D7.4 Quality-in-Use Report

WP7: Quality in Use Analysis for Archaeologists D7.4 Quality in Use Report 20-08-2025 Rimvydas Laužikas, Ingrida Kelpšienė, Indrė JovaišaitėBlaževičienė, Kristy-Lee Seaton, Andrius Šuminas, Holly Wright 2 Document History Date Version Author Comments 04-01-2025 0.0 Rimvydas Laužikas, Ingrida Kelpšienė, Indrė Jovaišaitė-Blaževičienė, Andrius Šuminas 25-05-2025 0.1 Rimvydas Laužikas, Ingrida Kelpšienė, Indrė Jovaišaitė-Blaževičienė, Kristy-Lee Seaton, Holly Wright 20-08-2025 0.2 (final) Rimvydas Laužikas 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5 2. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................ 7 3. Research methodology .......................................................................................... 9 3.1. Quality in Use approach .................................................................................................. 9 3.2. Description of the research cases ................................................................................. 10 3.3. The research design for the non-archaeology professionals' use cases ....................... 10 3.3.1. The interviews ................................................................................................ 10 3.3.2. Exploratory workshop for discussion and proof of results .............................. 12 3.3.3. The eye-tracking experiment .......................................................................... 12 3.3.4. The post-experiment questionnaire ................................................................ 13 3.4. The research design for archaeology professionals' use cases ..................................... 13 3.4.1 Citation analysis .............................................................................................. 13 3.4.2 Interviews ........................................................................................................ 14 4. Results ................................................................................................................. 15 4.1. Description of user groups (target audiences).............................................................. 15 4.1.1. The groups of non-archaeology professionals interested in archaeology ....... 15 4.1.1.1. Archaeology as a source of inspiration ................................................................... 16 4.1.1.2. Archaeology as a foundation for creative improvisation ........................................ 18 4.1.1.3. Seeking to reconstruct the past .............................................................................. 21 4.1.2. The archaeology professionals....................................................................... 23 4.2. Barriers to the reuse of archaeological data ................................................................. 23 4.2.1. The non-archaeology professionals interested in archaeology ...................... 23 4.2.1.1. Findability ................................................................................................................ 24 4.2.1.2. Accessibility ............................................................................................................. 30 4.2.1.3. Interoperability ....................................................................................................... 31 4.2.1.4. Reusability ............................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2. The archaeology professionals....................................................................... 34 4.2.2.1. Findability ................................................................................................................ 35 4.2.2.2. Accessibility ............................................................................................................. 36 4.2.2.3. Reusability ............................................................................................................... 36 5. Good practices ..................................................................................................... 39 4 5.1. Good practices for the non-archaeology professionals .............................................................................................................................................. 39 5.2. Good practices for the archaeology professionals ....................................................... 40 6. Conclusion and recommendations ....................................................................... 42 7. References ........................................................................................................... 44 5 1. Introduction Over the last decade, innovation has centred on making archaeological data more interoperable, increasing the discoverability of data through integrated cross-search and facilitating knowledge creation by combining data in new ways. An emerging research challenge for the next decade is optimising archaeological data for reuse and defining what constitutes good practice around reuse. Critical to this research is understanding the current state-of-the-art regarding both existing best practices and barriers to using and reusing archaeological data. Previous research has demonstrated that, despite the investments being made into making data more interoperable, locating the right data can still be challenging. On the other hand, the proliferation of digital information technologies (IT) has caused significant changes in how society functions. This transformative shift is illuminated by concepts like the Network society put forth by scholars such as Manuel Castells and Jan van Dijk (Castells 1997; Dijk 2005). Heritage, traditionally associated with the past, representing historical culture and knowledge, now assumes a dynamic presence in the present – serving as a versatile instrument for contemporary culture, education, the entertainment industry, social identity construction, political communication, and personal inspiration, among its multifaceted roles. These changes trigger a central tension between the need to preserve cultural resources and the dynamic potential for their use and reuse in democratic, just and compelling ways for the needs of different target audiences in contemporary society. In the context of these challenges, the “Transforming data reuse in Archaeology” (TETRARCHs) project was created. This report is a result of the TETRARCHs project, WP7 Quality in Use Analysis for Archaeologists tasks: T7.3 Quality in Use Implementation and T7.4 Quality in Use Analysis. WP7 focuses on the creation and implementation of a methodology to evaluate the re-usability of archaeological data by professional and non-professional archaeologists (Laužikas et al 2018). Early experimentation and testing by members of CP COST Action SEADDA have shown that the “Quality in Use” (ISO/IEC 25022:2016 2021) conceptual approach is appropriate for this type of evaluation (Seaton et al, 2023). This approach enables qualitative and quantitative assessment of the degree to which a digital resource can be used by archaeologists to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. WP7 will assess community practice leading to a research design using the “Quality in Use” conceptual approach applied to the use cases developed in D6.4. It will result in recommendations and refinements to better serve the archaeological research community (Transforming… 2021). This research aims to create and test (verify) a methodology to evaluate the re-usability of (i) archaeological data and (ii) digital archaeological archives by professional archaeologists and non-archaeological professionals. In broader terms, that means understanding behavioural (cf. information behaviour) patterns of different archaeology data user groups in the data search for data for re-use. This research is not an evaluation of the particular archive but an evaluation of user experience (good or bad experience doesn‘t mean the archive is good or bad). However, it can improve the relationship of the archaeology data archive with the members of a specific community (as a target audience). This report covers the WP7’s deliverable D7.4 Quality in Use Report. Results of the previous WP7 task (T7.1 and T7.2) are presented in two reports: D7.1 Specification of Use Cases and D7.2 Research Design Description. The results of WP7’ was presented as conference papers: 1. Rimvydas Laužikas (Vilnius University); Kristy-Lee Seaton (University of York); Holly Wright (University of York); Keith May (Historic England); Peter McKeague (Historic Environment Scotland); Vera Moitinho de Almeida (University of Porto). The understanding of re-use and barriers to re-use of archaeological data. The quality in use methodological approach. At the 2023 Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Amsterdam, 3-6 April, 2023. 