Best Practice Guidelines for the Development and Evaluation of Digital Humanities Projects 1.0. Project team There should be a clear indication of who is responsible for the publication of the project. Other members of the project such as programmers, designers, editors, coders, librarians, etc., should also be mentioned. In both cases it is recommended that the participant s affiliation be included. It is important to indicate which institution or institutions are involved in the project. This information is used to support the quality of the contents. There should be a way to contact the project managers. It is important that these communications be addressed promptly. 2.0 Documentation This section addresses the information about the methodology and academic processes that were carried out to ensure the project's quality. There should be explicit information about how the project was created, both intellectual and technical (e.g. infrastructure). In relation to the content, the academic criterion for the selection of the material should be made clear. Information about the breadth of the material should be available as well as an indication of whether more content will be added or if the collection is considered to be complete. Academic rigour and transparency in the methodology should be made clear. For technical documentation, the choice of digital technologies and standards must be explained. In order to promote the usage of the academic resource within more formal academic publishing and communication channels it is important to state how the project can be cited. The project s time frame: start date as well as updates or finishing date if applicable, should be made explicit.
3.0. Usability and information architecture The purpose, objectives and intended audience of the project should be made clear. It should also be clear how the project's structure is assembled and how the web site can be used (i.e. through navigation or consistent menus). Additionally, what kinds of other tools, such as search facilities or indexes, are available for the user to make better use of the resource. The site must be in good condition, no broken hyperlinks or incomplete sections that affect optimal utilization of the project. Relevant and appropriate support resources must exist. It is recommended that the project takes into consideration accessibility issues so that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate and interact with the resource. 4.0. Quality Control It should be clear if an editorial committee was implemented or if some type of review process or other quality control mechanisms were used for the project. Also if any guidelines were used in the creation of the resource, for example, best practices, checklists or standards. When applicable it should be clear if external examiners were used or some kind of interdisciplinary board if the resource includes subjects from diverse disciplines. The implementation of self-assessment mechanisms is strongly recommended, and it should be made clear what public and internal measures will be used. For example, a visitor counter, Google Analytics, Alexa or similar. It is necessary to indicate how feedback is collected and processed. For example, email address for queries, questionnaires for users, etc. It is important to know how the site is being used to better understand how the resource is being used and how it may be improved. 5.0. Copyright The legal status of the content, access permissions and reprint of materials must be specified. If necessary, an explicit statement of the terms and conditions for use of the resource must be included. In the case of resources that reuse materials (for example, digitization projects) it should be made clear if the necessary copyright permissions were
obtained. It must also be made clear the year the resource was created and if applicable, the date of the last update. 6.0. Visibility and sharing Digital resources should include descriptive metadata (as a header or in a separate file) using international standards applicable to the subject or genre (e.g. Dublin Core). If relevant or useful, the website should be translated into another language. As a minimum it is desirable that it includes a description of the resource in other language. It is important that the resource can be viewed on different devices and different platforms. It should also be possible to share information about the site, for example, via social media. It is also important to know how the issues of use and reuse of data are handled, e.g. for export and use in other contexts. When applicable it should be indicated if the resource is indexed or registered in relevant databases, aggregators or indexing services. 7.0. Additional recommendations The future of the project One of the biggest problems with digital resources is ensuring maintenance and long-term preservation of the project, especially when the project team is small or run by just one person. This section addresses how aware the project manager(s) are of these issues and what steps have been taken to assure the project s future. For example, the use of an institutional domain suggests institutional backing, or the use of a DOI or other permanent hyperlink standard. Another important issue is hosting. If a commercial hosting service is being used, what will happen to the resource if this is no longer paid for? It is highly recommended that the resource be archived in a reliable institutional repository or digital library in order to ensure its maintenance and long-term preservation.
Checklist for good practice guidelines of Digital Humanities projects 1.0 Project Team 1.1 Is it clear who is responsible for the project? 1.2 Is the institutional affiliation of the project leader(s) included? 1.3 Is it clear who the project team members are? 1.4 Is the institutional affiliation(s) of the project team members included? 1.5 Is it clear which institution(s) are involved in the project? 1.6 Is there a way to contact the project leader? 2.0 Documentation 2.1 Is information available about the project s methodology? 2.2 Is it clear which materials are presented and what selection criteria were used? 2.3 Is it clear whether the project is complete or will continue to updated and added to? 2.4 Is the project s technical documentation available? 2.5 For academic purposes, is it clear how to cite the project? 2.6 Is the project s timeline (date of publication, last updated, end date) clearly stated? 3.0 Usability, Design & Access 3.1 Is it possible to clearly understand the purpose and objectives of the project? 3.2 Is it clear who the resource s intended audience is and who has access? 3.3 Is it clear how and for what purpose the site can be used? 3.4 Is the user interface easy to use? 3.5 Does it have search functionality that is easy and useful? 3.6 Does it include a help section or similar features for the users? 3.7 Is the resource up-to-date (e.g. links are still active)? 3.8 Can the project be accessed by persons with disabilities? 4.0 Evaluation & Peer Review 4.1 Does the project have an editorial committee, or did the project go through peer review? 4.2 Does the project state which guidelines, standards, or best practices were used? 4.3 Does the project include external evaluators or interdisciplinary consultants? 4.4 Does the project collect and/or provide metrics such as web analytics? 4.5 Does the project include mechanisms for user feedback (e.g. email, comments, survey, etc.)?
5.0 Copyright 5.1 Is the copyright status of archival materials and original content clearly stated? 5.2 Is the provenance of archival materials clearly stated? 5.3 For legal purposes, is the date of the resource s creation clearly stated? 6.0 Visibility And Dissemination 6.1 Does the archival material contain descriptive metadata, either embedded or in a separate file? 6.2 Does the metadata follow a subject-appropriate international standard? 6.3 Is the project, or the project s about page, translated into another language(s)? 6.4 It is clear which databases, content aggregators, indexing services or others include information about the project? 6.5 Is it possible to share the project s content (e.g. download, link, social media, etc.)? 6.6 Is the resource accessible on different browsers, platforms and devices? 6.7 Are there ways to access (download, export, API) and reuse the project s data? More information and an online tool available at: http://humanidadesdigitales.net/evaluacion/ Created by Red de Humanidades Digitales (RedHD) Version 1.1. December 2013 More information at: http://humanidadesdigitales.net/evaluacion/acerca *Translation from the Spanish version. March 2014. Jorge Daniel Camarena, Isabel Galina, Josh Honn and Elika Ortega*