Penn State's Visual Image User Study

Portal

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 33-58

  Pisciotta, Henry ^a   Dooris, Michael ^a   Frost, James ^b   Halm, Michael ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LionShare Project   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 13444291588     PISSN: 15312542     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/pla.2005.0011     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Throughout this report, the terms "picture" and "image" are used interchangeably. Both refer to still pictures in any media. The adjective "digital" is used for electronic formats and "analog" for more traditional formats such as photography, half-tone reproduction, etc. Pictures have been studied primarily as documentation. Original works of art have been excluded, but reproductions of artwork have been included. Survey questions further specified the terms "pictures" or "images" to exclude those illustrating books and magazines.
2. The Visual Image User Study was funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, It was conducted between May 2001 and November 2003 by a project team that included specialists from several organizational units at Penn State. The authors of this article are presenting the work of the entire project team: from the University Libraries: John Attig, monograph cataloging librarian, Roger Brisson, digital access librarian (until July 2001), Ann Copeland, special collections cataloging librarian, Nancy Eaton, dean (principal investigator), James Frost, VIUS Project associate, Michael Pelikan, technology initiatives librarian, Henry Pisciotta, arts and architecture librarian (project coordinator), Mark Saussure, lead systems analyst, Nancy Struble, Information Center consultant, and Alex Valentine, VIUS senior research technologist; from the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment: Michael Dooris, director for planning research and assessment; from Teaching and Learning with Technology: Michael Halm, senior strategist, and John Harwood, senior director; from Digital Library Technologies: Joni Barnoff, senior research programmer, Tun Chin, director, Eric Ferrin, senior director, and Jack Orlandi, group manager; and from the School of Information Sciences and Technology: Amanda Spink, associate professor (until 2002).
3. The methods and philosophy of the project were reported in: Henry Pisciotta, Roger Brisson, Eric Ferrin, Michael Dooris, and Amanda Spink, "Penn State Visual Image User Study," D-Lib Magazine 7, 7/8 (July-August, 2001), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july01/07contents.html (accessed October 15, 2004). Those findings from the completed project, which related to metadata, were reported in John Attig, Ann Copeland, and Michael Pelikan, "Context and Meaning: The Challenges of Metadata for a Digital Image Library within the University," College and Research Libraries 65, 3 (May 2004): 251-61.
4. The methods and philosophy of the project were reported in: Henry Pisciotta, Roger Brisson, Eric Ferrin, Michael Dooris, and Amanda Spink, "Penn State Visual Image User Study," D-Lib Magazine 7, 7/8 (July-August, 2001), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july01/07contents.html (accessed October 15, 2004). Those findings from the completed project, which related to metadata, were reported in John Attig, Ann Copeland, and Michael Pelikan, "Context and Meaning: The Challenges of Metadata for a Digital Image Library within the University," College and Research Libraries 65, 3 (May 2004): 251-61.
5. "Visual Image User Study Summary Report" and the supporting "VIUS Reports Series" (November 2003), http://www.libraries.psu.edu/vius/index.html (accessed October 18, 2004). These technical reports are cited hereafter as "VIUS Reports."
6. Peter G.B. Enser and Collin G. McGregor, Analysis of Visual Information Retrieval Queries, British Library R and D Report 6104 (London: British Library Board, 1993), 1.
7. Let this compilation serve as an example of the literature on image retrieval before 1992: Mark E. Rorvig, ed., "Intellectual Access to Graphic Information," special issue, Library Trends 38, 4 (spring 1990).
8. Christie Stephenson, "Recent Developments in Cultural Heritage Image Databases: Directions for User-Centered Design," Library Trends 48, 2 (fall 1999): 422. Another very useful review of research in image indexing is: Corinne Jorgensen, "Access to Pictorial Material: A Review of Current Research and Future Prospects," Computers and the Humanities 33, 4 (December 1999): 293-318.
9. Christie Stephenson, "Recent Developments in Cultural Heritage Image Databases: Directions for User-Centered Design," Library Trends 48, 2 (fall 1999): 422. Another very useful review of research in image indexing is: Corinne Jorgensen, "Access to Pictorial Material: A Review of Current Research and Future Prospects," Computers and the Humanities 33, 4 (December 1999): 293-318.
10. Thomas Peters, "Current Opportunities for the Effective Meta-Assessment of Online Reference Services," Library Trends 49, 2 (fall 2000): 337.