6 2. Kristy-Lee Seaton (University of York); Holly Wright (University of York). Moving from FAIR to CARE: Why understanding archaeological data reuse is critical to developing ethical practice. At the 2024 Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Auckland, 8-12 April, 2024. 3. Laužikas, Rimvydas (Vilnius University); Jovaišaitė-Blaževičienė, Indrė (Vilnius University); Kelpšienė, Ingrida (Vilnius University); Šuminas, Andrius (Vilnius University). Archaeology data and non-archaeological professionals: Why do people need archaeology? At the 30th European Association of Archaeologists Annual Meeting, Rome, 28-31 August, 2024. 4. Laužikas, Rimvydas (Vilnius University); Jovaišaitė-Blaževičienė, Indrė (Vilnius University); Kelpšienė, Ingrida (Vilnius University); Šuminas, Andrius (Vilnius University). Digital Archaeology Data Archives as a Source of Creative Inspiration. At the 2025 Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Athens, 5-9 May, 2025. 7 2. Theoretical framework Non-archaeological professionals are people who regularly or occasionally organise or engage in an archaeology-related activity, but (contrary to the professional archaeologists) without having acquired an academic education, training or formal certification in archaeology and whose day job is not in professional archaeology. However, these people are professionals in other fields (e.g., creative industries, tourism, crafts, or non-formal education). Moreover, they regularly or occasionally organise and engage in archaeology-related activities or express versatile public interests in archaeology (e.g., immovable objects, artefacts and ecofacts, data, information, knowledge, education, archaeology-connected traditions, practices and other possible intangible objects or things). There are also people who are affected by archaeology in different ways (e.g. landowners with archaeological sites on their property), as well as those whose contemporary identity and life are entangled with the meaning of archaeological entities (e.g. members of indigenous and descendant communities). These people are united by the need to use archaeological data in different contexts and for different purposes. Usually, they are members of different communities. The term “communities” encompasses both institutionalised and non-institutionalised, virtual or physical, and all other groups of people with a common relationship to archaeology. These individuals and communities may not describe themselves as “intentionally interested” in archaeology, as they do not see archaeological materials and heritage primarily from the archaeological disciplinary perspective (Laužikas et all, 2018). The analysis of the re-usability of archaeological data by professional archaeologists and nonarchaeology professionals is based on Juri Lotman’s cultural semiotic assumption concerning the relationship between culture as a structure of the semiosphere and its representational texts, as well as social and communicative functions of the text (Lotman, 2001). Lotman’s model is introduced here as a basis for the theoretical elaboration of the structures and relationships connecting data and data archives created by professional archaeologists and archaeology-related communities of non-archaeology professionals. In Lotman’s sense, archaeological objects (sites and artefacts) and knowledge are signs communicated in the textual format (in our case, in archaeology data archives). The articulation of the signs into text is governed by semiotic rules (named codes), which are understandable for members of a particular semiosphere (in our case, the target community). Belonging to different communities creates a specific context that determines the use and reuse of archaeological data. In this light, we can conceive contemporary archaeological professional activity as a semiosphere structure (academy, scholarly research community) situated in the context of a specific contemporary culture, as open and constantly changing but also as coherent and systematic. This semiosphere structure interacts dialogically with other contemporaneous sign structures: for example, with other scholarly activities and disciplines or with other, culturally more distant sign structures which lie outside the realm of scholarly knowledge (e.g., in the domain of the arts, entertainment, religion, or business), on the basis of which various archaeology-related communities of non-archaeology professionals can emerge. The existence of archaeological objects and scholarly knowledge catalyse knowledge work – the emergence of new knowledge and new texts intended for members of communities of nonarchaeology professionals. Technically, this process is the translation of knowledge from scholarly archaeology to the non-scholarly semiosphere. Archaeological scholarly knowledge (the knowledge of archaeologists who belong to a disciplinary archaeological semiosphere) is transformed through a process of knowledge translation into community knowledge (the practical knowledge of members of different non-professional communities or semiospheres). This process can be explained in various conceptual contexts. But for this research (analysing the case of archaeology data and archaeological data archives), the concept of Information behaviour is applied as the "totality of human behaviour in relation to sources and channels of information, including both active and passive information seeking, and information use" (Wilson, 2000). In our research, information behaviour can explain how people from different 8 communities understand the information logic of archaeology data archives as structures (e.g. data archives created and easily searchable by professional archaeologists may be incomprehensible to non-archaeological professionals, not because of the difficulty of understanding content, but because it is challenging the logic of construction and searchability of the information). This theoretical framework enables us to formulate three hypotheses: (i) members of different archaeology-related communities have different information behaviours; (ii) archaeology data and data archives, created by professional archaeologists, are based on specific information behaviour that is difficult for non-archaeological professionals to understand; (iii) differences in information behaviour are the main explanation of barriers for non-archaeology professionals to using and reusing archaeology data. 9 3. Research methodology 3.1. Quality in Use approach Early experimentation and testing by members of CP COST Action SEADDA have shown that the “Quality in Use” (ISO/IEC 25022:2016 2021) conceptual approach is appropriate for this type of evaluation (Seaton et all, 2023). This approach enables qualitative and quantitative assessment of the degree to which a particular target community member can use a digital resource to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. WP7 will assess community practice leading to a research design using the “Quality in Use” conceptual approach applied to the use cases developed in D6.4. This will result in recommendations and refinements that will serve the archaeological research community better. The “Quality in Use” research methodology is based on a user-based quality approach to measuring product quality. This recognises that the values placed on product characteristics will vary between users (Garvin, 1984). In response to this approach, two existing ISO standards were adopted. The SQuaRE (System