there that you wouldn't find in an academic publication.

I12:  Okay, So does this tool lead to material that added to your understanding of the original article?

R12: Yeah, I think this is a very good, these are very good materials that can lead to, in this particular case, that certainly leads to  a better understanding of this article, in fact it may be the best source to further your understanding of this particular article.  So, partly because the same author edits the forum that wrote the article.  But the same, it's a small community Humanities Computing, really and those within it are familiar with each others publications and are quite familiar with these forums and there's a lot of good materials in the forums.  There's open discussion and informal discussion on a wide variety of areas that you just won't find in some of the other academic publications. 

I12:  All right.  Can you give me any other examples of how it adds to your understanding?

R12: It'll give you some insight on academic questions around the discipline that again you may not find in formal academic publications. So  I think the Forums give you, in some ways a more cutting edge insight into the people involved in the discipline the things that are occupying them right now  versus their book that published two years ago, three years ago, and who is within the community.  So I think it gives you a better sense of the general interests of the day, topics of the day, thoughts of the day, what people are doing right now and their research, those involved in this particular field, and a place to voice your own questions and get immediate feedback.  So I think it's very useful.  

I12: And how does this feature compare to the other Tools with regard to understanding the article?

R12: Well directly probably not, you're certainly, well it's hard to say, there may be threads, discussion threads that relate very concretely to this article which I'm sure there are, because Willard edits the Humanist, the others I've gone to those others but I don't read them really, so I don't know them as well.  But anytime you have a forum of open discussion it can be very useful - there's a lot of redundant stuff in there too, sometimes ah there's  discussion just doesn't interest you.  Did I answer that question?

I12: You did yes. OK and  does this reading tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R12: Yeah, I think the questions in the open forum, the discussion forum in your ability of , you really could just read this article, jot down the questions you have about it and post it on the forum.  And somebody would likely, or  send them to the editor and someone would likely respond in these forums - so I think it's a very useful tool, and very useful, I keep saying the word tool, these really aren't tools, the materials - the forums are very useful.  So I think those who aren't intimidated to do that then it can be exceptionally useful.  

I12: And, can you give me any examples of how the materials that this tool leads to might help you to evaluate the quality and significance of the study?  

R12: Well I think the biggest one I just mentioned, is that you can email the author or you can post a question on the forum - so you read the article you may have some questions about it you can get some answers very quickly, or generate discussion or find threads that are relevant so I think you can broaden your knowledge pretty quickly, maybe not as in depth as the right, like you know a publication might give you but certainly more to the point and immediately.  So I think that's pretty useful.   

I12: And how does this feature compare to other Tools with regard to evaluation?

R12:  I think it's one of many here that I see that will lead you to good sites on the web to find relevant materials.  How does it compare? I think it just depends, for me it's useful and I wouldn't say its more or less useful that some of the others, it's another approach and so I think it's useful in having options for finding information So as long as, and this one in particular because it is a very specific heading,  it's Forums versus Related materials Studies, Data bases which all blend together as far as I'm concerned out there,  These I think are easier to, and they have a very defined function  So you know what it is, you know how to use them I think, so.  

I12: And does this tool lead to materials that you would use maybe along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R12: Yeah, I think so.  Certainly graduate students can get a lot out of  monitoring Humanist and looking at those postings that are within their field or interests and using it to post their own questions or discussion - it's a wonderful tool to get yourself involved in discussion in the field and yet I can think if you're just new to it or novice, I think it's probably intimidating to post as nobody wants to look like a fool or fill up a forum or list with irrelevant type of discussion.  So yeah I think it's quite useful in a sense - it's useful for the reasons I've discussed earlier, is that it is a discussion forum it is an area for people to share ideas arguments, post questions, respond to people immediately, umm, which there's not many other areas to do that except conferences and lists. So..

I12: In addition to what you've said, do you have any other examples of how you might use this Tool in your research?

R12: No I haven't thought about that much.  It's always valuable to help students take steps towards you know using tools out there such as, Forums, so directing them to them and asking them to use the forum I think that's always helpful to bring students in to the various aspects of the field, especially graduate students.

I12: And how does this feature compare to other Tools in this regard for teaching and research?

R12: I'm not so sure it's that useful as a research tool, I've certainly seen it cited in articles, that's the Humanist.  So there's things there that are useful and ummm actually I think it could be quite useful if you're doing research in this specific area and you want an immediate reply or confirmation it's a very useful area to get it - so yeah I would say it's a pretty useful tool.  Ummm if you feel comfortable using it and learning how to use it well it can be one of any - that's it.

I12:  Okay.  Any other comments about this Tool?

R12: No  I think it's a great tool to have there. I think these Forums are under used to tell you the truth.  It should be used more frequently.  

I12:  It's quarter after, so I'm going to skip over to our concluding question.  

Search Engines

R12: Can I say one more thing, as a search engines in particular, I really liked this because we are all accustomed to using search engines and it's a primary mode to finding information - so access to search engines is an excellent thing.  

I12: Okay.

R12: And the more that you can have there that are valuable the better but I'd rather in truth know what I'm looking for and have specific ideas, I'd rather search web sites within a specific discipline.  But if I'm not familiar with materials and I'm trying to find more about them and get ideas of what's available then the search engines can do that very well.  So it's a good thing to have up there, people will go to it anyways - everyone has their favourite search engine so they're going to do it I think anyways - but they may look and see - I haven't seen that one before - I wonder what it does, so.

Value of Reading Tools
I12: Okay.  So we have two concluding questions.  The first one is Has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the Reading Tools and online access to research more generally? 

R12:  No I don't think it has I think a lot of the things that this does and takes me to I would do anyways and go anyways to find materials - I think now that I'm aware of it I might use it more just because it can take me there without having to open windows for  specific sites all the time.  So that's useful and I probably would use this more - for certain things I' go away from it I think, and simply go to other sources, direct sources.  Just because I know them.

Value of Knowledge
I12: And what do you see as the major challenges, if any, for improving the value of knowledge at this point? 

R12:  Well the more materials that you have available, I mean there's a balance between overload and access - you don't want - you almost don't want too many but, the more categories that this particular site has, the more articles the more disciplines it supports, the greater it's repository of articles, etc., the broader your audience is going to be.  So the more tools you'd rather have available.   I think in general people tend to go back to where they know and like, so they're going to go to a few places that they really know work and really know well that they feel they're going to find information they want - so they may end up using just one or two areas or archives depending - I think for - if they're doing research they might spread out and find and really go for across the board - but I think personally I have fair amount of skepticism of what's available there on the web unless I'm quite familiar with the sites and if they're discipline specific and created by academic institution or trusted institutions, and still do a lot of my research in books, in journals and in print.

I12: Okay.  

R12:  So I don't know if this changes anything for me and I would probably be more interested in seeing what the index of articles are and then reading those - as that grows - that would interest me more.  

I12: Okay, so what do you see as the major challenges, if any, for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R12:  The value of knowledge available through this?

I12: It's an open question, so you can answer it as you interpret it.

R12: Well that is a very large question.  Umm well I think . . . 

I12: In the context of these tools are meant to improve value you gained from a particular article.

R12: Yeah, I don't think the limitations are necessarily in the site, I think there's some very good options here and those can be used well.  Again much of it is the inherent limitations of the web and materials on the web and this helps, the more I think about it this helps to give you good options and limit a lot of the excess materials that are probably irrelevant and I think as more of those sites come available at academic institutions or through  research the greater value a site like this would have as well 'cause it will have access then to more relevant material.  And as their body of articles grows too.

I12:  Okay, any other comment.

R12: No, that's it. Interview 13 

Author Bio
I13a: Okay.  So in what ways if any, does having access to an author bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece? 

R13a: Ummm, I must admit that I only skimmed through the,  through the bio of the, of the author, I didn't read with attention, but I guess that having the author bio you could, well you know what else he's been working on and it gives you a more in-depth appreciation of, of the text.  In that you see if he's, he's an expert in the field and, and if he's worked on other major works, so that would be, I think that's a useful tool, yeah.

Metadata
I13a: And does any of the metadata in view items metadata, add to your reading of the piece and if so in what way?

R13a: Umm, no I looked at the metadata and frankly it just summarizes what I already knew.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: And, and, it had information there that I didn't find all that useful though, ummm, well perhaps knowing what, what journal this article comes from, you know might give an indication of the context in which it was written but, I didn't find it all that useful at this point. But I did, I did read through it though, and the abstract is the same abstract as was on the page so, that wasn't all that useful. Umm, yeah. I like having the language though.  I guess you might have, you might have articles that are written in another language initially and then been translated and that, and that would be useful to know.

Define Terms
I13a: Okay. So in this piece do see value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the look up box in define. 

R13a: I didn't use it but I can imagine that it would be, it would be very useful if you come, if you're reading terms that you're not familiar with and instead of exiting out of or having another tab at the bottom where I always have one like dictionary on, so.: But instead of existing this site and going to another site to find out, having it 
directly there I that is, it's, it's probably very useful tool, but I didn't, I didn't use it.

2:15

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I13a: Okay.  Now, do you ever see yourself using send link to colleague or email author and would you ever want those features on your own work?

R13a: At this point in my studies probably not, unless I, probably down the line ummm, I, I guess a professor would use it, or someone working in a group where you're working on a similar project and you want to send the link to someone else.  Right now as an RA I if I used this site I guess that I could use it to contact my other, other RA's or or professor Siemens, I'd say.  Umm, but at this point no, I wouldn't use it.  But I can see that it would be useful, yeah.

