Shan Sutton Associate Dean & Head of Special Collections University of the Pacific Library Stockton, California

Standard levels of description should be less detailed to make more content available to users, although some materials merit exceptions. Users prefer more content with less description. Both of these concepts have encouraged archival self- reflection, and a shift from boutique to industrial digitization projects.

Boutique Selective body of material High quality images Extensive description/interpretation Industrial Large body of material Lower quality images Minimal description/interpretation

Images: Boutique in choosing to scan originals instead of microfilm, and only selecting photos that include Muir. Metadata: Industrial in using pre-existing descriptions only, no additional analysis or description.

Images: Boutique in choosing to scan originals instead of microfilm, industrial in digitizing all 78 journals. Metadata: Industrial in using pre-existing titles only, no additional analysis or descriptions (including no abstracts and transcriptions).

Images: Boutique in choosing to scan originals instead of microfilm. Metadata: Industrial in using pre-existing titles only, no additional analysis or description.

Images: Industrial in scanning microfilm. Metadata: Industrial in using pre-existing descriptions on sender, recipient, date, location, but boutique in creating transcriptions.

Look for opportunities to incorporate industrial processes, especially in image creation. Reserve boutique treatment for material that truly merits the investment. Both approaches may be applied within the same collection when appropriate.

It’s clearly cheaper and faster to scan and describe collections to less detailed levels, but is the loss of quality in image and metadata worth it in meeting user needs? Are different audiences served by boutique vs. industrial digitization?