and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation) model, represented in the ISO/IEC 25000 standards series, is a tool for evaluating software quality (International… 2017), while ISO/IEC 25022:2016 provides a set of standardised measurement functions that measure software performance from the user's perspective (International… 2016). The “Quality-in-use” is 'the degree to which a product or system can be used by specific users to meet their needs to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and freedom from risk in specific contexts of use' (International… 2016). ISO/IEC 25022:2016 provides a set of standardised measurement functions that measure software performance from the user's perspective (International… 2016). ISO/IEC 25022 can be used to account for the variances users apply to different product features. To test this approach's applicability in understanding quantitative and qualitative re-use of archaeological data and exploring good practices and barriers to re-use, a pilot research was conducted as part of the SEADDA COST Action. This research has provided a methodological model seeking to analyse professional archaeologists' reuse of archaeological data. The research model prepared consists of five characteristics (effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, context coverage and usability) with 14 measures (task completeness, objectives achieved, task time, cost-effectiveness, overall satisfaction, satisfaction with features, user trust in the system, the data and metadata, user pleasure, physical comfort, context completeness, flexible context of use and user guidance completeness). In addition, the study was bound by (i) the reuse of digital archaeological archives, (ii) orientation to content usability and reusability, (iii) maintaining a user-oriented approach, and (iv) collecting data from professionals in archaeology and heritage. Testing the methodology requires a contextual background to be identified, outlining the specific user, environment and goals for reusing data. The background context is necessary to design user cases that reflect real-world data reuse for testing the methodology. Testing the methodology required a context that described the specific user, environment and goals for reusing data. International standard ISO/IEC 25030:2019 describe the Use case as the “...extent to which the behavioural and attitudinal outcomes and consequences of use of a product, system or service meet the needs of users or other stakeholders in specific context of use…” (International… 2019). The standard describes the user as “...individual or group that interacts with a system of benefits from a system during it’s utilisation…” (International… 2019) and the specific context of use as “...conditions and constraints under which ICT products are used by specific users in a specific environment to achieve specific goals as part of the larger information system…”, clarifying the environment as “...physical aspects such as equipment and resources as well as social aspects such as demographics and culture…” (International… 2019). 16 3. Reconstruction: This category reflects a high demand for detail and accuracy from a historical perspective. Responses in this category include, "I need a primary source," "I am looking for concrete data," "I cannot interpret without specific details," and "I need to understand the original scale." Categories mentioned highlight the diverse ways non-archaeologists engage with archaeological data based on their specific needs and contexts. Thus, the interest of nonarchaeological communities in the accuracy of archaeological data is closely tied to the community's objectives and may vary depending on the specific project. For instance, within the same community, the need for data accuracy can range from inspiration to interpretation or from reconstruction to interpretation, depending on the project's goals. 4.1.1.1. Archaeology as a source of inspiration This group included three interview participants, including a writer (1), an architect (1), and a jeweller (1), who use archaeological data infrequently, primarily for general creative inspiration, seeking past-inspired forms, materials, or archaeological facts. For this group, ”inspiration” involves triggering a creative thought, discovering a new artistic direction, or stimulating a new project. However, the archaeological objects or datasets themselves may not hold intrinsic significance beyond their initial inspirational impact. As noted, members of this group may occasionally seek more detailed archaeological data for specific projects, transitioning from inspiration to improvisation. Despite this potential shift, their primary engagement with archaeological data remains sporadic, often unintentional, and driven by the visual impressions or creative potential they perceive. Typical comments from this group include: "I look first for where the eye falls"; "I reach for interesting shapes"; "The patterns of the fabrics led me to mold clay vessels"; "I was looking for a historical style", "I saw a shard and I started thinking of a story". Activities related to non-professional archaeological data use. The architect needs archaeological data as a source of inspiration in the creation of contemporary building projects. The case of the project of the modern SPA on the lake, inspired by the Bronze Age pile dwelling settlement, was discussed in an interview. The “archaeological” part requires approximately 20-25 per cent of the SPA project's total development time. Regarding the choice of a Bronze Age pile dwelling settlement as inspiration, the architect mentions that "...we wanted to find something unique, to stand on something real and have a unique idea of contemporary SPA [...] and we find the information about this archaeological site [...] after the discovery of an archaeological site, it was analysed what could be "extracted" from it, how to develop an architectural idea on this background…". The development of architectural ideas started from the archaeological drawing of the detailed situation plan of the pillars of the Bronze Age settlement: “...I created my interpretation of the buildings of the settlement based on the pillars from the drawing. As I am not an archaeologist, the interpretation was more artistic. And then, I transformed that idea into a concrete idea for the project of a modern SPA…”. The architect has evaluated the quality of archaeological data. The main criteria of the evaluation were institutional (he trusted the information on UNESCO or the museum’s websites) and comparative (the information from different sources is repeatable / overlaps). In his opinion, “...choosing archaeology as a source of inspiration has added value. It was a unique idea - creating a continuum from the past to the present…”. Archaeology also creates a significant value for the writer's work: “...If you want to write a novel about a time when there were no written sources, archaeology is the only source you can work from. But then you need a researcher to provide the data, but I still went to the museum not so much for the object itself, but to feel the spirit, to be more in that age [...] But when you need specific knowledge, you must consult a professional….”