Add Comment
I13a: Okay, and what about a feature that would allow you to add a comment to the piece so say at the bottom of the article or something?

R13a: Oh you mean when you're linking it to someone and adding a comment, or just.

I13a: Just on the page, on the page itself.

R13a: Okay.  And that other people could access the comments?

I13a: Huh, huh.

R13a: Aaah I don't know, I don't know if I would read them.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: That's sort of yeah.  That's sort of interesting 'cause, I'm always a bit wary about people putting comments about things.  You never know who is, you never know, you know sometimes like Amazon you're looking at books and people write comments and sometimes they're a bit, a bit weird.  (laughs)  I guess this would be an academic site and only academics would have, would want to have access to it, I guess that the comments would, could be interesting but I wouldn't see it as a very important feature.

I13a: Okay, great.  Did you have any other comments on this first set of tools here?

R13a: Ummm, email the author! Ummm, I think that would be really interesting to ask the author questions about, about his article, but I wonder if the author would be all that happy about receiving emails.  I guess, email the author would, the author would have to agree to have his email on there. But I think that's an interesting feature, yeah. And if I was really, really interested in the article I (laughs) would want to know more about it and actually email the author to ask him questions.
4:41

I13a: Okay and, do you have any other comments about any of those?

R13a: Aaah, no, not really.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: It's pretty straightforward.

I13a: So, we'll move on to our second set of tools and these are the ones that I'm doing these specific questions.

R13a: Okay.

Authors Other Works
I13a: So, (pause) okay so the first tool is author's other works, sorry I just have to find my page here. Okay, author's other works.  So, does this reading tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: I used author's other works and I tried to click on the links to see you know what else he'd written, and I find it very confusing because the, the search engine would pick out articles written by Peter because the author is Peter Robinson.

I13a: Huh, huh.

R13a: So you'd have articles written by Peter whatever, and then someone called let's say Steven Robinson, and then you would have all these articles come up that had nothing to do with Peter Robinson and I found myself just sifting through all these articles trying to locate Peter Robinson and it happened a few times that there was Peter Robinson but not the same Peter Robinson, writing about chemistry and, and I got, I got tired of it (laughs) and just turned it off, I just switched to another link because I got tired of sifting through the articles that were really, that were irrelevant. And those that were relevant I was because of that I wondered if it were, if it was the right Peter Robinson and if it was him that wrote this article so it was confusing yeah.  And I tried every single one of them.  And the Perseus here took a long time to upload.  So, like most of the time when I used the Perseus I would just stop it in the middle 'cause after 5 minutes it was still uploading and yeah.  It might have been a, a glitch last night but.

I13a: Yeah.

R13a: Huh, huh.

I13a:  Okay, so can you give me an example of how this tool might add to your understanding of the article.

R13a: Well yeah, if it, if I could have found a relevant article by Peter Robinson and if it dealt with the subject matter of the article that I wrote, or at least gave a more in-depth or maybe a different perspective on editing ummm, I would have liked to have skimmed through it at least through the abstract and see what else he's written about it and what else was available out there by him, so it would be very relevant.  

I13a: And how did you think that this feature compares to the other tools with regard to adding to your understanding of the piece?

R13a: Well if (laughs) I could have found something interesting, I think it would have ahh, it would be one of the more interesting tools according to me, ahh, because chances are an author is published other work about a central topic or a concept, so yeah. 

I13a: All right.  So does this tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R13a: Well not at this point 'cause I couldn't. Unless, I don't know if Peter Robinson didn't  write anything else about editing or anything else about Chaucer, but it was very hard for me to evaluate that, at that point. Because I couldn't find anything that was relevant.  Though I spent like maybe 10 minutes and if I'd spent maybe a half an hour (laughs) on that tool maybe I would have found something, but I tried to limit myself to 10 minutes for each one to see what I could find out, so.

I13a: Okay.  And hypothetically, can you give me an example of how if you'd found something it might help you evaluate the quality and significance of the article?
9:01
R13a: Aah, the quality and significance of the orig, of the text that I read?

I13a: Huh, huh.

R13a: Ummm, well if found many, if I'd found that Robinson had written many articles about, about that concept about Chaucer and editing or editing Medieval manuscripts or variants and so on I think that it would have given me, well a little bit you know the same as, as the author's ahh, of, of the biography of the author.  It would give me knowledge of the author and  how, how much an expert he is in that field.  And by reading his other works, ummm just having a broader knowledge of, of this article and see how it fits in his, in his work.  Maybe not in the overall work in the field, but at least in this author's knowledge base or his expertise.

I13a: Alright.  And how do think this feature would compare to other tools with regard to adding, ah evaluating the quality?

R13a: Ummm, evaluating the quality?  I think related studies or related texts would probably be better to evaluate quality than the, than author's other works.

I13a: Okay, and last question on this tool.  Does it lead to materials that you would use perhaps along with the original article in your teaching or research?

R13a: Well if you, yeah if he wrote other relevant articles about that topic and chances are, some authors usually do, write other relevant articles, I would use both of them, but sometimes, see the problem with that is sometimes you want to give other's perspectives of other experts and not necessarily use works by the same author. Unless you have this really broad curriculum where you  have all this time to work with the students to look at many, many different texts and sometimes you can pull out two significant texts by the same author.  But I don't think it would be that number one tool to use to find a, to find a articles for a class.

I13a: Okay, and can you give me an example of how you might use other works by this author in your teaching or research, do you do any teaching?


11:10
R13a: No, I've done teaching before but not, at the high school level, not at the at the university level I haven't  taught yet.  Yeah but I've taught for seven years at the high school level.

I13a: Oh okay. 

R13a: Yeah, so I know a little about teaching, I can, I can imagine how it would be. Ummm, ummmm, I guess that I would use author's other works probably as additional readings for students that are interested in the, in the subject. 

I13a: Okay.

R13a: But probably not as class material, but as additional material for interested students.  

I13a: Okay.

R13a: I would probably type up a list of, of interesting articles including what I would find in that section.

I13a: Okay, and how would this tool compare to the others with regard to usefulness in your teaching or research?

R13a: Umm probably not the most important, but probably up there.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: Yeah.

I13a:  And do you have any other comments about this tool?

R13a: Ummm, no just, just that unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that interested me when I used it but it might.   I don't know I'm wondering if these search engines could just be refined more or if the user just needs more patience (laughs) to sift through. 

12:33

Government
I13a: Okay, so moving on to the next tool which is Government.

R13a: Huh, huh  (exploring too) Oh that was a, that was a (laughs) weird , weird site.  

I13a: So did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the original article?

12:54
R13a: Okay, I searched Chaucer, editing I searched when I would search something broader like editing, variants or edit and variants that was too, well actually that was too precise with the variants there so I couldn't find anything.  Just editing was way too broad and all kinds of stuff would come up.  Ahh Chaucer, that limited the search but I would find, I didn't, I didn't find any articles that had to do Chaucer and editing, even though those were my two search words, they just came out with, the articles that came out, had, had nothing to do with what I was looking for, so I didn't find it all that useful.: Yeah. Probably for other, other topics it would be useful, but not for what I was looking for.

I13a: So can you give me an example hypothetically of how the kinds of materials that you might find with this tool could have helped add to your understanding of the piece? 

R13a: Well in the, in the piece that I read I don't think that the government tool would be very important unless, you know if you're reading something about surveys if you're, to me I, I, maybe my understanding of government (laughs) is a little bit too focused I don't know.  But to me it would, you know the government tool would be more for statistics or ummm, I, I don't know.  I didn't know what to do with this tool, so, with what I was looking for.

I13a: Okay. And how do you think this tool compares to the others with regard to adding to understanding?

R13a: Well to me it's probably on the low end, yeah.

I13a: And since you didn't find anything with this tool, do you think you might potentially find materials that would help you evaluate the quality and significance of the study?

R13a: Umm yeah, if  I was, again, if I was looking at an article about you know population distribution or something about geography or statistics or even something very, very technical that I could find in government records, ummm it would probably prove, or be used as additional proof or you know more facts a particular concept, so I think it would very useful but not in what I was looking at last night.

I13a: Okay.  So you've already kind of given me some examples then, so in comparison to the other tools how do you think this tool would add up in terms of evaluating the quality and significance of an article?

R13a: Umm, well if I think of the article I was reading, ummm this tool would not be useful.
15:45
I13a: Okay.  So what about potentially with materials that you could use in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Ummm, again it depends on the topic.  If you were, if you dealt with statistics or statistics is always my example, but if you dealt with that for instance it would be very, very useful I think it depends a lot on the topic, I think this tool is to me not useful but, depending on the topic it could be. It could be useful.

I13a: Okay, so any other comments about this tool?

R13a: Umm, no.

Book
I13a: And, so our next tool is book.  And, so does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: Ummm, I couldn't, I guess my search was a little too pointed so I couldn't find any books about it, but I can, I can imagine that on a wider scale like if I was looking at editing in general or Chaucer in general, ummm it could be very, very valuable it could be an important tool.  

I13a: Okay, and can you give me some examples of how things that you could potentially find might help add to your understanding?

R13a: Well let's say if I'm looking at a Wife of Bath's tale they were describing that, that text, I could probably find it on books online or e-books and I could, I could compare, because they were talking about an electronic edition of Chaucer and I could go and, and, and look at the ummm the edition they would have online on books online for instance and see what they had to offer, and have an idea what was out there.

