2.6 Design the Archive

In this section we will review through some questions and decisions we encountered, and the choices we made in the process of designing the infrastructure and processes needed to support the archive. We suggest you ask yourself these questions and brainstorm how your organization and/or the community archivist(s) will answer these questions. We provide our own answers and approaches below, as well.

We also provide some insight on how we dealt with a hybrid of in-person and online engagements given this project started during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Will your archive be exclusively digital or will you also accept and retain physical materials

A: We wanted to focus primarily on digital, but also accepted a limited amount of physical content.

What types of content are you prepared to accept into your archive?

A: We were willing to accept anything except for museum/three dimensional objects and textiles which present a significant storage problem (physical) and are difficult to capture for digital representation; typically have limited informational value

If providing online access, what platform will you choose? Is your goal immediate access or are you also concerned about long term preservation?

A: We chose AtoM (access to memory access system) because it could accommodate CAC and Northwest Room (NWR) collections at TPL, seamless integration between description and digital objects; flexible; easy to use for users and staff (including interns and others new to this work who were working on this project).

While we focused on online access of artifacts collected it’s important to remember the entire collection does not have to be accessible online. It’s common that libraries can also create a small archive in the library, or or small books that do not require a robust online platform.

Consider the maintenance and requirements of the online platform you choose. Can you afford funds and human labor for an open access platform or is it cost-effective to subscribe to an out-of-the-box platform? In either case, it is important to include the IT department, if any, in these conversations to understand who will develop, maintain, and troubleshoot the platform. High level features to consider are administration, interface, technical, and social. Digital archivist and developer, Ashley Blewer, published a Collection Management System Collection blog post and maintains a crowd-sourced list of digital repository options to reference for the diversity of options for collection management systems (i.e., digital repositories, content management system, or CMS).

What metadata considerations did you make?

A: We developed “community” subject headings with community feedback.

How will material be organized?

A: We developed organizational structure with collection numbers that digitally grouped like material together.

2.6.1 Designing for online/remote engagements

We began the project during the COVID-19 pandemic and our initial community meetings were held online through the Zoom platform. As part of those meetings, we developed a “Story Map” activity to solicit stories from community members and provide a visual representation that could be added to throughout the project. Once we could host in-person events, we set-up an activity station staffed with a team member and a laptop where participants could add their own story to the map.

For our “Story Map” installation, we built a map utilizing the ArcGIS platform from ESRI. Team members from UW had extensive experience with this platform and we felt that it offered the features and flexibility that we wanted and the university also provided access for free.

Access to this product can otherwise be very expensive. You can accomplish some of the same functionality through other mapping software that is available for a lower cost or free. You can see some of these suggestions in the Appendix, including Felt, HistoryPin, or Google Maps.

Our workflow was focused on participants submitting stories directly through the mapping platform through the use of an online form. We found that this generally worked, but had limitations depending on the technical skills of the participants and also whether the story was about a specific location or a neighborhood more generally. Often stories were not about a specific place but a larger geographic area and so a “pin” proved less effective in identifying the story.

We debated whether using paper tools might be more effective in the in-person setting. For example, at a community meeting having a participant fill out a short form on paper and then pinning it to a large map could invite broader participation and overcome obstacles involved with the technology. These could then be added by staff to the digital story map after the in-person event.

We had low participation at this station in the in-person events, but we are not sure of the reason for this. It could be that other activities were more appealing to participants, the description was unclear, or people felt uncomfortable with the technology.

Figure 7. Screenshot of Tacoma Stories, the map platform created as part of the CAC project, built on arcGIS. Taken July 31, 2023.