. The writer needs archaeological artefacts for inspiration as she searches for an idea for a new work: “...Although found objects are intriguing, their significance lies partly in professional analysis, which offers 17 context, dating, and cultural placement - elements that make the past accessible and meaningful. Museums serve as a bridge to connect with the ancient world, offering more than just viewing objects; they provide an experience of the “spirit” of the past. Museums thus play a dual role: they educate and inspire, but their limitations in accessibility are a source of frustration for those seeking a tactile connection. While direct observation is essential, there is recognition that objects alone aren’t enough. The writer acknowledges the value of expert analysis, which provides insights that make the object’s story clearer, allowing for a deeper, informed interpretation in creative work…”. She then chooses museums and walks through the exhibitions, unsure of what to look for. But as she wanders, she looks at old archaeological finds and starts thinking about a possible plot, looking for shapes that will intrigue them and spark their imagination. One would have to rely on accurate archaeological data if the work were to be concerned with reconstructing the past. The writer comments on the source of reliable data: “Then I would have the most confidence in specialist archaeologists and would need to work directly with them. On the other hand, we need not only the artefacts, but also the generalised material, some research, maybe some context“. Otherwise, there is no focus on specific dating or belonging to a particular tribe, country or culture. “...For me, it is important that the thought is triggered and that I have something to hang on to as I continue to think about the work. Sometimes I don't find anything on purpose, and when I'm in another country, I go to museums, I look at things, and then when I come back some time later, I realise that I've got an image in my mind, and I start to get my mind going“. The jeweller is also included in this group of inspiration, as there are projects that rely solely on old archaeological jewellery to generate ideas, unless it is a specific project where the client asks for a replica of an archaeological ring. “...Very often in museums I pay attention to jewellery and I want to see how it was made, what the craftsmen were like, what the design solutions were, but I don't aim to replicate it exactly, especially if there is no such commission. On the other hand, the old ways are not always possible today, so I do it the way I can today. [...] if there are catalogues, I also look at them, but only for the pictures. If they really like a particular object, they look to see where it came from and what period. Does not know archaeology, so that specific dating or regions are clear“. The interviews show that archaeological data for inspiration are based on visual appreciation and attractiveness, and that the search for them can be carried out randomly, without any special scrutiny. If inspiration is sought purposefully in archaeological material, a selection of Google search images becomes the first stage of the search, a physical visit to museum displays, but not to collections of artefacts held in funds. Archaeological data needs and data types. The interviews highlight a few types of archaeological data that creative users need. For example, the architect started by searching for non-digital information in the local library (such as newspapers and books): “...there may be some incorrect information on the internet, so I started with the library…”. After he searches for information on the internet: “...I needed reconstructions of a Bronze Age pile dwelling settlement, and the one I was reading about had only been sketched once [...] so I looked at examples of such reconstructed settlements in Europe [...] in Germany, Italy, Macedonia [...] the last one in Macedonia looks like more artistic, but not precious archaeological reconstruction. I had doubts about it…[...] In that retrospective, made up of examples from Europe, I chose common elements that are relevant to my contemporary SPA project: the general composition, the volumes of the buildings, and the individual elements…”. The information search on the internet was started from the standard search in Google by the query in English such as “pile dwelling settlements in Europe”. He found some valuable information on the UNESCO website (the Prehistoric Pile Dwellings around the Alps are included in the UNESCO World Heritage List). Later, the architect visited the websites of musealised pile dwelling settlements: “...I wanted to find out what's currently happening in these reconstructed settlements, what activities are made [...] there, I also searched for photos or drawings on which basis these settlements were reconstructed…”. He did not use digital archaeological data archives. He took this archaeological information from scholarly 18 publications of archaeologists. He also “...not communicate directly with archaeologists and the people who made the reconstructions of pile dwelling settlements [...] maybe with more time I would have collected more information…”. The primary important data and information for architectural inspiration are visual: “...Of course, I'm most interested in visual information, because architecture is a visual thing. Textual descriptions, history - that's also necessary [...] if the description mentions something very far away from what fits chronologically, then I'm more cautious… [...] The descriptions were also useful as visual aids; for example, in one case, it was written that there were between 7 and 10 buildings in a Bronze Age pile dwelling settlement, and the dimensions (length and width) of these buildings were mentioned. This is very useful for the visual interpretation…”. For the writer, archaeological material is much more than what real archaeologists dig up: “...For example, here in my village, the moles are digging and digging up all sorts of earthenware remains [...] my understanding is that some of them are far from modern [...] so is this archaeology or not? I was thinking of starting a novel, as if I hadn't already, but you know, this archaeology is my life, and it might be relevant. Because for me, archaeology is everything old and dug out of the ground, well, out of the water as well [...] The desire to know what it was like there doesn't go away somehow, and it won't [...] People will dig and dig and dig. It is important for people to understand who I am now, but it is also important for my identity. Because when you read that written history, it's still an interpretation of who understood, who didn't understand, and who deliberately lied. And when you dig the thing out, it doesn't lie. There's such a pure truth there, and it seems to me that that pure truth is very attractive in archaeology….”. The writer needs inspiration, so she needs not so much data, but an emotionally significant touch with authentic objects from the past: “...now, I've started to mold clay for my own pleasure, so when you start, it's natural to wonder how they used to do it before, and what kind of ornaments to look for. I go to museums to look at them. The last time I was in Istanbul at the archaeological museum [...], there I took pictures of all kinds of ornaments for myself. But what are the challenges, and what's the most frustrating for me? I want to look at something, but it's all in the archives. Maybe there's some kind of permission. I haven't tried to go in there like that, but you can't just look. You don't even know where to look on the internet. But then you still want to look at the actual thing. You can look on the internet, but it's not the same for me; I want to look at the real thing. But it's not that I go to a museum and write, it's that I need material that has been analysed by specialists, that has been found, and then I can understand and use it. Because if you just look at an object, you might have an idea, but then you write what comes to mind…”. 4.1.1.2. Archaeology as a foundation for creative improvisation Based on the interview data, four individuals were related to this group of non-archaeology professionals interested in archaeology. This group included individuals such as a tourist guide (1), educators (2), and a filmmaker (1). Forthen the accuracy of archaeological data was relevant up to a certain extent. The main characteristics of this group's information behaviour involve efforts to gather additional information about objects of interest, supplement visual data with textual information, or consult specialists. Examples of their approach include: "We try to find periodspecific objects, but it is not always successful," "It’s sufficient if it looks right," "If I’m unsure of its authenticity, I consult archaeologists I know," and "It would be helpful to have generalisations about what is typical for the period." Thus, the information behaviour of this interpretation category is influenced by the availability and clarity of data. Challenges such as not knowing where or what to look for and difficulties in grasping the true meaning or significant connections once the data is found can limit their ability to rely on the most accurate archaeological information. 