I13a: Okay.  And how do you think this tool would compare to the others with regard to adding to your understanding?

R13a: Well it's better than government (laughs).  Probably not, not at the top but it would be, probably like on a scale from one to ten it would probably a five or six.

I13a: Okay.  And did this tool, or could, do you think this tool could lead to materials that would help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study.

R13a: Umm, not as much as critical articles I think because they're, I, I think I would use it more, to find base texts. Ummm not that much to evaluate the quality of a critical article.
18:17

I13a: Okay, so I'll skip over next two.  So did this tool or could this tool lead to materials that you might use in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Ummm definitely, if I don't know about the copyright of online books, but, you could find, you could find sections of, of, of base texts that you would want to, to use in teaching or study, yeah.

I13a: So could you give me an example of how you might use what you found through this tool in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Well if you're looking for a specific section in, in a book a paragraph or a chapter ummm, you could have access to it and print it out for the students or have the students go online and have a look instead of having them buy all these texts, they could have a look directly online to, to a specific passages or, I saw it more as, as, as a tool to find base text than for criticism.

I13a: Okay. And how do you think this tool would compare with the others with regard to usefulness in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Ummm, probably not at the, probably not ranked number one but probably up there, yeah.

I13a: Any other comments about the book tool? 

R13a: Ummm, no not at this point.

Dictionary
I13a:  Okay.  So next we have dictionary.  So did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding or the original article?

R13a: Well just like this morning the I couldn't access it (laughs). 

I13a: Not found, okay.

R13a: Yeah. The url is, couldn't be found, and it was the same yesterday. It was a bad link, so, yeah.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: The joys of ah, of online tools. It was the same last night. I can imagine it could be very useful (laughs), but I couldn't, I didn't see the difference between, because I couldn't access it, I don't know what the difference between define terms and dictionary would be.

20:23

I13a: Yeah, the dictionary sources are kind of more like encyclopedia stuff like it has Wikipedia, ah it has a couple of other sort of subject oriented dictionaries.

R13a: Okay, okay. Oh I think that would be very, very useful i if you were looking for names of different authors that you're not familiar with, If you're looking for concepts you're not familiar with which happens to me pretty often (laughs) yeah, so I think that would be a very useful tool.

I13a: Potentially.

R13a: Potentially yeah.

I13a: If you could actually see it.

R13a: If you could access it (laughs) it would be even better.  

I13a: Okay, so we might as well then go ahead and skip on to literary critics.

R13a: Oh, oh. (laughs)

I13a: So, it's not working as well?

R13a: Oh dear.

I13a: Did that one work last night?

R13a: Ummm, don't remember.  What was on there?

I13a: ……..umm

R13a: Oh it might, it might be an internet problem right now.  

I13a: Maybe if I tried reloading.

 (BREAK IN TAPE - CHECKING ON A PROBLEM WITH THE SITE - PROBLEM FIXED - TAPE STARTS AGAIN)

I13: That's okay. Okay, so back to dictionary, now that it's working and you've seen it, so does this tool lead to materials that add to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: Ummm, yeah though I'm, I'm always a bit wary about Wikipedia because it's, it's written by everyone. (laughs) Though you know it's, it's pretty accurate because there's always some vigilantes out there looking at new entries and correcting stuff, but I wouldn't use for actual research.
22:07
I13a: Okay.

R13a: Ummm, but it does give like InfoPlease and Dictionary of Canadian Biography and so on, it does give some good background knowledge, ummm, though I was looking at Chaucer and Editing and the Canadian biography online wouldn't apply.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: Ummm, the InfoPlease and the Wikipedia does give background on Chaucer, but it's such general knowledge, unless you're looking up the name of someone that you're not familiar with and that would be very useful, it just didn't happen yesterday, but I can see that it could be useful.

I13a: Okay.  So could you give some examples of how it might, how the things you find here might help add to your understanding?

R13a: Umm, yeah if you come up, if you come across a concept or an author that you're not familiar with in the text, in the article then you can very easily research it and, and that adds to your understanding of the article.

I13a: Okay.  And how do you think this tool compares to the others with regard to adding to your understanding?

R13a: I think it's an important tool to add to the understanding of the article but it does give very general information and nothing very specific but then, that's what you would expect because it would be difficult to have links to very, very specific things because of the wide variety of specific things you can link up (laughs) to.

I13a: Okay.  So how about does this tool lead to anything that would help, help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?  

R13a: Ummm, I don't think it would be a useful tool to add to the significance of, of an original study. No it just helps basic understanding  I think

I13a: Okay, and what about leading you to materials that you could use in your teaching or your research.   

24:05
R13a:  Ummm, it could, though these three sites are well I'm not quite sure about the Canadian Biography online because I don't use it much, but in regards to the two other Wikipedia and InfoPlease ummm, to me they're not all that valuable as research tools, they do give some background, they do send you off on different paths that you can, that you could probably use for research but I wouldn't use them for research (laughs). 

I13a: Okay.

R13a: Yeah.

I13a:  What about for teaching do you think?

R13a: Ummm, I guess as a back, as a basic tool it could be useful for, for students but, I would, I don't see myself using it in class.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: But sending students to explore these sites you know could be probable but, I don't think it would be all that useful.  

I13a: Okay, and do you have any other comments about this tool?

R13a: No, I would ummm, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia I see that it would be, it would be easy to link to it, but I would link other, other sites that would I don't have anything that comes to mind right now, I rather find sites that would be more reliable, ummm, I don't know if Oxford or but these are probably not free sites that you could link to, but I would look into that.

Literary Critics
I13a: Okay.  So next is literary critics.  

R13a: That's the site that wasn't working yesterday.

I13a: Okay. So lets see if it will.

R13a: Internet Public library, online literary critics.

I13a: So you didn't, you didn't get a chance to look at this?

R13a: No I didn't get a chance to see that one.  

Book Reviews
I13a: Okay.  So let's skip that one.  So the next one is book reviews, so does this tool lead to materials that add to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: Ummm, if I had found author's other works and I found that he had written other books then I could go see the book review and look at reviews of the books that's he's already written, I didn't have I didn't find anything yesterday that was interesting but I can see that if you're looking at a contemporary book, like I was doing medieval studies so you know you can't have a book review about, about Chaucer (laughs), but you could, you could have book reviews about different critics and that could be useful. Or contemporary authors and that could be useful. Oh you do have the Medieval Review but it's mostly about critics that talk about medieval things.  
26:47

I13a: Okay, can you give any other examples of how you could use what you find here to add to your understanding of the piece.

R13a: Ummm, if I was looking at Peter Robinson and I found reviews about his books, (pause) sorry what was the question (laughs) I got lost.

I13a: How might those reviews add to your understanding of the article?

R13a: Oh to add to the under.  I don't think they would add to the understanding of the piece in itself, no.

I13a:  Okay.

R13a: But I think it would add to you know your other question about whether it was a quality article it was on, I think it would, it could probably add to that, because you could research the, the author and see what, what experts have to say about, about other things he's written.

I13a: Okay.  So just skipping back to the understanding then, how do you think this feature compares to the other tools with regard to adding to your understanding?

R13a: No, I don't think it's a very useful tool for understanding.

I13a: Okay, and how about for evaluation?

R13a: Yeah, I think it would be more useful for evaluation than understanding, that's for sure.

I13a: Okay, and, does this tool lead to anything that you would use maybe along with the original article in your teaching or your research?

28:11

R13a: Ummm, yeah if you're looking for I think it could be useful if you're looking for, for information about an author or a base text, ummm it could be useful.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: But I don't have any, any examples right now (laughs) that come to mind.

I13a: Okay and how do you think that this feature would compare to the other tools with regard to usefulness in your teaching or your research.

R13a: It would be medium.  

I13a: Okay.  Any other comments about book reviews?

R13a: No.  

Related Studies
I13a:  Okay. So moving on to related studies.  So does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article that you read?

R13a: This is the tool that I found most things with. Ummm, and I think probably the most useful to add to your understanding because you find I found related articles, well they weren't all that related but they were the most related articles that I found  in all the, in all links, so.

I13a: Okay, so could you give me an example of how what you found here might add to your understanding of the piece?

R13a: Umm I found an article about Editing and Variants and by another author and I didn't pursue, I didn't, I didn't look it over but if I had I'm sure that I would have found additional information that could have added to my, to my original understanding of the prior piece.  

I13a: Okay and how does this feature compare to the other tools with regard to adding to your understanding.

R13a: Probably one of the best ones.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: One of the better ones.

I13a: And does this tool lead to any materials that could you help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?
30:02
R13a: Well, yeah if you find other articles that talk about the first article then that sort of proves that it's ummm, that it's widely read and, and popular and you can find you know a variety of articles that will help bolster up or shoot down (laughs), whatever you've been reading

I13a: Okay, did you have any other examples, or,  that was pretty much an example right there, but.

R13a: Umm no I haven't.

I13a:  Okay, and how does this feature compare to the other tools with regard to evaluation?

R13a: Evaluating the importance of the piece?

I13a: Yeah.

R13a: Probably one of the better ones.

I13a: Okay.  And does this tool lead to materials that you would use perhaps along with the original article in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Well you could  probably find a lot of articles, a lot of materials through this tool that you could pass on to students, that you could study in class or that would help with research, definitely.

I13a: Okay. Can you give me any examples.