11. Lynne R. Conniss, A. Julie Ashford, and Margaret E. Graham, Information Seeking Behavior in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report, Library and Information Commission Research Report 95 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Institute for Image Data Research, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 2000); Henry Pisciotta, review of Information Seeking Behavior in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report, by Lynne Conniss, A. Julie Ashford, and Margaret E. Graham, Art Libraries Journal 27, 2 (2002): 46-7.
12. Lynne R. Conniss, A. Julie Ashford, and Margaret E. Graham, Information Seeking Behavior in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report, Library and Information Commission Research Report 95 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Institute for Image Data Research, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 2000); Henry Pisciotta, review of Information Seeking Behavior in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report, by Lynne Conniss, A. Julie Ashford, and Margaret E. Graham, Art Libraries Journal 27, 2 (2002): 46-7.
13. Lynne R. Conniss, A. Julie Ashford, and Margaret E. Graham, Information Seeking Behavior in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report, Library and Information Commission Research Report 95 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Institute for Image Data Research, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 2000); Henry Pisciotta, review of Information Seeking Behavior in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report, by Lynne Conniss, A. Julie Ashford, and Margaret E. Graham, Art Libraries Journal 27, 2 (2002): 46-7.
14. Christie Stephenson and Patricia McClung, eds., The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project, 2 vols. (Los Angeles: Getty Information Institute, 1998); Howard Besser and Robert Yamashita, "The Cost of Digital Image Distribution: The Social and Economic Implications of the Production, Distribution and Usage of Image Data," School of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley (July 1998), http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Imaging/Databases/1998mellon/ (accessed October 18, 2004).
15. Christie Stephenson and Patricia McClung, eds., The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project, 2 vols. (Los Angeles: Getty Information Institute, 1998); Howard Besser and Robert Yamashita, "The Cost of Digital Image Distribution: The Social and Economic Implications of the Production, Distribution and Usage of Image Data," School of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley (July 1998), http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Imaging/Databases/1998mellon/ (accessed October 18, 2004).
16. One aspect of the MESL project was particularly useful for the VIUS assessment. A carefully constructed survey was administered at multiple institutions before and after use of the MESL images. Some topics from that instrument were repeated in the VIUS surveys.
17. This list of evaluation methods is very similar to the list of methods used by Digital Library Federation libraries surveyed by Denise Troll Covey. Denise Troll Covey, Usage and Usability Assessment: Library Practices and Concerns, Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, D.C. (2001), http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub105abst.html (accessed October 18, 2004). Covey mentions transaction logs (which monitor specific activities within a database) rather than authentication logs (which only monitor the connections to a database). Transaction logs were planned for the VIUS project but failed for technical reasons.
18. See "VIUS Reports 2.1 Introduction to General Surveys."
19. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," questions 1,13, and 14 and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," questions 1 and 14. The MESL study reported a higher percentage of students using images, but that survey focused on students enrolled in image-intensive courses. See Beth Sandore, "Findings of the Instructor / Student Survey," in Stephenson and McClung, 108.
20. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," questions 1,13, and 14 and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," questions 1 and 14. The MESL study reported a higher percentage of students using images, but that survey focused on students enrolled in image-intensive courses. See Beth Sandore, "Findings of the Instructor / Student Survey," in Stephenson and McClung, 108.
21. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," questions 2, 12 and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," questions 2 and 13.
22. See "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 7.
23. These rankings are obtained from statistics collected by Penn State's Digital Library Technologies unit during calendar year 2002 and through September of 2003. Statistics for these two databases were available throughout this time span. Additional pictorial databases were added during this period.
24. See questions 4 and 5 in "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty" and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students." The AMICO Library was relatively new to Penn State at the time of the survey.
25. See "VIUS Reports 8.7 Authentication Logs," 1.
26. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 15 and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," question 16.
27. Matters related to content were also the highest concerns of the faculty and students described in the MESL study. See Sandore, 118.
28. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 15 and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," question 16. The relationship between perceived labor savings and use of digital images is discussed in Henry Pisciotta, "Image Delivery and the Critical Masses," Journal of Library Administration 39, 2/3 (2003): 123-38.
29. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 15 and "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," question 16. The relationship between perceived labor savings and use of digital images is discussed in Henry Pisciotta, "Image Delivery and the Critical Masses," Journal of Library Administration 39, 2/3 (2003): 123-38.
30. A list of departments surveyed is included in "VIUS Reports 2.1 Introduction to General Surveys."
31. See "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 15.
32. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 14. Outreach, in this context, pertains to non-academic engagements of faculty expertise such as community education, consulting, etc.