19 Activities related to non-professional archaeological data use. The filmmaker uses archaeological data for educational and creative visual storytelling, producing various history and archaeology-related videos, as well as educational audiovisual materials for museums. When describing his work, he specifically highlighted his collaboration with a museum and the tasks involved in that project: “...So we were able to create scripts because the objective of this project was to present this person and the museum to kids. We had to understand all the data and translate it into a language that was both understandable and engaging for children. It wasn’t just about presenting the data and dates; we animated the person, visually depicting their surroundings, their lifestyle at the time, and the objects they used…”. The primary activity here is the creation of videos, which serve as the final outcome. However, the process involves several more minor but crucial subactivities relevant to improvisation. These subactivities include scriptwriting, animating and visualising the past and translating data for public consumption. Each of these subactivities plays a vital role in transforming archaeological data into compelling and accessible educational content. When discussing how the tourist guide uses the archaeological data, the tourist guide mentions that they usually do not have the knowledge to use the archaeological material freely. Often, they are not aware of the significance of the sites or archaeological investigations, so they look for books and publications that already contain the described material and choose the one that fits their idea or project: "...When we start thinking about new topics for excursions or when we want to prepare programmes for the tourists, we still turn first to archaeologists we know. The most important thing is that they can tell us what is specific to our region and what is not. Because when we do our own research [on a website], it might look nice, but it might not be important. [...] There is a lot of material on the internet, but you need to have the knowledge to find it…”. This group needs archaeological data that is generally accepted and validated: “...we avoid all topics on which archaeologists themselves disagree or debate. If the meaning is unclear or we suspect it may cause irritation, controversy, or a complex context, we must determine the root of the issue. So we choose examples that are clear to everyone and where experts agree…". The guide and educators also rely first on museum displays and then look for more contextual information online. "You don't know what will be interesting until you look for an idea. [...] Sometimes you search very deliberately, and then you have to look in more detail, [...]. I have written to the museum administration once to request a viewing of the original. But maybe it's more for myself. Still, we make education clear to the ordinary person, and we don't always need a lot of precise facts. That does not mean we lack facts or fail to provide them correctly; rather, it may be that the participants in the education do not require overly precise and specific information. I choose only what may be of interest to many…". The preparation of an educational program or guided tour takes time: “...the process of collecting data is a long one, the search for sources. You can't go on for two minutes, you have to dig until you find it, until you read it, until you find out what you don't understand. A popular science article is much easier to understand and read. Scientific articles are more difficult. I like primary sources, great value, but it's much more time consuming…”. Educators also see expert advice as the most reliable way to obtain reliable information when assessing the reliability of archaeological data. Summarising information is also a very relevant way of presenting archaeological material for them, as they are not able to make insights themselves: “...We don't do any serious project without consulting specialists. We look in books, on the internet, but still, if we are doing a project about the history of our region or a logo for which we are looking for post offices or symbols, we consult archaeologists. When we did the logo for the Baltic Way, we didn't look for anything ourselves because we wanted something to do with travel. I called my archaeological colleagues and they suggested an archaeological artefact found in the Akmenė district or the Mažeikiai district - the horse and the man sitting on the horse, that's the movement, the walking, and that's the symbol of the Baltic Way according to our find. They sent me pictures, maybe it is in LIMIS. We often browse LIMIS, and there we find what we need. There is enough for what we needed, but we still contact the specialists. .... We are working on a game about Šiauliai city centre, so we have an archaeologist in the team, so that 20 we don't gnaw, so that we can present representative finds and something else. In general, competent specialists are needed everywhere, and tourism is a lot of knowledge from a lot of narrower fields of science. That information has to be understood, interpreted and presented to the tourist….”. Archaeological data needs and data types. The interviews highlight various types of archaeological data that users rely on for data interpretation, including books, documentaries, photos, videos, articles, drawings, and other combinations of textual and visual information. For instance, the filmmaker collaborating with museums noted that most of the scientific information he used came from museum resources, primarily books but also including articles. He explained: “...So that was from the data that we got from the museums. [...] He also created books. So that’s what we got. [...] We also found some other books and documentaries. We tried to combine everything….”. In addition to textual sources, the filmmaker emphasised the importance of visual data, including photos, drawings, and videos. He noted, somewhat ironically, that to create videos, one needs videos: “...So from a visual perspective, incorporating things like photos or some videos is crucial. For writing scripts, articles are important. But since I sometimes don't understand what’s being discussed, it's also useful to see drawings of the objects. So, both the writing and visual corpus are important…”. This illustrates that the needs for data in educational and creative storytelling are not tied to specific formats but rather to the combination of different types of data. In filmmaking, for example, two distinct but essential layers are required: a script (text presenting information) and visual content (photos, videos, and drawings) to create a comprehensive visual narrative. This combination of textual and visual elements is crucial for compelling storytelling and interpretation of archaeological content. The guide and educators note that they also try to find articles when they collect data on a topic of interest or the subject itself, but it is not always easy to find precisely what is relevant. This again emphasises that data from primary sources and/or scientific articles can be complex for a non-archaeologist to interpret on their own and can, therefore, be used, to the extent that they are clear, as a basis for further interpretation based on the needs of a particular project: “...I have made exact replicas of archaeological finds, but the mission is much more complex. When you interpret the findings from your own perspective, you can do so as you are comfortable, but when you need an exact copy, the responsibility becomes much greater. Then you have to go and look at the original, to study everything exactly, to understand. A copy is less freedom and more responsibility. However, when I'm looking for inspiration and want to see archaeological objects, I prefer not to look on the internet. For me, anyway, the book is more understandable, and the pictures are clearer. In museums, I draw inspiration from the displays, not in great detail, but to evoke a feeling. I'm more interested in it as inspiration….”