R13a: Um it, I didn't find any closely related articles to what I was looking for but if I spent a little more time and refined my search I probably could have found some articles that could be interesting.  Ummm, though, I was looking for articles, like specific articles on Chaucer and Editing, and probably, these are probably not the best tools I think I would have after doing a 10 minute search I didn't find what I was looking for so I would have moved on to other databases (laughs) I would have let that go, but, umm perhaps different topics or a different context would, the search would reveal more interesting records.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: yeah.

I13a: And, how did this feature compare to the other tools with regard to usefulness in your teaching or research?

R13a: Probably one of the better ones that, that are up there.

I13a: Okay, any other comments about related studies?

32:06

R13a: Aah no.

I13a: Okay, on to dissertations then.  So did this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article? It's my lucky day. 

(SITE NOT WORKING AGAIN - TAPE STOPPED - PROBLEM FIXED - TAPE STARTED)

Dissertations
I13: All right so, on dissertations, did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: Ummm, there were, there was quite a few things on, on, these sites that were useful or that could be useful. Yeah.

I13a: And can you give me any examples of how the materials that you found may add to your understanding?

R13a: Umm, yeah they were quite a few articles or dissertations about, about editing  and variants umm, I had trouble accessing the dissertations, a lot of them you had to pay for and so on, but I can see that, that you could access them if you were able or willing to spend the time and find them and pay for them.  It could be very, very important.

I13a: Okay, so how does this feature compare to the other tools with regard to understanding.

R13a: It's, it's up there with, with the related studies and related texts, I think those were the three most important ones.

I13a: Okay, and does this tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of this study.  

R13a: Ummm, it would, yes it would it would give a good indication of the significance if there were quite a few dissertations or quite a few material that, some material that would pop up that would show that it is an interesting field of study or not only interesting but dominant field of study in these things.

I13a: Okay, and can you give me any examples.

R13a: Of how.

I13a: Of how what you find might help you evaluate.

R13a: Well if you have a good knowledge of critics or theorists then, you know, depending on whose writing what and if there are a lot of well known critics while, working on this subject then that would could give you good indication of how important this field of study is or you know, if you find a lot of material that would give you some indication of that, or if you don't find a lot of materials it tells you it's a brand new field  of study that, that is, that is worth looking into or. It gives you a good snapshot of what's being done in that field.  I think, I think this tool gave you a better snapshot of what's being done than, than the others. It's a little more focused.  

I13a: And, how do you think this tool compares to the others with regard to adding to understanding?

R13a: It's a good one.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: Yeah.

I13a: And did it lead to anything that you would use in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Oh certainly.

I13a:  Any examples?

R13a: There were some dissertations there that I would have bought, if I was, if I was researching this I would have bought or found and read and perhaps passed on to students, or used in class to discuss.  But dissertations are very long, maybe a summary is, or, or parts of it or.

I13a: Okay, and how do you think this feature compared to the other tools with regard to.

R13a: Usefulness - it's up there as well.  It's a, it's a good one.

I13a: Any other comments about dissertations?

R13a: No the only thing is they're, they're selling them, they're selling most of them and they're hard to access. (laughs)

Databases
I13a: Yeah.  Okay, so databases is next.

R13a: Huh, huh.

I13a: So did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article? 

36:18
R13a: Ummm, there were no sites here that were very interesting for me I couldn't find much from any of those sites.  But depending on the topic that you're researching the databases could be, I had high hopes for this one and it let me down (laughs), but depending on the topic then I guess that sometimes you could you could have a topic that would have numerous hits.

I13a: Okay, so could you give me an example of how it might hypothetically add to your understanding if you'd found anything?

R13a: Well like it's pretty much the same answers to all of them, if you find articles that are related to the topic then it adds to your understanding that you have additional material and additional facts but, I don't see how this one would add to your understanding more than, than the other three tools that I thought were interesting.  Yeah. It's just an additional tool that is similar to, just a different way of searching for, for facts.

I13a:  Okay. And did it lead to anything that would help you evaluate the quality or significance of the original study?

R13a: I didn't find all that much I guess that if you were lucky to get some hits ummm, (pause) it, it could but, pretty much the same answer as these others, to me I saw it as just a different way of, of searching for, for information and not all that different from related studies or, related studies or related texts. Maybe I was doing it wrong (laughs).

I13a: Okay.  No I don't think you were doing it wrong. And what about in terms of leading to materials that you would use in your teaching and research?

R13a: Ummm if I'd gotten hits if I had searched for something that, that had gotten more hits than what I had then yeah, of course it would be, it would be useful.  But it, but what I was searching last night, this tool wasn't all that practical for what I was looking for.

I13a: Okay.  Okay, so can you think of any hypothetical examples of how you might use this in your teaching or research for anything that you find there?

38:43

R13a: I was looking specially at number 7 the Literature, Arts and Medicine databases 'cause I was looking for, for medieval images, and I decided to try it out and, I had a few hits for images, there are better databases though than this one so I didn't find all that much but you know you could be lucky and find something that you could use in class. But, I think they're better, these were different databases that I had never seen before, so to me, I will probably go back and use them. And it would, it would be additional an additional tool to the databases that I usually use, ummm, and can, can I can get some hits that I can't get elsewhere. But you could probably find information on there that would be very useful.

I13a: Okay so how do you think this tool, this feature compared to the other tools with regard to usefulness in your teaching and your research?

R13a: I think it would be useful, yeah, not all that useful but quite useful.

I13a: Okay.  And in compared to the other tools for evaluation ?

R13a: For evaluation of the importance of the article?  Not the best one, no.

I13a: Okay. And in terms of understanding?

R13a: Understanding the article? Yeah it would be better for understanding than evaluating that's for sure.  

I13a: Okay, and moving on then to our next tool. 

Portals 
R13a: The portal, I didn't look at portals very much. 

I13a: Okay.

R13a: No.

40:12
I13a: Okay so why don't we skip that one since we're running out of time.  

R13a: Or the pay-per-view - those are the two that I didn't, related texts I sort of liked that one.

Related Texts
I13a:  Okay let's do related texts then.  

R13a: That might have been the one that I had high hopes for as well (laughs) so it let me down a little bit.

I13a: Well lets  go over it, so does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: Well they're mostly, e-texts and what I was, I guess I didn't get many hits, what I was looking for wasn't all that related to e-texts, so, no I didn't find all that much. But I had high hopes for finding stuff but I didn't find all that much.

I13a: Okay, of what did you find, can you think of how this might help add to your understanding of the piece?

R13a: Well again you know, just additional information you can link to that to the original piece, yeah, just basic stuff.  

I13a: Okay how did this feature compare to the other tools with regard to adding to understanding or hypothetically. 

R13a: Ummm, I think it would be a good one.  Yeah with the, with the dissertations and the, and the related studies I think that's that would be one of the good ones for understanding but not necessarily for ummm the significance, more for the understanding.

I13a: Okay, so moving on to significance then did you find anything here that you think would help you evaluate the quality and significance?

R13a: Well again it depends on, you know it gives you a spectrum, a broad spectrum of the field and it gives you what else has been written about the field and so on and maybe you can see other things by the author or anything related to the author of your article or it just in broad terms yes it could, but not probably the best tool for that

I13a:  Okay, and did this tool lead to materials that you would use maybe along with the original article in your teaching or research?

42:27
R13a: Sure if you get, if you can find and other articles or other materials that are related in that explain the concept in greater depth or just gives a different perspective then that would definitely be used in class.  

I13a: Okay, and any examples of that?

R13a: I didn't find any. 

I13a: Okay, and in compared to the other tools, how did this one measure up for teaching and research?

R13a: Probably one of the better ones, yeah, though I didn't, it's funny to say that 'cause I didn't find anything but I can imagine that I could have found something.

I13a: Okay.  Any other comments about related texts?

R13a: Ummm, they're all e-texts, that's, that's the downside.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: JStore is, is my favorite (laughs) so. But again like the, like the other one umm, like the database I might, some of them, some of them I knew, some of them I   didn't and probably would add to my, to my research tools, and, and try to get some hits.

Online Forums
I13a: Okay.  So the next one is online forums, so did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R13a: Umm this was very extensive and when I clicked on them you know you had to lists and then pages of stuff, so I didn't go through it in great detail.  By that time I got a little bit tired (laughs) of just looking through stuff that was irrelevant so I was Oh my God, like more, more stuff that seemed to be relevant.  So, and I wasn't quite sure if you could sign on to these online forums and then you know little bit like those, you know you get emails.

I13a: Yeah.

R13a: Are those could you do that with those?  

I13a: I think with some, I think you can.

R13a: With some of them?

44:18
I13a: Yeah.

R13a: Okay.  I think that if you, you sign, you sign or you became a member I think it would be very interesting, you would get really focused stuff. 

I13a: Okay.  Can you give any examples of how the kinds of materials you would find here might add to your understanding of the article?

R13a: Well not the article I was reading, I don't think it would add, oh add to the understanding, no, probably not the significance, yeah well, again generally if the more you know about the concept that was treated in the original one, you know, yeah it would add to your understanding. 

I13a: Okay, and compared to the other tools, how does this one measure up for understanding.

R13a: This one I think would be more of a long term thing.

I13a: Okay.  Long term?

R13a: Long term like over many weeks you could probably find out like forums often you can ask questions and so on and then you can find that information,  I don't think that it would be a useful tool if you needed the information right away, unless you were willing to scan through pages, and pages of information trying to find something.

