Definitions

Discoverable: Finding aids should be easy to locate on an archive’s website. The path to them should be clearly marked, and they should not be hidden many pages away from the homepage [1]. Discoverability is how logical the path to a target object is. 

Usable: Web-based finding aids should use Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to ensure that all users can navigate them [2]. Using WCAG allows: screen readers to navigate the page, copy/paste logic to remain intact, keyboard navigation to function, etc. Usability is how well-implemented WCAG are.

Readable: 54% of people in the U.S. read at or below a sixth-grade level [3]. Finding aids should be written in language that is simple, clear, and easily understood. It may be tempting to use generative AIs for this purpose, but, right now, they are not up to the task [4]. Readability is what reading level the scope and content note text is and how easy the text is to comprehend. 

Findings

I attempted to analyze finding aids from 40 institutions. Only 26 had publicly available finding aids. So, I analyzed those 26 finding aids using the discoverable, usable, and readable metrics. 

Discoverable

To examine discoverability, I assessed the logic and length of the paths from an archive/library’s homepage to the finding aid itself. I found that the average number of clicks from the homepage to finding aid was 3.65; the mode was 3; the highest was 8; and the lowest was 2.

Below, there are two examples. The first is a video from Marshall University, and it demonstrates a logical path. The path is 4 clicks long and is: Homepage > Guides to Manuscript Collections > 0001: Robert Gilchrist Family Papers, 1783-1957 > Download.

The second is a video from the Library of Congress, and it demonstrates a long, illogical path. The path is 6 clicks long and is: Homepage > Researchers > Learn more about Research and Reference Services > Finding Aids > Search 'Robert Gottlieb' > (Opens new tab) Robert S. Gottlieb recordings of North Indian tabla, 1956-1972.

Usable

To examine usability, I analyzed the implementation of WCAG guidelines on each page. To do so, I used WebAIM's Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (WAVE). WAVE checks webpages against Section 508 and WCAG 2.2 guidelines. I found that there were an average of 3 errors and 10.95 alerts, and there was a mode of 2 errors and 1 alert. Most WCAG issues were structural items or ARIA landmark items. 

Below is a screenshot of the WAVE analysis of the finding aid for the Erroll Garner Archive at the University of Pittsburgh. This page demonstrates the potentially high number of WCAG issues a webpage might have. There are 8 errors and 425 alerts. But, there are also 0 contrast errors, 53 ARIA elements, 1673 features, and 2390 structural elements. Those last four items might have high numbers, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Those areas might be registering that the webpage has things like alt text on an image, HTML headings, or ARIA elements—which are all positive things. 

Readable

To examine readability, I ran the text from each finding aid’s Scope and Content note through a Flesch-Kincaid reading level checker. The average reading level of the scope and content notes I checked was 14.07; the mode was 14.8. The image below demonstrates the differences in text written at a college level and a ninth-grade level using an excerpt from the Library of Congress' Robert S. Gottlieb finding aid scope and content note.