. When searching for data (including archaeology), they mostly use the Lithuanian Museum Collections Information System (LIMIS): “...We use LIMIS. I do not want to be so specific; it may be sufficient, but I am not competent to judge whether it is typical or atypical. I need human advice all the time. For example, I can look on the Internet for Samogitian jewellery, and I am sure I will find something there, maybe seven or ten articles. I can see that a specialist wrote it, maybe I do not need any more advice. That's when I use it if there is already an article and authors I know [...] I find most of the discrepancies in the information on the location of the [XIII century] Saulė Battle. Many historians have their own opinions as to where it might have been. Given the absence of a precise, localised site, we invite a few specialists to our guides and refresher seminars to reveal that there is now an agreement to consider the site. Archaeologists disagree with each other, so you need to know that in order to be able to present a problematic issue in tourism…”. 21 4.1.1.3. Seeking to reconstruct the past This group included three interview participants involved in activities such as journalism (1) and archaeology reconstruction (2), communities of enthusiasts who reconstruct past lifestyles, environments, and objects. Members of this group require valuable archaeological data to accurately depict the past for scientific communication or reconstruct artefacts and historical contexts, aiming for maximum factual accuracy, originality, and historical relevance. The primary characteristics of this group's information behaviour include a strong desire to collect data that is not only highly accurate but also pertinent to their specific field of interest, topic, or category of objects. Their data search is highly targeted and detailed, with sophisticated search skills. The information sought is specific and often intersects with the experiential aspects of archaeology. The data search process is characterised by statements such as: "I need to know the exact thickness," "I am looking for data on material composition," "I compare multiple sources," and "I build up my own dataset in case I find something relevant to my field of interest, even if I don’t need it immediately." Activities related to non-professional archaeological data use. The responses from participants in this archaeology-driven interest group highlight how their activities differ from those of the improvisers despite some overlap. Both groups are engaged in translating scientific information into more accessible language, focusing on simplifying and making the content engaging for a broad audience. However, this group emphasises additional critical activities, including extensive searching and information digging, thorough analysis and verification, and the writing process itself. These activities illustrate the detailed and labourintensive efforts required to produce accessible, accurate, and engaging content. For instance, the journalist’s response provides insight into this process: “...because you need to root around a lot, a lot [...] That’s 2 days of hard work, from analysing the documents to the actual writing. Writing those articles isn’t easy. First, you have to digest vast amounts of information, verify it, and then translate it into language that the public can understand. My job is to act as a mediator, translating unreadable scientific language into terms everyone can understand - from a grandma and a schoolboy to a professor…”. This response underscores the journalist’s role in meticulously transforming complex scientific content into accessible language, highlighting the extensive effort and expertise required to communicate effectively with diverse audiences. Archaeology reconstructors see the accuracy of archaeological data as an essential prerequisite for their work: '...If we're going to do it, we have to get it right. We have to do it not only with the original materials, but we have to try to keep the technology, the exact dimensions of the object [...] We have to negotiate with the museum so that we can measure the originals ourselves. For example, we measured the armour. We travelled a few times so that there would be more people who could assess the object and how we would proceed because we have a lot of experience, so many years of how it will have to be produced. We must see everything for ourselves, study it, and measure it. [...] although it also happens that we need to consult. For example, I follow a few repossessors on YouTube, so it's interesting to see how they do it in case there is a similar case…". Archaeological data needs and data types. A more complex case is seen in the interest group focused on reconstructing the past. Individuals such as journalists and reconstructors primarily seek primary sources, especially archaeological reports and other precise archaeological materials. To obtain this data, collaboration with archaeological institutions, such as museums, and physical contact with data custodians or archaeologists is essential. As the journalist interview participant noted: “...Well, that’s when the physical contact with data custodians begins. (...) This involves cooperation with museums in Western Lithuania that hold physical material. These are trips to the museum, examining artefacts, and rephotographing reports…”. This collaboration extends beyond merely finding reports or examining artefacts. 22 Reconstructors seek not only material but also knowledge through their interactions with museum professionals and, more importantly, with archaeologists. Knowledge acquisition is crucial for them. While they focus on primary materials like reports, they are also acutely aware of the limitations of these sources, a point emphasised throughout the interviews. For example, the journalist stated: “...The material from the graveyards generally does not provide context. [...] These are inventories, let’s call them inventoried findings. But again, if you talk to certain archaeologists, they can tell you the story of the graveyard. Why were they so rich here? [...] This is where the historical context comes into play. That’s why I have to consult [with archaeologists]...”. Here, consultations with archaeologists serve as a vital source of knowledge. Additionally, archaeology is viewed as inherently intertwined with history, making historical materials and resources significant. For reconstructors, primary data is preferred due to its precision and detail, which are necessary for achieving the highest level of accuracy in their work. Regarding secondary sources (e.g., books, articles), individuals deeply engaged in archaeology and possessing extensive knowledge often express significant critique compared to primary data. They view secondary sources as helpful but not essential. The primary critique is that these sources are often "adapted" or merely "summaries." As articulated by one respondent: “...What I dislike the most is when people use scientific monographs that are adapted interpretations. These are basically just summaries and don’t include everything. I always refer to the original reports because they contain more details that might not be included in some monographs published in book form…”. They also mention the importance of focusing on data quality and artefact’s detailed information: “...if you need to reconstruct a particular find and you know that it has been dug out of a bog here and there, you have already seen the photographs, even though it is not yet published, not yet described, then you can only pick out some of the details from the image. The aim is to make it as real as possible, but again, it depends on how much money is available. Sometimes, museums say you only need to go that way and have an image, while others need very high precision. And others need precision and also to adapt to today's needs, e.g. to make it easy to transport the exhibitions...”