33. Respondents were not asked in the survey to indicate what ratio of analog to digital pictures they used for teaching, research, and outreach so this was estimated using a table of Pearson's correlations. Digital Use Teaching Research Outreach Analog 0.16 0.88 0,25 0.15 Digital 0.38 0,45 0.23 Teaching 0.22 NS Research 0.07* All p<0.001. Except *: p=0.065, NS=Not significant The extremely high correlation between teaching and analog image use stands out. This correlation is much higher than between teaching and digital image use. This suggests faculty who use images for teaching are using more analog images. Conversely, there is a stronger correlation between digital image use and research than between analog and research. Faculty using images for research will tend to use digital images more often than analog images. See "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 2-4.
34. Although other factors encouraging digital images in agricultural extension presentations included the flexibility of digital images and a culture in which audiences and peers seem to expect them. See "VIUS Reports 3.4 Agricultural Sciences Focus Group."
35. The 1998 observations of Horward Besser and Bob Yamashita still have some validity: "The digital distribution environment, as a whole, appears to be good for individual usage... digital image distribution in its existing form is problematic for group viewing situations." (p.13)
36. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 3.
37. See "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 12.
38. See for example "VIUS Reports 1.1 General Faculty Focus Groups," 2-5 and "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 15. Our survey was conducted before the passage of the Teach Act and we guess that the new law would have increased the desire for guidance.
39. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 12 and "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 7-9. Discomfort with technology in the classroom was reported at a higher level in the MESL study, which could be explained by the four years between the surveys, by the small number of faculty in that survey, or by other factors. See Sandore, 115. One external reader of the VIUS project's interim report suggested that these two obstacles to digital image use (copyright and classroom equipment) might often be cited by faculty with deeper misgivings about the medium than they are willing to discuss. See "VIUS Reports 7.1 Summary of Comments of External Reviewers," 7.
40. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 12 and "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 7-9. Discomfort with technology in the classroom was reported at a higher level in the MESL study, which could be explained by the four years between the surveys, by the small number of faculty in that survey, or by other factors. See Sandore, 115. One external reader of the VIUS project's interim report suggested that these two obstacles to digital image use (copyright and classroom equipment) might often be cited by faculty with deeper misgivings about the medium than they are willing to discuss. See "VIUS Reports 7.1 Summary of Comments of External Reviewers," 7.
41. For example, those who indicated the strongest (Likert scale) expression of comfort with technology in the classroom use, on average, 62 percent digital images and 38 percent analog images, while those who expressed the least comfort with technology in the classroom average only 12 percent use of digital images. This correlation was supported by others. "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 7-9. "Preliminary Analysis of Survey Data," 2-41 through 2-43.
42. For example, those who indicated the strongest (Likert scale) expression of comfort with technology in the classroom use, on average, 62 percent digital images and 38 percent analog images, while those who expressed the least comfort with technology in the classroom average only 12 percent use of digital images. This correlation was supported by others. "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 7-9. "Preliminary Analysis of Survey Data," 2-41 through 2-43.
43. See especially the faculty focus groups on LUNA's Insight, MOID, and CONTENTdm, "VIUS Reports" 3.1 through 3.3, and "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 12.
44. The term "independent learning" is used here to describe all forms of learning initiated by the learner, ranging from studying for an exam to developing and conducting an independent research project.
45. See "VIUS Reports 1.2 General Student Focus Groups" and "2.4 General Survey of Students," question 10. (Compare to "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 9.) We exercise some caution in comparing student assessments of importance to those of faculty. The faculty survey was a traditional paper one, while the student survey was delivered via the Web. Even though the Web survey was rigorously sampled and conducted, one study has cautioned that Web surveys might produce slightly more positive responses than paper ones. See John Kennedy, George Kuh, and Robert Carini, "Web and Mail Surveys: Preliminary Results of Comparisons Based upon a Large-Scale Project" (paper, Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, May 19,2000, http://www.indiana.edu/~csr/AAPOR_NSSE.pdf (accessed October 18, 2004).
46. See "VIUS Reports 1.2 General Student Focus Groups" and "2.4 General Survey of Students," question 10. (Compare to "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 9.) We exercise some caution in comparing student assessments of importance to those of faculty. The faculty survey was a traditional paper one, while the student survey was delivered via the Web. Even though the Web survey was rigorously sampled and conducted, one study has cautioned that Web surveys might produce slightly more positive responses than paper ones. See John Kennedy, George Kuh, and Robert Carini, "Web and Mail Surveys: Preliminary Results of Comparisons Based upon a Large-Scale Project" (paper, Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, May 19,2000, http://www.indiana.edu/~csr/AAPOR_NSSE.pdf (accessed October 18, 2004).
