Executive  summaryChapter1Chapter2Chapter3
Chapter4Chapter5Chapter6Chapter7Home

APPENDIX 3A—UNIVERSITY PROFILES

American

  • Size: 4,662 undergraduate; 4,662 graduate
  • Type: private university
  • Location of MESL: Library and IT Department
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: They did not have facilities and equipment like dual projection screens in classrooms, a teaching theater, or 17" monitors.
  • Previous Experience: In their original MESL application, they did not indicate that they had any prior experience with digital projects.

Columbia

  • Size: 11,848 undergraduate; 5,594 graduate
  • Type: private university
  • Location of MESL: Library and IS Department
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: Overall, their system was robust enough to handle the MESL project. They felt that they had enough electronic classrooms; three new electronic classrooms with computer and electronic projection equipment were installed during the course of the project.
  • Previous Experience: They had done digital projects before (DIAP, Digital Imaging Study Project, a RLG group digital information access project).
  • Faculty and Student Access: They felt that the faculty needed better access both at home and in the office to computers that could support image use. The students had adequate access both in their dorms and through the public terminals around campus. One of the complaints here and at American was the lack of access to the MESL data for students from home. This was due to the IP address security restrictions.

Cornell

  • Size: 13,510 undergraduate; 5,970 graduate
  • Type: private university
  • Location of MESL: Library
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: Although that they had a robust enough system to handle the MESL images they found some weaknesses in their system such as slow delivery of images (mainly due to the slowness of the servers and the increased traffic on the network), poorly wired classrooms (most of the classrooms used to teach Art History classes did not have built-in projection equipment), and an overloaded server due to the unevenness of student demand (there were times when very few students used the image collection, and other times when, because of assignment deadlines, students were accessing the same images simultaneously).
  • Previous Experience: They had extensive experience with digital projects such as "Making of America."
  • Faculty and Student Access: While faculty in general did not have adequate computer equipment, students did.

Illinois

  • Size: 26,000 undergraduate; 10,000 graduate
  • Type: public university
  • Location of MESL: Library
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: Although they had seven high-tech teaching classrooms, the technology in them was not state-of-the-art; it was barely capable of supporting 256-color, 640x480 pixel displays. The technological infrastructure to support the Arts and Humanities departments with networking to the desktop was not as well-developed as it was for other disciplines on campus.
  • Previous Experience: Like Cornell, they had been involved in many digital projects before. They are a Digital Library Initiative site, this allowed them to use the DLI resources for MESL.
  • Faculty and Student Access: Faculty did not have adequate access to computer equipment; student access was more than adequate.

Maryland

  • Size: 24,529 undergraduate; 8,477 graduate
  • Type: public university
  • Location of MESL: Art History and Instructional Technology Department
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: They felt that they had the needed infrastructure in place: software, network and classrooms. They had two electronic classrooms.
  • Faculty and Student Access: They were confident that both the faculty and students had adequate access to the needed computer equipment.

Michigan

  • Size: 50,000 total (70% undergraduate)
  • Type: public university
  • Location of MESL: IT department and Library
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: Their technological infrastructure was more than robust enough for MESL. The electronic classrooms were well equipped for projection and computer use.
  • Previous Experience: They had a great deal of experience with past digital projects (e.g. TULIP, JSTOR) and a lot of experience with networked access to digital information.
  • Faculty and Student Access: They felt that network connectivity was in place, but hardware upgrades were lagging behind. The faculty needed better computers both at home and in the office; this was especially an issue for the humanities departments. In general there was adequate access for students.

Virginia

  • Size: 18,073 total
  • Type: public university
  • Location of MESL: Library
  • Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure: They were in the process of installing a new fiber optic backbone and more electronic classrooms. They did not consider that the display quality of their computers was sufficient.
  • Previous Experience: They had worked both on general digital projects and imaging projects, (e.g. Digital Imaging Study Project).
  • Faculty and Student Access: Most computers that the faculty and students were using did not have 24-bit color capability.

Back to Chapter 3

 


The Cost of Digital Image Distribution:
The Social and Economic Implications of
the Production, Distribution, and Usage of Image Data

By Howard Besser & Robert Yamashita
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Imaging/Databases/1998mellon