Tools and techniques for locating, retrieving and storing electronic text

This chapter describes the techniques needed for using electronic databases to locate and retrieve references to, and full text of, articles in journals, conference papers and chapters in books. It also gives a brief summary of techniques for storing references electronically. The following topics are covered in detail: using appropriate natural language and controlled vocabularies for efficient and effective searching; search using phrases; search using references that relate to your topic to find which other authors have also cited them; use of in-field searching; record your references using bibliographic software

BURO Versions Policy

Versions policy for BURO, providing advice on which versions to include in BURO, what will happen to them and how they will be managed

Spreading the Word, Protecting the Rights.

Bournemouth University and the Centre for Broadcasting History Research [CBHR] Archive collections have a unique flavour, at least in how projects linked to radio collections have come about. We should mention that there have been other projects linked to television as well, the TVTimes project also a partnership with the British Library, The This Week Project and BBC Panorama with the BBC. None of these projects, however, have actually involved digitising moving image. We have also recently acquired the giant IBA paper archive from Ofcom, dating back to the start of ITV. This paper, however, will focus on our sound radio archives, and in particular the creation of an online resource hosted by the BUFVC website, and funded by JISC, to preserve and provide access for students and academics in the UK, material from the LBC/Independent Radio News Archive

Designing a Highly Expressive Algorithmic Music Composition System for Non-Programmers

Algorithmic composition systems allow for the partial or total automation of music composition by formal, computational means. Typical algorithmic composition systems generate nondeterministic music, meaning that multiple musical outcomes can result from the same algorithm - consequently the output is generally different each time the algorithm runs

Editors’ Introduction

When we commissioned the authors to write for our book we anticipated that these practitioners, operating at the forefront of their respective fields, would stimulate and provoke debate about academic libraries now and in the future. When we read the chapters as they were delivered we were not disappointed. We hope the reader will be struck by two seemingly disparate aspects of their content. On the one hand each chapter is highly individual, not only in style and content, but also in approach and reflection. On the other hand common themes emerge: notably the opportunity afforded by technology (especially mobile technology), the importance of training and development for library staff, and evaluation, as well as the interdependence of teaching and research and the role technology plays in bringing these even closer together. To focus these synergies and differences we decided to use word clouds to introduce each chapter. As we ran each chapter through Wordle[1] we saw themes and patterns emerging; we hope that readers of the book will find this a useful and stimulating contribution to each chapter and the book as a whole. A word cloud for the entire book has been created for the cover, demonstrating in a very graphic way the breadth and depth of the content

Choosers: designing a highly expressive algorithmic music composition system for non-programmers

We present an algorithmic composition system designed to be accessible to those with minimal programming skills and little musical training, while at the same time allowing the manipulation of detailed musical structures more rapidly and more fluidly than would normally be possible for such a user group. These requirements led us to devise non- standard programming abstractions as the basis for a novel graphical music programming language in which a single basic element permits indeterminism, parallelism, choice, multi-choice, recursion, weighting and looping. The system has general musical expressivity, but for simplicity here we focus on manipulating samples. The musical abstractions behind the system have been implemented as a set of SuperCollider classes to enable end-user testing of the graphical programming language via a Wizard of Oz prototyping methodology. The system is currently being tested with undergraduate Music Technology students who are typically neither programmers, nor traditional musicians

Choosers: The design and evaluation of a visual algorithmic music composition language for non-programmers

Algorithmic music composition involves specifying music in such a way that it is non-deterministic on playback, leading to music which has the potential to be different each time it is played. Current systems for algorithmic music composition typically require the user to have considerable programming skill and may require formal knowledge of music. However, much of the potential user population are music producers and musicians (some professional, but many amateur) with little or no programming experience and few formal musical skills. To investigate how this gap between tools and potential users might be better bridged we designed Choosers, a prototype algorithmic programming system centred around a new abstraction (of the same name) designed to allow non-programmers access to algorithmic music composition methods. Choosers provides a graphical notation that allows structural elements of key importance in algorithmic composition (such as sequencing, choice, multi-choice, weighting, looping and nesting) to be foregrounded in the notation in a way that is accessible to non-programmers. In order to test design assumptions a Wizard of Oz study was conducted in which seven pairs of undergraduate Music Technology students used Choosers to carry out a range of rudimentary algorithmic composition tasks. Feedback was gathered using the Programming Walkthrough method. All users were familiar with Digital Audio Workstations, and as a result they came with some relevant understanding, but also with some expectations that were not appropriate for algorithmic music work. Users were able to successfully make use of the mechanisms for choice, multi-choice, looping, and weighting after a brief training period. The ‘stop’ behaviour was not so easily understood and required additional input before users fully grasped it. Some users wanted an easier way to override algorithmic choices. These findings have been used to further refine the design of Choosers

"BURO Case Study" In "Making the Repository Count: lessons from successful implementation"

Matt Holland and Tim Denning continue the research theme and consider the importance of IRs in support of research, focussing on three areas; how the IR fits with the university organisation; how to promote the use of the IR to end users and contributors; and how to secure long term benefits for the broadest range of stakeholders. They incorporate two case studies into the discussion, and include a description of the implementation of Bournemouth University Research Online (BURO). With contributions from Emma Crowley, BURO Manager

A cognitive dimensions analysis of interaction design for algorithmic composition software

This paper presents an analysis of the user interfaces of a range of algorithmic music composition software using the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations as the main analysis tool. Findings include the following: much of the reviewed software exhibits a low viscosity and requires significant user knowledge. The use of metaphor (staff notation, music production hardware) introduces multiple levels of abstraction which the user has to understand in order to use effectively: some instances of close mapping reduce abstraction but require the user to do more work. Significant premature commitment is not conducive to music composition, and there are clear opportunities for the greater provisionality that a piece of structurally-aware music software could provide. Visibility and juxtaposability are frequently compromised by complex design. Patching software reduces the hard mental operations required of the user by making the signal flow clear, although graphical complexity can have a negative impact on role-expressiveness. Complexity leads to error-proneness in several instances, although there are some tools (such as error-checking and auto-completion) which seek to ameliorate the main problem