I13a: Yeah, okay.  And did you find anything there that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R13a: Umm, no. And I don't think it would be all that useful for that.

I13a:  Okay, and how about in terms of leading to materials that you could use in your teaching or research?

R13a: Ummm, I don't think it would be all that useful for teaching and research, well for research perhaps, probably not for teaching.

I13a: Okay, can you give me any examples of how you might use it in your research?

R13a: Well again long term could have you know accumulating knowledge and, and materials, maybe could point to materials that could be used in class but would not be a primary source of materials.

I13a: Okay and how did you think this feature compared to the other tools with regard to usefulness and teaching and research?

46:13
R13a: Middle I'd say.

I13a: Okay, any other comments about online forums?

R13a: No.

I13a: Okay, so since we're getting along in time.

R13a: Huh huh.

I13a: Did you have, were there any other remaining tools that you wanted to comment on?

Media Report
R13a: Ahh, Media report.  

I13a: Okay.

R13a: I think I went through that one a little more.  Ummm, media report seems to be I think you would you would use them if you're doing contemporary studies or if you would, yeah I can't see using the media report if you're doing medieval studies or if you're doing Shakespeare or if you're doing, you know unless you're looking for performances and so on.  But I was I was impressed to see how, how many newspapers were on there and that you could, you could search newspapers almost throughout the world, so. So I think that would be a valuable tool for certain topics, a really valuable tool for certain topics.

I13a: Okay.

R13a: Yeah,

I13a: So specifically to understanding, do you think it?

R13a: Yeah to understanding, yeah that would be a very good tool for understanding.  In terms of ummm the quality what's  the question again?

I13a: The quality and significance?

R13a: And significance of, well not for the article I was looking at but if you're looking at an article about you know something about contemporary studies, yeah it could if, if you find things in papers all over the world talking about your concept or talking about things you're studying, Well yeah it would, it would help in that way too.  I think probably of all the reading of all the tools this is the tool that would ally the both together the understanding and. Yeah. Because it's so actual
48:10

I13a: Okay. So did you give me any, did you already give me an example for understanding of how it might add to your understanding?

R13a: Well if you found articles, it would lead to, I don't know if you're studying Shakespeare performance in a certain of a certain play or Shakespeare festivals like all over and then you, you would search the different newspapers to see where the different festivals were, what people had to say, sometimes you have editors notes and so on, I think it would be very interesting. It would be time consuming but very interesting.

I13a: Okay, so compared to the other tools for understanding how would you rate this one?

R13a:  I think it's, it's very specific though.  It's a good one but, but I think it's more specific because it's it deals with, with actuality, no that's French it deals with, with current day news.

I13a: Okay and for evaluation how would this compare?

R13a: I think understanding would be the high end and I don't know (laughs) I think that, yeah. Not sure.  I said at the beginning it was a good tool for both but, not sure, depends how you see it, yeah.

I13a: Okay.  And how about for did you find anything that you could use in your teaching or your research?

R13a: Not in my teaching or research, but again it's I think it's very topic specific.  And that it could be very useful.

I13a: Okay.  And compared to the other tools do you think?

R13a: Ummm the other tools I feel are a little more general, this one's more specific.  So it could be extremely much more useful tool to certain topics than the others, but then it could be very un-useful.  

I13a: Any other comments about this tool?
50:02
R13a: No.

I13a: Okay. 

R13a: It was fun to look at Japan Times online and see the kind of things that they're interested in as headlines.

I13a: yeah kind of a different perspective.

Search Engines,
R13a: Huh, huh.  This search engine I was surprised to see Google on there, I always use Google (laughs)  I didn't I didn't see I thought that having Google on there was maybe a little bit wasted space 'cause, 'cause I think a lot of people just use Google defacto, and you don't really need to have it on.  I guess perhaps because you don't want people to exit the web site and go on the, yeah, I didn't know Clusty the Clustering engine, that was a new one for me. 

I13a: Did it turn up anything?

R13a: Ummmm, it, no well it turned, something's a bit, some different things than Google or Google Scholar, but it was interesting to see how the search engine worked and like different things, I was searching for the author and ahh, but I had a bigger variety of things come up (laughs) that were a bit astounding through Clusty the Clustering engine.

I13a:  Oh no.

R13a: mmmm. I didn't' try Vivissimo I just focused on Google on that one. But Google well I know, I know pretty well. Perhaps adding another one, Google scholar would be a good one to keep because it's not something that I would access that I ever think of, though I know it exists I never think of it, but having, having another one  On there would be interesting.

I13a: yeah. Okay, so did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the article?

R13a: Well like all these search engines you have to sift through enormous amounts of data, so if I had spent half an hour, probably but I just looked at the first few ones and, and went Oh no, oh no, oh no. So I just abandoned.

52:06

I13a: Okay and, did you find anything that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the study, or you just didn't find anything there?

R13a: No, I found, I found really general things about I found a lot, unfortunately  with google you find things like Amazon.com and look at e-books and this and that and yeah, no I didn't find anything that was particularly interesting though I know from my experience with Google that I probably would.

I13a: Okay.  And can you give any examples of how this might add to your understanding what you find here?

R13a: Ummm, you find web sites that deal with let's say for Chaucer and you can find numerous web sites that deal with not only content but ummm manuscripts studies, images and, and different scholars that that talk about Chaucer and, I mean the variety of information you can get from Google is astounding. 

I13a: Okay.  And how do you think this tool compared to the others with regard to adding to understanding?

R13a: Google's an excellent tool, but it's so general that, and the media report is so specific like you have the two ends of the spectrum.  

I13a: Yeah. Okay.

R13a: But I always use, I often use Google as my first search, just to narrow it down a little bit, and then I go on to other database searches or. 

I13a: Okay.  Can you give any examples of how what you find might add to your evaluation and the quality and significance of the study?

R13a: Well of you mean of the article that I read?  Significance of the article through Google?  Well if it comes up at the beginning I mean, you see that Google picks it up quickly, then it's probably up there but, I'm not quite, not quire sure how these search engines work and if , if the first things that come up are the, the ones that match closest, or if you're really a good searcher then you can have (inaudible) things come up first I don't know (laughs) I'm not quite sure.  I think I would need an understanding a better understanding of search engines to be able to say if, if Google could be used to, to analyze or evaluate the quality of, of the article.  I'm not quite sure about that.

I13a: Okay. And how about how this compares to the other tools with regard to evaluation?

54:45
R13a: Well these are just search engines so you could find anything, and you can find people say whatever about whatever, so.

I13a: Okay. 

R13a: You have to use your own discernment to get through it yea 

I13a: Okay and usefulness in your teaching and research?

R13a: Oh very useful, Google's very useful in finding things for teaching and for, for research yea

I13a: And do you have any examples?

R13a: Oh, ummm, I use, I think for multimedia stuff it's great - you can find images you can find videos you can find all kinds of things.  Ummm, especially multimedia. Yeah.  

I13a: And compared to the other tools for teaching and research?

R13a: Ah, different field, I think that search engines are good for finding just additional material that you're that you're missing. I wouldn't use it for, for the critical aspect of things.  

I13a: Okay.

R13a: Just for the some base text or some base materials.

I13a: Okay.  And any other comments on search engines?

R13a: No.

Value of Reading Tools
I13a: Okay so really quickly then, we have our concluding questions, so how is what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R13a: Can you repeat that.

I13a: Has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R13a: The value of the reading tools.  These reading tools here?

I13a: Huh, huh.

R13a: An online access to research.

I13: and if so in what ways. 

R13: Ummm, yeah I've discovered new databases, I've discovered new search engines, I've discovered, I guess in that way, it's changed my, my ideas about the value of reading tools, but I don't think, I unfortunately found the value of these reading tools with you know what I was looking for. 

SWITCH RECORDING

I13b: Sorry go ahead.  I interrupted you.

R13b: No that's okay.  

I13b: Your ideas about the reading value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R13b: Well as I said I've learned about new databases and research engines, ummm, I don't think that I didn't, I was slightly disappointed because I didn't find what I was looking for and but then, I I'm sure that I would probably come back and search for other things.  

I13b: Okay.

R13b:  But having them on the margin when you're looking at other texts I think is interesting it's just that I would I would have different databases and different engines in there.

Value of Knowledge
I13b: Okay.  And what do you see as the major challenges, if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point?

R13b: Improving the value of knowledge? 

I13b: Huh, huh.

R13b:  What do you mean by value of knowledge?

I13b: Like these reading tools, are meant to sort of add value to the to the knowledge that you gained from reading an article.

R13b: Okay, to add value, so what do you see in the major challenges (sighs) Ummm, (pause) (laughs) the major challenges.  Having, having access, having free access is a challenge I think.  I think that lot of sites you have to pay for, you have to subscribe to, ummm, to have search engines that will really pin point what you're looking for is a big challenge I think.  Ummm, yeah I think these, these two are, are the most important (pause) having, yeah being able to, to find meaningful things, (laughs) is a big challenge. 

I13b: Okay.  

R13b: Not have to shift through pages and pages of things that are not meaningful, for what you're looking for.

I13b: Okay.
Any other comments overall?

R13b: No, I like, I like the, the it's very intuitive the way it's, it's designed.  I like the design of it.  

I13b: Okay great.

R13b: Not too manly colors and the typesets, it's nice, yeah and the articles were really interesting.

I13b: Okay.