47. See "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," questions 3 and 7.
48. Compare "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," questions 9 and 10 to "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," questions 8 and 9. The importance of metadata to students was also noted in the MESL study. See Sandore, 111 and 118. A symposium of art historians and computer scientists recently expressed enthusiasm for purely visual means of retrieving images, sometimes called "content-based indexing": Kevin Kiernan, Charles Rhyne, and Ron Spronk, "Digital Imagery for Works of Art: Report of the Co-Chairs," (symposium summary, Cambridge, MA, November 19-20, 2001), http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/mellon/report.html (accessed October 18, 2004). However, interest in these features has apparently not yet reached their potential users. VIUS survey respondents did not place great importance in searches by "visual similarity" or "formal characteristics. " Interestingly, students placed more importance in these features than did faculty.
49. Compare "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," questions 9 and 10 to "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," questions 8 and 9. The importance of metadata to students was also noted in the MESL study. See Sandore, 111 and 118. A symposium of art historians and computer scientists recently expressed enthusiasm for purely visual means of retrieving images, sometimes called "content-based indexing": Kevin Kiernan, Charles Rhyne, and Ron Spronk, "Digital Imagery for Works of Art: Report of the Co-Chairs," (symposium summary, Cambridge, MA, November 19-20, 2001), http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/mellon/report.html (accessed October 18, 2004). However, interest in these features has apparently not yet reached their potential users. VIUS survey respondents did not place great importance in searches by "visual similarity" or "formal characteristics. " Interestingly, students placed more importance in these features than did faculty.
50. See "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 12-4.
51. Students reported using an average of 91 images per semester. Faculty reported using an average of 124 images per semester for research and 186 for teaching. See question 7 in both "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students" and "2.3 General Survey of Faculty."
52. See "VIUS Reports 8.4 Think-Aloud Protocol Study of CONTENTdm Interfaces."
53. The assumption is that this area of satisfaction bled over into other more specific questions. Other factors include that browsable displays of thumbnails reduced the importance of successful searching or that problems with interface are more easily forgotten than other problems (since the search experience and the survey were separated by at least a few days). See "VIUS Reports 8.6 Survey of History of Landscape Architecture Students-Spring."
54. See "VIUS Reports 4.1 Survey of Public Collections."
55. See question 6 in both "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students" and "2.3 General Survey of Faculty."
56. In a survey that was conducted independently of the VIUS project by Penn State's Teaching and Learning with Technology unit, 51 percent of faculty reported having a collection of digital images used for professional purposes. That survey was a random sampling of 2,500 Penn State faculty and teaching assistants from all disciplines with a 13 percent response rate. Jim Kerlin, "FACAC Faculty Survey 2002," http://tlt.its.psu.edu/surveys/spring2002/faculty2002.html (accessed October 18, 2004).
57. See "VIUS Reports 2.3 General Survey of Faculty," question 11.
58. See "VIUS Reports 4.2 Survey of Individual Collections," questions 8 and 22. In response to the question about the amount of a collection that was digital, 46 of the 50 respondents reported that some or all of the collection was digital. The median was 15 percent of a collection in digital form and the average was 35 percent.
59. Although it was seldom prompted, participants raised the issue of support for their own collections in all of the nine focus groups sessions with faculty, the project list serve, and in many interviews.
60. See "VIUS Reports 2.4 General Survey of Students," question 12. Students with collections are slightly more likely to be graduates: "VIUS Reports 2.2 Analysis of General Surveys," 10.
61. Agreement with the need to keep a personal collection regardless of new services was expressed by 25 of 30 respondents. See "VIUS Reports 4.2 Survey of Individual Collections," questions 31-3.
62. See "VIUS Reports 4.2 Survey of Individual Collections," questions 20 and 22.
63. One experiment in providing microcomputer support for a personal faculty collection suggested that the priorities for managing individual collections might be rather different than those for a public collection. See "VIUS Reports 8.8 Case Study in Microcomputer Support for Individual Collections."
64. The hope for mixing images from centralized collections easily with personal and other sources was especially evident in the faculty focus groups on specific systems ("VIUS Reports" 3.1-3.3) but also in "VIUS Reports 4.2 Survey of Individual Collections," question 35.
65. Attig, Copeland, and Pelikan, 255-60.
66. See "VIUS Reports 6.1 List of Ideal Database Features."
67. CONTENTdm, produced by DiMeMa, Inc., is described at http://contentdm. com (accessed October 18, 2004); Insight, produced by Luna Imaging, Inc., is described at http://www.lunaimaging.com (accessed October 18, 2004); MDID (Madison DID) was developed by the Center for Instructional Technology at James Madison University and is described at http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo (accessed October 18, 2004). See "VIUS Reports 3.1 Faculty Focus Groups on Luna's Insight," "3.2 Faculty Focus Groups on MDID," and "3.3 Faculty Focus Group on CONTENTdm."