. Digital archaeological data is also a crucial dimension. The ability to find data online is highly valued. The journalist noted: “...First of all, I always look for primary sources that can be found online. In the 21st century, it’s really possible, and much of it is digitised. The saving grace is that many documents and archaeological reports are digitised…”. Digital data, particularly databases, are seen as a valuable and useful resource: “...You can access authentic reports that are scanned! This is a fantastic resource!...”. In addition, digital resources are often preferred as a first choice over visiting museums or consulting with archaeologists: “...if you can’t find it digitised, you can at least find it through the museum [...] If we need a specific find, we have a lot of information from before. 80% digital format, we have a lot of quite detailed publications, specialised articles, e.g. the coating of armour surfaces. I recently bought a book, a monograph, 100 copies published worldwide. You have everything you need about armour, the material, the theory. When you make a reconstruction, you have everything. The monograph is heavily illustrated because the visuals are also important. Over the last dozen years, the reconstruction and archaeological communities have merged, experimental archaeologists or curiosities are connected, and the information is somehow available. If an archaeologist has excavated and there is still a find in the collection and it has not yet been published, then it is a question of who knows what, because maybe it will not be published for five years…”. Thinking about the possibilities to lost online digital data, the reconstructor says: “...usually I save the links, not the data, but if it is the threat to lose the internet or data, I will copy everything: metadata, photos, textual content…”. 23 4.1.2. The archaeology professionals The archaeologists invited for interviews were identified as (i) those who deposited data with the ADS that had been reused by someone else and (ii) individuals who reused data archived with the ADS. However, it became evident that most individuals interviewed were both depositing and reusing data, although not always with the ADS. The job roles varied with two commercial archaeologists and six researchers or academic archaeologists. The specialist research areas included zooarchaeology, medieval archaeology, numismatics, spatial data and dating techniques. The types of reuse identified by these individuals include: 1. PhD Students performing secondary analysis on a dataset to understand past human consumption of animals. 2. Combining multiple datasets to estimate the spread of extinct bird species in the past. 3. Understanding the impact of climate change on human migration and agriculture 8000 years ago. This is not an extensive list, but these examples highlight the diverse ways archaeologists can harness existing data to learn about the past. Some archaeologists consume entire datasets, while others select small bits of information and combine them to create new databases. This ‘patchwork’ of data is exacerbated by text-based grey literature that often lacks quantitative data. 4.2. Barriers to the reuse of archaeological data 4.2.1. The non-archaeology professionals interested in archaeology This chapter represents the assumed results of the interviews, eye-tracking experiments and the post-experiment questionnaires related to barriers to the reuse of archaeological data by non-archaeology professionals interested in archaeology. In the eye-tracking experiment, five respondents, guided by their specific informational needs, conducted searches across three archaeology data archives - namely, the Archaeology Data Service, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure, and Archaeology Interactive Reports - as well as the Google search engine. The interview data cover more archaeology-related data archives. Some Lithuanian and international information systems are also included. The decision to expand the number of cases analysed was made: (i) to show the broader contexts of a specific barrier, which was recorded in an eye-tracking experiment, and (ii) to show the possible barriers to reusing the archaeological data, which are essential in the further development of existing archaeology data archives. The different search queries focused on obtaining material related to five distinct artefacts: Lithuanian silver long currency, a ritual stick, a chess piece, a Medieval ring with amber, and a Neolithic bone spoon. The total search duration among respondents ranged from less than ten seconds to a maximum of four minutes (Table 2). Table 2. Total search duration in seconds Respondent Archaeology Data Service ARIADNE Archaeological Interactive Reports Google P01 191.01 4.06 230.73 232.03 24 P02 180.54 10.9 150.47 28.86 P03 234.53 3.24 224.68 222.38 P04 238.21 14.98 144.3 224.59 P05 219.7 19.01 200.85 141.9 Instances of extremely brief search durations, lasting fewer than ten seconds, were observed when respondents were unable to locate the search box or other key navigation elements on the platform. Conversely, longer search durations often reflected cases where respondents were able to navigate the platform, identify the search functionality, and engage in a more comprehensive search process to locate relevant materials. However, it is important to note that extended search durations did not always result in successful outcomes. In some instances, even after investing significant time and effort in the search process, respondents were unable to locate the material or information they required. This variability in search duration highlights the diverse user experiences across platforms, shaped by factors such as interface design, search tool accessibility, and the complexity of the information being sought. Such findings underscore the importance of user-centred design in digital archives and search platforms to ensure efficient and intuitive access to information. Heat maps generated with the assistance of eye-tracking equipment provided valuable data and a detailed visualisation of respondents' interactions with the platforms. These heat maps enabled researchers to precisely identify problem areas and specific points of difficulty encountered by respondents during their information searches. By capturing and analysing respondents' gaze patterns, the heat maps revealed regions of high visual attention, indicating areas that drew significant focus, as well as regions that were either overlooked or contributed to user confusion. This visualisation offered critical insights into the usability and navigability of the platforms, helping to pinpoint design elements that facilitated or hindered effective information retrieval. The experience of the eye-tracking experiment is fixed and explained in the responses to the post-experiment questionnaires. The barriers to using and reusing archaeology data and archaeology data archives are classified and analysed according to FAIR principles (FAIR principles 2025; FAIR data 2025). A specific barrier related to the user's information behaviour is assigned to the following categories: findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. 