R13b:  I had a hard time picking them, picking which one I wanted to read.  But I, I, I didn't feel that the databases accessible, went with the kind of articles that were on there (laughs) at least the couple of them, couple of them that I looked over before making my decision, 

I13b: Yeah.

R13b: I didn't feel that there was a, a link between.

I13b: Okay.

R13b:  Yeah.

I13b: Great. Well thank you.

R13b: Well you're welcome.Interview 14

Author Bio
I14: So, the first question is in what ways if any does having access to an author bio statement contribute to your reading of this piece?

R14: It doesn't contribute to the reading of this piece just because that wasn't one of my priorities.  Ummm, I think the only time I would really need an author bio is if I wasn't sure on how reliable the information was in an article or ummm, I just wanted to know what qualified the author to make some of the statements that they did make, and in this case that wasn't a priority.

I14: Okay.
Why wasn't it, why wasn't it a priority, just out of curiosity?

R14: Because I didn't find anything in the article that I thought was questionable or that required me to double check who was writing.

Metadata
I14: Okay, and did any of the metadata in view items metadata add to your reading of the piece, and if so in what way?

R14: (pause) No, (laughs).

I14: Okay, what kind of information would you have liked to see there if any?

R14: Ummm, I almost, the only thing I really need to know when I research and the only thing I really look at is  just the information that I need for a bibliography and that comes in capture the citation, so or on, just on the general page, so this is extra. 

Define Terms
I14: Okay, and in this piece see value in being able to look up a term by placing it in the look up box in define. 

R14: Not in this piece because it didn't use those kind of words. But theoretically , yes, and it had particularly philosophy dictionaries which would be useful with philosophy articles, however, for most of the texts that I'm looking at because I'm an English major I would use the OED because it's more reliable. And I can quote it without concerns about why are you using that dictionary.

I14: What is the OED? 

2:24 
R14: Oxford English dictionary.

Send Link to Colleague/Email Author
I14: Okay. Alright, so, next is do you ever see yourself using send link to colleague or email author and would you want these features on your own work?

R14:  Ummm, I know in the past I've had friends who were doing, who I knew what they were writing essays on, so if I came across an article that dealt with their topic I might forward it to them, so I can see that being helpful in that sense. Ummm, theoretically I can see emailing the author being helpful as well for  additional questions and feedback and opinion statements by them, ummm, however I've never emailed an author and don't see myself doing that in the foreseeable future and I don't know how likely it would be that they would write back.  

Add Comment
I14: Okay.  And what about a feature that would allow you to add a comment to the piece?

R14: Ummm, I wouldn't.

I14: Okay, any particular reason?

R14: My opinion on the piece is my own I guess and yeah, and I tend to not like news boards and  stuff like that 'cause they tend to hold a lot of opinions that I don't agree with and they just frustrate me, so (laughs) yeah.

I14: Alright, and do you have any further comments on any of these tools and the first set of tools. 

R14: No I think I've said everything that I thought.

I14: Okay.  So we will move on then to the second set of tools starting with find related items among.

R14: Oh sorry.

Authors Other Works 


I14: So, starting with authors other works, sorry.

R14: I did use this one and I did find one that was particularly helpful.  Ummm, the original article was on an assignment that the author gave for students that used Perseus, and there was an article that she had written out how you use, like the directions to use Perseus that was sort of good background for the article.

I14: Okay.

4:59
And so, I'll go through my, my three main questions, so does this reading tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14:  Yes.

I14: Okay, and can you explain in what ways it adds?

R14: Ahh it gave me background to the use of the tool that was ummm, the article I read was about an assignment she gave using the tool and one of the other articles that she'd written was how to use the tools, so it was further background information, and that article I think stated somewhere that she was involved with the creation Perseus which wasn't in the article that I read originally.  

I14: Okay

R14: If that made any sense.

I14: Yeah, did you have any other examples of how what you found added to your understanding?

R14: Ummm those were the only, there was only one in the other materials that she'd written that actually dealt with the topic of the article that I read. So, I can see it being useful in general as long as the author has written on similar topics.

I14: Okay, and how does this feature compare to the other tools with regard to adding to your understanding?

R14: Ummm, I guess, more of the same author's viewpoint on similar things.  I know there are occasions where I'll run across an article that I really liked and it has the, the direction and the focus that I'm looking for, so I might look at other things that that author had written just because I found that one article really helpful so having a direct link to the author's other works is helpful in that particular situation.

I14: Okay, and does this tool lead to materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R14: (pause) Yes.

I14: Okay, and can you give me an example or two?


7:26 
R14: Ummm, I guess if you find a, a number of other articles in reputable online journals or what have you, then you can trust the original article more. 

I14: Because the author is published in other reputable locations? 

R14: yes

I14: Okay.  And, how does this feature compare to the other tools with regard to evaluating the quality and significance?

R14:  The other tools in find related items, or the other tools above find related items?

I14: The tools in find related items.  It's all of these ones.

R14: Can you repeat the question.

I14: So how does this, how does this tool author's other works, compare to the other tools with regard to evaluating the quality and significance of the article?

R14: Ummm, I guess it helps more than most of the other tools ummm, in rating the quality of the author's research in general because it does tell you ummm, whether the author has been published in the same area before, if they've been pushed in reputable journals, like I don't, or at least some reputable journals I don't think it really covers the whole scope of their writings, but whereas the other ones are just, don't have, well have much less to do with the actual author so allows you to rate the author that much better.

I14: Okay, and in this case did you find other articles in other journals that helped you to evaluate the quality of this one?

R14: Yes (laughs) the same article that I spoke about the one that How to use it and her role in creating Perseus. 

I14:  Okay, and does this tool lead to materials that you would use possibly along with the original article in your teaching or your research?  Do you do any teaching?

R14: Ah, no.

I14: Okay, so in your research?

R14: Hypothetically 'cause I'm not actually researching along this topic.

I14: Okay.

R14: But, yeah I would have found the second article useful and it went along well with the first, so hypothetically if I was researching the first topic then I would have found this second article useful.

10:12
I14: Okay, and can you give my any examples of how you might use what you found in your research, if you were researching this area or generally speaking?

R14: Umm, I guess just general background what she's interested in, how she got there, ummm with regards to the author and they have background materials for Perseus that she's been involved with.

I14: Okay, and how does this feature, how does this tool compare to the other tools with regard to usefulness in your research?

R14: Ummm, (pause) I, in this particular case I found it more useful than the other tools because I actually found something, however in general I think I'd probably find related studies and related texts more useful.

I14: Okay, great, do you have any other comments about this tool?

R14: No.

Government
I14: So moving on to Government. Does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: No.

I14: And can you explain why?

R14: Ummm, the article I was looking at originally was talking about a particular example of an assignment and how the use of Perseus in that assignment ummm, encouraged students' awareness of language features of oral text, or text  that were originally oral, and just how it gave them a better understanding than just looking at the text in, in a traditional way.  Ummm, and that's not something (laughs) that you're going to find in government documents on, period.

I14: Okay.  So you didn't find anything at all with this tool?

R14: No.  

I14: Okay. So we're going to skip ahead then to book.  So just before we move up to book, can I, do you have any other comments about government, the government tool?

R14: Umm, I guess I can see it being useful depending on what you are actually studying, so for instance you were studying ummm, in my case it would be Native Literature and you wanted to know about native rights in Canada or something then it might be incredibly useful, ummm however, in the case of an article on using Perseus in the classroom not so much.

13:15
Book
I14: Okay fair enough.  Okay so book, so did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: I don't even remember what was in here. Umm, (pause) mmmmm, I suppose it could be but I didn't actually look with this one because I didn't think that there would be anything. 

I14: Okay. Why did you think that there wouldn't be anything?

R14: Ummm, not even that there wouldn't be anything but there wouldn't be anything that I couldn't find more easily through like an MLA search or a database search through the library.

I14: Okay.  Okay then.

R14: I guess just the databases on here that they're using are just too general and not reliable enough to get you know scholarly results, or completely scholarly results.

I14: Okay, so then let's move ahead, did you have any other comments about the book tool?

R14: No.

Dictionary
I14: Okay, so the next one is dictionary, so does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: Umm, I kind of wondered what the difference between the define terms and the dictionary tool was, so it seemed kind of redundant to me. Ummm and Wikipedia, again I would not use as a dictionary just because it's a little, I would use the OED, like that's my sort of dictionary of choice because I'm an English student, and I like having a big long list of definitions.

I14: Okay, any other comments about this tool?

R14: If I was, yeah most, you can find really good dictionaries and encyclopedias through the library, like through the reference tools, and more of them, and more reputable ones, I guess so, this is something that I would do through the library.   So I like the dictionary of Canadian biography online but, I could easily be able to find it through the library reference tools. Along with other equally useful dictionaries.  

I14: Did you do any searches within these ones or did you skip over them?

R14: I skipped over them.

Literary Critics
I14: Okay, okay then we will move ahead on to Literary Critics.  So did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: No.

I14: Okay, and did you do any searches on this tool?

R14: No.

I14: Okay, and do you have any comments about the tool or the site that it links to, the IPL?

R14: Ummm, well I guess when I think about Literary Critics it's like, responses to books and from what I could find she hasn't really, like it has her journal articles it doesn't have any of her books, it doesn't have any of her books on this topic so, it wouldn't be applicable to any hypothetical research I would be doing on the original article.

I14: Okay, so did have a look at it and you just didn't find anything, is that what you were saying, is that.