68. CONTENTdm, produced by DiMeMa, Inc., is described at http://contentdm. com (accessed October 18, 2004); Insight, produced by Luna Imaging, Inc., is described at http://www.lunaimaging.com (accessed October 18, 2004); MDID (Madison DID) was developed by the Center for Instructional Technology at James Madison University and is described at http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo (accessed October 18, 2004). See "VIUS Reports 3.1 Faculty Focus Groups on Luna's Insight," "3.2 Faculty Focus Groups on MDID," and "3.3 Faculty Focus Group on CONTENTdm."
69. CONTENTdm, produced by DiMeMa, Inc., is described at http://contentdm. com (accessed October 18, 2004); Insight, produced by Luna Imaging, Inc., is described at http://www.lunaimaging.com (accessed October 18, 2004); MDID (Madison DID) was developed by the Center for Instructional Technology at James Madison University and is described at http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo (accessed October 18, 2004). See "VIUS Reports 3.1 Faculty Focus Groups on Luna's Insight," "3.2 Faculty Focus Groups on MDID," and "3.3 Faculty Focus Group on CONTENTdm."
70. CONTENTdm, produced by DiMeMa, Inc., is described at http://contentdm. com (accessed October 18, 2004); Insight, produced by Luna Imaging, Inc., is described at http://www.lunaimaging.com (accessed October 18, 2004); MDID (Madison DID) was developed by the Center for Instructional Technology at James Madison University and is described at http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo (accessed October 18, 2004). See "VIUS Reports 3.1 Faculty Focus Groups on Luna's Insight," "3.2 Faculty Focus Groups on MDID," and "3.3 Faculty Focus Group on CONTENTdm."
71. The review of software concluded in May 2002. CONTENTdm was chosen for providing a database service. Two key criteria were mounting a database of several thousand images within three months and allowing rapid and frequent additions to the database during the ensuing two semesters. All of the software that was considered has changed dramatically since that time.
72. After the VIUS project, the database system was again remodeled (and expanded to 16,000 images) in order to provide a continually growing service.
73. This table of the images used in survey texts for landscape history is available for download as "VIUS Report 8.2 Concordance of Monuments in History of Landscape Architecture Texts."
74. For details see "VIUS Report 8.1 Development of the Prototype Database Service."
75. See "VIUS Reports 8.7 Authentication Logs." The MESL study also reported that use was strongly influenced by assignments. See Sandore, 109.
76. See "VIUS Reports 8.6 Survey of History of Landscape Architecture Students-Spring."
77. Written agreements were developed with faculty contributors to the database.
78. Information on the LionShare project may be found at http://lionshare.its.psu.edu/main/ (accessed October 18, 2004). For a broader discussion of the potential of peer-to-peer environments in the academic setting, see Andy Oram, "Peer-to-Peer for Academia," (October, 2001), http://www.openp2p.eom/pub/a/p2p/2001/10/29/oram_speech.html (accessed October 18, 2004); Andy Oram, ed., Peer-to-Peer. Harnessing the Benefits of a Disruptive Technology (Beijing: O'Reilly, 2001).
79. Information on the LionShare project may be found at http://lionshare.its.psu.edu/main/ (accessed October 18, 2004). For a broader discussion of the potential of peer-to-peer environments in the academic setting, see Andy Oram, "Peer-to-Peer for Academia," (October, 2001), http://www.openp2p.eom/pub/a/p2p/2001/10/29/oram_speech.html (accessed October 18, 2004); Andy Oram, ed., Peer-to-Peer. Harnessing the Benefits of a Disruptive Technology (Beijing: O'Reilly, 2001).
80. Information on the LionShare project may be found at http://lionshare.its.psu.edu/main/ (accessed October 18, 2004). For a broader discussion of the potential of peer-to-peer environments in the academic setting, see Andy Oram, "Peer-to-Peer for Academia," (October, 2001), http://www.openp2p.eom/pub/a/p2p/2001/10/29/oram_speech.html (accessed October 18, 2004); Andy Oram, ed., Peer-to-Peer. Harnessing the Benefits of a Disruptive Technology (Beijing: O'Reilly, 2001).
81. One of the services of the Creative Commons organization is providing plain-English licenses to clarify the intent of those posting their own work on the Internet, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0 (accessed October 18, 2004).
82. See "VIUS Reports 9.2 Faculty Focus Group on LionShare."