Namen: V arhivih, knjižnicah in muzejih (AKM) fotografije navadno ne pomenijo poglavitne vrste gradiva, a jih zbirajo vse tri vrste ustanov. Ker vsaka od njih zaradi značilnosti svojega poslanstva deluje po svojih načelih in mednarodnih standardih, se opisi tovrstnega gradiva lahko razlikujejo, kar posledično lahko ovira uporabo. Zato smo proučili podobnosti in razlike v opisu, da bi lahko predlagali skupne smernice.Metodologija/pristop: Na enem samem primeru fotografije iz obdobja prve svetovne vojne, ki bi se lahko nahajala v AKM, je pa shranjena v zbirki Univerzitetne knjižnice Maribor, prikazujemo opis v sistemih COBISS (knjižnice), scopeArchiv (arhivi) in Galis (muzeji) in v standardnih formatih ISBD(NBM) in COMARC (knjižnice), ISAD(G) in ISAAR(CPF) (arhivi) ter Spectrum 5.0 in Object ID (muzeji), ki jih omenjene ustanove uporabljajo.Rezultati: Za identifikacijo nujni podatki se v veliki meri ujemajo. Naslov fotografije prepišemo ali oblikujemo sami. Ime fotografa je v vseh treh sistemih mogoče nadzorovati. Sodobna krajevna imena so vpisana na standardni način. Staro poimenovanje lahko povzroča težave. Zapis časa ni nujno enoten niti v isti ustanovi. Motiva na fotografiji ni mogoče poenotiti, saj se lahko vsaka ustanova osredotoča na drugačen vidik. Lokacijski podatki pričajo o shrambi fotografije v ustanovi in so razmeroma skladni. Vprašanje o mestu digitalizirane različice pa je ostalo neodgovorjeno. Omejitve raziskave: Ustvarili smo hipotetični, idealni opis ene same fotografije v treh sistemih.Izvirnost/uporabnost raziskave: Opravili smo podrobno primerjavo opisa ene fotografije, ki bi lahko bila v vseh slovenskih AKM opisana v treh različnih sistemih enako. Opise so prispevali izkušeni praktiki iz AKM.

This paper reports a study of the characteristics, skills and competencies of historians, both amateur and professional, as users of archives. It makes two main comparisons: between professional historians and amateurs, typically genealogists and family historians; and between participants in Slovenia and in the United Kingdom. The study is in two parts. First, a detailed and comprehensive literature analysis, including information competencies of archivists where relevant, as well as those of users, to identify the main issues to be examined. Second, a Delphi study with a small panel of archivists from both countries, to establish consensus or divergence of opinion, and to explore the differences, if any, between amateur and professional historians, and will also investigate any national differences. The results show a high degree of consensus, and point to common issues in the skills and competencies needed by both groups, which should be explored in a larger study.

National Program for Culture defines that the digitization and preservation of digital content in the field of culture, which include archives and libraries are among the basic tasks of public institutions dealing with cultural heritage. However, it would be reasonable to think how the digitization of library and archival material and free access to the online content are reflected in the description of digital content. Libraries and archives implemented in the last ten years various digitization projects. However, they did not pay attention to the description of digitized material, which raises the question of the importance of context. This raises also the question of the evidential value of the digitized archives as well as authenticity, integrity and accountability of the digitized material in a broader context, which archives provide on the basis of the principles of provenance and original order. The digitization of archives is not specific only from the standpoint of the digitization process itself but also from the standpoint of the description of digitized archives. Adequate description enables namely the wide use of digitized archival material. A short presentation of literature and up to now accomplished research is followed by an analysis of online accessible descriptions of digitized archival material. The analysis was conducted in 48 foreign archival information systems and their databases. These are large systems, some of which operate as a common database of several smaller archives, but some systems are individual systems of the large national archives. The analyses was conducted in publicly accessible user interfaces, and was based on a direct applicability of the descriptions of digitized archival material within individual database. This is the query that can be performed by average user of archival material with access to the search engine knowing at least the basics of the web browser and of searching and sorting of the results.

Users searching for information in archival databases may rely only on themselves and on their experiences. They cannot rely on the help of archivist, as if they could if researching the traditional paper based finding aids. It is of course necessary to keep in mind that the search can be carried out only for data entered in the database. The first survey of users of archival information systems in Slovenia was presented in 2014. For the first time, in the archival profession in Slovenia and in the region, authors tried to introduce the basic concepts and theories in the field of user behaviour in information systems. The article presents the review of the literature relating to the user’s behaviour and reports on the results of the analyses of online accessible database SIRAnet. It presents partial results of a broader research conducted within the preparation of the doctoral thesis dealing with the creation of authority records within archival databases.