R14: No it's more I can't imagine it being useful for that reason.

I14: Okay.

R14: But, like there was a number of like, I guess something that  I think would be more useful, and this is I guess more well I guess if they actually had any articles that responded to this article or used this article as a reference. That would be more along the lines of something that I would find useful and this doesn't do that.

I14: Okay, so were you familiar with the IPL before seeing it on here?

R14: No.

17:51
I14: Okay. Any other comments about this tool?

R14:  No.

Book Reviews
I14: Alright, next one, book reviews.  So did you find any, any materials through this tool that added to your understanding of the original article? 

R14: No.  

I14: Okay.  And did you do any searches through any of these sites?

R14: Ummm, in order to use a site like this I'd have to have a book that I can look up and I didn't have a book that I can look up.

I14: Okay, so just finding books related to those key words was not of interest for you?

R14:  No I don't think I thought there would be anything, well maybe on New York Times, but the other ones they wouldn't have had anything but yeah, it's the keywords were narrow enough that mostly things that I looked at didn't have them here, so I think it would be useful if you had book you were already looking for like if you found one about under author's other works, and there was a book she wrote on the same subject that your article was on, then this would be useful because you could enter that book I assume.

I14: Okay, is there any other context in which you would search for book reviews in order to understand or evaluate an article?

R14: If the article was a book review and I wanted find sort of other opinions on the same book, or if it was from a book and I might want other critics feedback on that book.

I14: Okay.

R14: Yeah.

I14: Any other comments on book reviews then.

R14: No.
19:57
Related Studies
I14: Alright, moving along, the next tool is related studies.  So did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: No. But I can see it being very useful just not on this particular topic.

I14: Okay, and can you, can you think of any hypothetical examples then of how the materials that would be found in here might help a person understand an article better?

R14: Ummm, for introductory background I guess, Oh and I guess it did have the Perseus digital libraries so it actually did have the tool that they were using in the article, so that was useful.  But for other background materials which is what I would be looking for or other articles on the same topic ummm, the article was narrow enough that I wouldn't find anything on that, but, in general it would give you a background on the same stuff if you had a less narrow topic.

I14: Okay. And what about any hypothetical examples for leading to anything that would help evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R14: I wouldn't even say rating the quality and significance it's more like more background on the same topic.

I14: Okay, and what about in terms of using if for teaching and research?

R14: Ummm, (pause) I probably would still find the list of databases through the library reference tools more useful?

I14: And why is that?

R14: There's more, and that's mainly it.

I14: Okay so do you think that with have you, have you gone through and done any searches on these?

R14: I went through the English server because that's the only one that I thought I might come up with something on teaching and e-books.

I14: Okay.

R14: Because the other ones are very narrow in their own right, so I didn't think I'd find anything.  Because, I'm looking for like modern day teaching and e-books, so I'm not going to find anything in medieval or Victorian or anthropology or anything like that. 

I14: Okay, and did you try entering any other key words on this search or any of the other searches?

R14:  Yes I tried entering 'cause I am actually doing research on ummm, ummmm, living vicariously through computer games and stuff like that, and I didn't find anything.

I14: Okay, so compared to the other tools, how do you think that this tool related studies compares with regard to adding to understanding?

R14: For introductory background to something I think it would be really helpful. And I think it, if you narrowed everything down to like two or three tools in find related items, that would be one of them.  

I14: Okay, and how do you think it would compare with regard to finding materials that help you evaluate the quality and significance of the original article?

R14: Again, background material that, if it agrees with your article, you article's probably of an, a good quality but, I would still find the author's other works more helpful than this.

I14: Okay, and how about in comparison to the others for usefulness in teaching or research or just research in your case?

R14: Ummm, I guess it would depend how early that I used it, ummm, like if I already have the background and I'm just finding this article originally I wouldn't need the background that this would provide but I might check it just to see if it has any articles that I didn't find elsewhere.  

I14: Okay.  So, we'll just move on to dissertations.  Before I move on, did you have any other comments about related studies? No? okay. 

Dissertations 
I14: And dissertations then is next, so did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14:  No. 

I14: Okay, and did you do, did you search through any of these?

R14: I looked briefly and I couldn't find anything. However it wasn't a big deal because I don't generally look at dissertations.
24:58

I14: Okay, and theoretically do you think that this tool could be useful in leading to materials that add to someone's understanding of an article?

R14: The only time I ever look at dissertations is just to make sure that you're not writing something that someone already has written on, I don't actually use them as research, that's going to be a pain in the ass to get.  And I don't know if this one, because I didn't find anything, I don't know if, if you do find anything it will actually give you access to the dissertation itself. So if it does then it makes it more useful than anything on databases that I've seen, or on dissertations, than I've seen before, but I don't think it does that in which case it's about as useful as any other dissertation.

I14: Okay, and how do you think that this tool would compare to others with regard to adding to understanding.

R14: Aaah, I like my research stuff to be published and some dissertations aren't. So yeah the only thing I would ever use it for is to find out if somebody has already written on the topic that I want to write on or something like that.  

I14: Okay, do you think that this tool could be useful in evaluating the quality and significance of an original study?

R14: No.

I14: Okay.  Any particular reason?

R14: Because it's not published itself and it's usually by someone who's younger so not necessarily something that I'd use to judge the quality of research of someone who is published and is older and probably knows what they're talking about slightly better

I14: Okay, and do you think that this tool could be useful in terms of your teaching or your research?

26:55
R14: No.

I14: Okay.  And any particular reason for that?

R14: Same one (laughs).

I14: That's okay.  Any other comments about this tool?

R14: No.

Databases
I14: Okay, so moving on to databases, so did this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: (laughs) Noo.

I14: Okay.  And is that because you didn't search through them or you just didn't find anything in your searches?

R14: I searched through a few of them that I thought might actually have stuff, but none of them did, a lot of the databases are rather narrow so it wouldn't have stuff and like Catholic Encyclopedia for example, is not relevant to what I was looking at.

I14: And can you think of any situations where this might be useful in finding materials that add your understanding of an article?

R14: I guess same idea as related studies.  

I14: Okay, just depending on, on what you're  researching?

R14:  Yeah and if you need like primary sources because most of these look like primary sources, so (sighs) yeah, so perhaps English oriented research where you need to look at like maps or, or something like that, but I wasn't looking for primary sources because there really aren't any (laughs) on the topic that I was looking.

I14: Okay, and what about for finding materials that helped you evaluate the quality and significance of the original article?

R14: not my original article, it didn't have anything on it and it wasn't primary source oriented so it wasn't relevant.

I14: Okay, and hypothetically?

R14: Yeah, depending on what you're writing on.

I14: Okay, and what about for usefulness in your teaching and research?
28:55
R14: If you were writing on something that was relevant but again, it's the same idea I probably could find primary sources more easily through the library reference tools.

I14: Okay, and so compared to the other tools, how do you think this tool fairs with regard to adding to your understanding?

R14: I'd probably keep it as one of the three that I kept if I had to narrow it down to three.
 
I14: Okay, and what about for evaluating quality and significance compared to the other tools?

R14: No, it doesn't.

I14: Ranks poorly?

R14: Yeah.

I14: Okay, and what about for usefulness in your research compared to the other tools?

R14: Ummm, (pause) again I'd probably go through the library.

I14: Okay, so, next, do you have any other comments on this tool before we move on?

R14: No.

Portals
I14:  Okay, next tool is portals, so does this tool lead to any materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: No, but again it's topic it's because of the topic not because of .

I14: The tool though.

R14: Yeah.  

I14: Okay, and if, if you were to be researching on a topic that related to these sources what kind of things do you think you might find and how do you think they would add to your understanding?

R14: Umm I think most of these look like they're primary sources again, so if you actually, (pause) I don't know, were looking at an article on Dante and, you wanted to see that text or a picture that they're talking about then this would be useful, however, I find that these tend to be very narrow (laughs) and that you would have to have a very specific article in order to find them useful.  And I'm thinking that if you were studying Dante to begin with you'd already be of have a link to or be looking at the Dante site without having to go through this tool.

31:20
I14: Okay, what about for evaluating quality and significance, do you have any comments hypothetically on how this tool might be useful?

R14: Well I guess if they're describing, or a picture or a text and you wanted to see the text in order to make your own opinion about what they're describing, ummm it would be useful however, in general I find that the writers own writings and secondary criticism are more useful in establishing whether or not ummm, an article is credible.

I14: Okay, and what about again hypothetically, in usefulness for research?

R14: Ummm, again if it was on exactly the right topic that linked exactly with one of these databases, it would probably be useful but if you were studying ummm, Dante or Byron or  (sounds like) the Shelley's, you probably would already have found those pages.

I14: Okay, and compared to the other tools, how does this one fair in terms of adding to your understanding?

R14: I guess I'm not quite sure what the difference is between databases and portals. So I don't know why they're not combined and just giving you a bigger list of places that you could look, ummm, (pause) yeah, that's so, pretty much the same things I had to say about databases.

I14: Okay.  And in terms of evaluating the quality and significance how does this one compare to the others?

R14: Umm, same idea primary sources are not what I'm going, in certain situations you could use primary sources to sort of double check what an author is saying about a text however, primary sources would not be the way I'd go to check on the validity of an argument.

I14: Okay, and for usefulness in teaching or research, how does this one compare?

R14: Ummm, they're useful sites if you're researching on those particular subjects, however, I'd probably go through the University reference section.  (laughs)

I14: And, okay, so any other comments about this tool?

