This phase of the design process has been completed.
Our goal for Phase 1 of the ArcLight information architecture process was to identify the primary types of users and establish a core set of requirements that could be used to inform the design work in later phases of the overall design process for ArcLight. The two primary artifacts developed during this phase were a set of personas, derived from data gathered during user interviews and analyzed further upon their completion, and a set of requirements with a draft prioritization used as the basis for discussion with stakeholders.
Staff from Stanford University Libraries, University of Michigan, and Georgia Tech developed six personas period:
- a support developer, responsible for deploying and assisting with the maintenance and customization of an archival discovery system;
- an (application) administrator, responsible for day to day configuration and maintenance of the application and likely understood as a technically-savvy archivist;
- an arrangement and description archivist, responsible for publishing and updating archival description;
- a public service archivist, responsible for reference and instruction;
- a community researcher, with low to moderate technical proficiency; and
- an advanced researcher (university faculty member), familiar with public access catalogs, finding aids and online collections.
Discussion with stakeholders at at Stanford University Libraries also led us to identify a set of additional needs for curators, related to both using archival descriptions and materials like subject guides to help present an institution's collections to support their acquisition function, as well as the development of interpretive materials, including online exhibits.
We developed the requirements following the completion of the personas. The requirements were informed by the personas, in addition to in-depth review of the user interview analysis and other stakeholder documents provided to us during ArcLight Discovery: Phase 1. We prioritized the requirements using the MoSCoW method (Must have; Should have; Could have; and Won't have) to inform the scope of work for an upcoming work cycle led by Stanford to produce a minimum viable product.