R14: Nope.
34:10
Pay-Per-View
I14: Okay, next one is pay-per-view.

R14: I didn't actually go into any of these 'cause I didn't want to pay-per-view.

I14: Okay, well we can move on.  Did you have any comments, any comments about pay-per-view or the tool?

R14: I wouldn't pay.  (laughs)  I'm not going to pay to research.   I already pay to go to school.

I14:, Now where were we then,

R14: The next one should be related texts.

Related Texts
I14: Okay, so related texts.  So does this tool lead to materials that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: Ummm, they looked like primary sources again, so didn't add to my article but I can see them adding to other articles but I could almost see these being grouped within databases and portals as well.

I14: Okay, do you have any examples of how they might add to understanding hypothetically speaking?

R14: Aaa, again if an article refers to a certain text, then you could go have a look at that text or, comparing two texts you could go have a look at those texts however, yeah (laughs).

I14: Okay.  And what about hypothetically for evaluating quality and significance of the original study?

R14: As before, less likely to use a primary text to judge a secondary text than other secondary texts on the same material. 

I14: Okay, and what about with regard to teaching or research hypothetically how might this be useful?

R14: It would be useful but again I like the big collection of databases and other research tools that you can get through university library.

I14: Okay, and compared to the other tools then, how does related texts compared with regard to understanding.

R14: Again it can give you the background on the text that an author is discussing but as I'm sure I've said before, if you're researching a text you've probably already read it, or you have it in front of you or near at hand so you don't actually have to go look at the text, so it would only be in the situation where I guess you have one text and the author is comparing it to another so you might zip over to have a look at the other text to see whether you want to discuss that one as well.
37:58
 
I14:  Okay, and, (break in the tape) okay so how do you think that this tool compares to the others with regard to evaluating quality and significance?

R14: Ummm, are you sure you didn't ask that one?

I14: I asked you how it might be helpful with evaluating quality and significance and now I'm asking you how it measures up to the other tools, how useful it compares to the other tools?

R14: Okay, I guess. Again it provides more primary text which both databases and portals did.  

I14: Okay, and compared to the other tools, how about how does it compare with regard to usefulness in teaching or researching?

R14: Ummm, if you're just going based on that one article then it's really helpful, you know if you just want background for that one article, however if you're actually doing an essay on this, you've probably already looked up other articles so you don't need it.  

I14: Okay, any other comments about related texts?

R14: No.

Online Forums
I14: Okay online forums is next.

R14: I don't like forums, I think I said that before.

I14: You did.

R14: I find them annoying, so I didn't use this one.

I14: Okay, why do you find forums annoying?

R14: Ummm, just because (pause) they're not particularly useful with research because they don't have, you can't really use  them as a research source. Ummm, you don't know who it is who is writing most of the time, like a name is not good enough, and yes so I will stick with published stuff.
38:49

Instructional Materials
I14: Okay, fair enough. So we can move on to instructional material, so does this tool lead to anything that adds to your understanding of the original article?

R14:  No.

I14: Okay, and I guess ummm, why do you think that is?

R14: Ummm, (pause) why do you think it is that I can't find anything?

I14: yeah  why can't you? 

R14: I think 'cause I guess the original article was on computer tools and English which there's not a lot of material on teaching with those kind of computer tools, so I guess it was narrow enough and on a specific enough topic that it's not that likely to come up and I guess the material that you would use in teaching would be Perseus which you already found elsewhere.

I14: Okay, so potentially do you think that this, that this tool could provide materials that added you your understanding depending on the topic that you were looking at?

R14: Well it's instructional material so it wouldn't be my understanding that I would assume that I'm using this particular section for. But, yeah, that wouldn't be my forte anyway I'm not going to be looking for instructional materials.

I14: Okay. And if you were, do you think that you could use these materials to evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R14:  No.

I14: Okay, what about for research?

R14: Aah, I would not use instructional materials for research.

I14: Okay, and other comments about this tool?

R14: Nope.

41:20

Media Report
I14: Okay, media report is next.  So did you find anything here that added to your understanding of the original article?

R14: No.  

I14: Okay and can you explain why not?

R14: Ummm, I don't think there's a lot of people that are going to be writing on using text tools in teaching classes in every day media.

I14: Okay, and do you think that you could find anything here that would help you to evaluate the quality and significance of the original study?

R14: Ummm, I guess hypothetically if you put in the scholar's name and something really awful came up like they were pretending to be something else or using the credentials of their spouse and yeah, they weren't hadn't graduated from an university then, yeah, that probably would influence how I respond to the writer but, yeah so I guess I'm saying it would be unlikely (laughs).

I14: And how about finding materials that would be useful in your teaching or research?

R14: Ummm, yes, depending on what you're writing about ummm, the example I can think of off the top of my head is I've done research on the response to governor generals award presentations, so something like that you could probably find in here, but, again, if I was going to be searching through newspaper articles I would probably go through the library.

I14: Okay, so how do you think that this tool compares to the other with regard to adding to your understanding of an article?

R14: Ummm I guess it would depend what the original article was on, like if it is like a scholarly article on some aspect of popular culture, then definitely you'd be able to search these newspapers for sort of a more popular response to popular culture or some aspect of popular culture, and in that sense it would be useful.

I14: Okay, and how about how this tool compares to the others with regard to evaluating quality and significance?

R14: Again you can find out if the author has ever done anything sensational or infamous, but beyond that yeah.

I14: Not a useful tool.

R14: No.

44:16
I14: Okay and how about compared to the others with regard to usefulness in teaching or research?

R14: Ummm, if I was going to send students or myself to research something I would go through the library.

I14: Okay, any other comments on media report?

R14: Nope.

Search Engines
I14: Okay.  So the last tool, search engines.  So did you find anything with this tool that added to your understanding of the original article.

R14: Umm, no but I didn't look really hard 'cause I've used Google scholar before and yeah and I probably could just skip a step and just go straight to Google

I14: Okay, and do you think hypothetically, could you give me an example of how what you find might add to your understanding of the article through Google, the  kinds of things you would find?

R14: I guess a broader range of material. Yeah 'cause I guess everything that came up so far we're looking at really narrow databases and a limited  a number of them, and but the things that you're likely to find in those databases are probably more reliable whereas this will give you a broader range and less reliable.

I14: Okay, and, compared to the other tools how useful do you think this one will be in terms of leading to materials that add to understanding?

R14: I kind of found it redundant because I mean, Google's my homepage so, I don't need somebody to help me get there.

I14: Okay.  And, in terms of evaluating the quality and significance of the original study, do you think that this could be a useful tool, and can you give any examples?

R14: This would not be the tool I'd use to check on the reliability of an author or a piece of work.

I14: Okay, how come?
46:41
R14: Because you can find stuff on the internet that tells you that the pyramids were built by aliens and, yeah it's not where I'd search for criteria for reliability. 

I14: Alright, and compared to the tools, how do you think that this one ranks in terms of evaluation?

R14: (pause) Ummm.

I14: I'm guessing poorly.

R14: (pause) Well, yeah I wouldn't use it to evaluate again and it does seem redundant in this context because yeah I mean everybody has Google you don't really need a  shortcut to it .

I14: Okay, and for usefulness in your teaching or research, do you think that Google will be a useful tool and do have any examples? 

R14: Well I've used it before, to look at a broader range of materials, but yeah.

I14: Okay, and, compared to the other tools for usefulness in your research how do you feel about this tool?

R14: Well, Google is necessary but I don't see how adding it to the tools in this page makes sense, it's, it's pretty much already on most menu bars at the top.

I14: Okay, and what about the other search engines that are on there, have you seen those before or would you be tempted to use them?

R14: No if I was going to go with other search engines those would not be the ones that I would go with.

I14: Okay, any other comments about search engines?

R14: No.

I14: Okay, now we have a couple of concluding questions.

R14: Okay.

Value of Reading Tools
I14: And the first one is, has what you've learned changed your ideas about the value of the reading tools and online access to research more generally?

R14: No.

I14: Okay, is there a reason for that, that you can think of?

49:09
R14: Ummm I don't do research online I just do it through the library.  And yes, so I already know that the computer is a useful tool and couldn't live without it, ummm, yes so this doesn't really change anything.

Value of Knowledge
I14: Okay.  And, this is a big question, what do you see as a major challenges if any for improving the value of knowledge at this point?  So in the context of these tools are meant to improve the value of knowledge that you gained from a particular article?

R14: (pause) I'm not sure what that question is asking.  I yeah, how do you improve knowledge? Like to make you more knowledgeable? To give you background on.

I14: I guess the value of knowledge - so this article that you read, might be made more valuable by these reading tools. Are there other ways that you, are there challenges you think, this is one way of maybe adding value to knowledge, are there other ways that you can think of or are there challenges of doing this or.

R14:  Ummm, I guess again it totally depends on the article that you're discussing.  And, a lot of these tools would be really helpful in the case of an unfamiliar article that you're just starting on, you don't have any background and you can use that to sort of follow up some of your questions, ummmm and check on it's reliability what have you, in the case of the article that I was looking at most of them weren't helpful and I guess if I'm going to do general research I wouldn't go through one article to the tools, I would skip that stuff and just go straight to the tools. 

I14: Okay, any other comments about any of the tools or anything about the OJS?

R14: I'm very happy that's it's working well, sort of (laughs) but yeah, that's it.  

I14: Okay we're all done.