4.2.1.1. Findability The Findability principle is defined as “...metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers…” (FAIR Principles 2025), and “…supporting the use of sustainable referencing of resources…” (FAIR Data 2025). In our case, the main barriers related to Findability are: 1. Information-seeking barrier - the difficulties in finding relevant data due to difficult-tounderstand search processes. The first difficulty, related to this barrier, could be described as a misunderstood interface. For example, all experiment participants had a lot of difficulties understanding the search possibilities on the Archaeological Interactive Reports platform. The typical heat map (Fig. 2) shows the experiment participant's confusion when viewing the AIR Home page. When the experimenters managed to find the navigation menu in the top-left corner of the screen of the Home page, they were left confused without seeing the field for the word search option (Fig. 3). The same repeated at the second level (archaeological site) page (Fig. 4). “...The 25 big blocks are the archaeological reports, but how to find the concrete information needed for me inside these reports [...] it’s no search options there (maybe I can’t find it), so I need to open every page one after another and read them…” - reacted the person form the “Inspiration” group in after eye-tracking experiment questionnaire. This information behaviour of the people involved in the experiment can be explained by the fact that the AIR platform (of all the cases studied) is designed to be most closely in line with the information logic of disciplinary and professional archaeology. In general, it repeats the information logic of the archaeological report - the specific, professional archaeology document, which is not recognisable to people who are nonarchaeology professionals. Contrarily, the easiest search for the experiment participants was on the ARIADNE portal, with a clear single search window and the (few) additional filtering criteria of the time period, place, and title. It’s fascinating that the experiment participants need much less time at ARIADNE than at Google. This could be explained by the ARIADNE's direct focus on archaeology. That means less unnecessary (ballast) information after your primary search, and the economy of time to find the information needed for the particular use case. Fig. 2. Heat map depicting search activity on the Archaeological Interactive Reports platform Home page. 32 involve collaboration with professional organisations like museums, he typically has access to the necessary resources through these partnerships. Museums often provide access to their materials, which are frequently published on their websites. Although not a major issue for him, the filmmaker acknowledged the occasional problem: „For what I was searching (…) we couldn't get some articles even though (...) she had access to university and everything. (…) I don't know why it's locked. I mean, probably because some organisations work more economically, so they need money, you know, to fund themselves.“ In contrast, the journalist faced more significant challenges with open access. He expressed frustration over valuable information that is not publicly available, which he believes could benefit the public. He pointed out that while some restrictions are pragmatic, such as those related to private funding of archaeological research, other instances are more problematic. For example, he used to verify the details of ongoing excavations online, but this information was no longer accessible. Moreover, the journalist mentioned that architectural-historical research often remains inaccessible to the public because it is purchased by clients, such as builders or developers: “Another issue is architectural-historical research, which becomes inaccessible because it is bought by clients. This limits public access to important information.” 3. The need for interpretative information is an important issue for non-archaeology professionals. This target audience is focused not on the separate tranches, artefacts or ecofacts with metadata, but on the holistic view of “how people live in the past”. However, they (as non-archaeologists) lack the competencies and are afraid of making mistakes when interpreting archaeological data by themselves. An architect in interview mentioned that: “...I really wanted drawings, building plans, facades, that would have been the most useful thing for me, but I didn't find that […] The "pure" archaeological metadata and data is a bit "dry" in my case, as I needed to use more visual data in my work…” Also, the Writer in the after-eye-tracking questionary mention about ARIADNE, that, “…the textual information predominate and is need a lot of time to read this, if the images will be added to the text you can easily find did this part of text is useable for you or not…”. The Architect expressed the opinion about the need for a site [not artefact] oriented approach. In his opinion, an example of a very good website is the UNESCO website. A lot of heritage objects on one website. “...is valuable when I find all information about the archaeological site in one place, when I do not need to collect this from different pages of a book or a lot of different websites on the internet…”. However, the need for interpretative information depends on the user case. E.g., the Reconstructor in the eye-tracking questionnaire mention that an artefact-oriented approach with detailed descriptions and measures of artefacts is very useful for him. 4. Overload of specific scholarly information in some situations could be a barrier for nonarchaeology professionals. A large amount of similar artefacts, ecofacts, and metadata creates a situation where it is difficult (for someone without professional archaeological training) to distinguish between them. For example, which artefacts are more important to a particular society in the past, and which are less important? Or, which items are more representative of a community of a particular period when compared to other items? Writer in after eye tracking questionnaire about ARIADNE and ADS mentions that: “...there is an overload of information after the first search and too few possibilities to filter this; needs a lot of time to check every set of information found…” However, it also depends on the user case. The Architect in the interview fixed that more information on one website or a book is better than less. The Reconstructor in the after eye-tracking questionnaire about ADS says, “…I can’t find the possibility to divide the articles and the descriptions of artefacts in the search results…” (it was a barrier to realise his needs in the precise information about the specific artefacts). The existence of the mentioned barriers could be explained by analysing and comparing the information needs and information behaviours of the users of different communities (Table 3). 33 Table 3. Non-archaeology professional archaeology data users, users' needs and behaviours Criteria/user groups Inspiration Improvisation Reconstruction Activities - Browsing visual sources to trigger creative thoughts or discover new artistic directions - Visiting museums primarily to "feel the spirit" of the past - Creating educational content, tours, and visual storytelling - Translating archaeological data for general audiences - Scriptwriting and animating/visualizing the past - Developing games and interactive content based on archaeological findings - Precise reconstruction of past artefacts, environments, and lifestyles - Thorough analysis and verification of archaeological data - Collaboration with archaeologists and museums, use of digital archives - Building personal datasets for future reference Usage of archaeological data - Casual and intuitive exploration - Superficia focusin on visual impressions, creative potential and emotional connection - Little concern for scientific accuracy unless they transition to a more detailed project - Random search patterns, driven by visual appeal - Rely on quickaccess sources, e. g. Google image search, museum displays, illustrated books - More systematic gathering of supplementary information - Moderate depth: seek accuracy but accept generalisations. - Aim for balance between correctness and accessibility - Combine visual and textual data to build narratives - Depend on expert filtering and interpretation - Using established museum displays as foundations - Data-centric, accuracy and authenticity are paramount - Highly targeted and detailed searches - Sophisticated search skills focused on specific fields of interest - Build personal data repositories, preserve digital copies 34 Data needs - Emotional or visual trigger for creativity - Generalised information, no deep verification - Limited technical or contextual detail requirements - Often unaware of the availability or relevance of deeper archaeological sources - Occasionally consult professionals when precision is needed - Combination of textual and visual sources - Practical, reliable information that can be turned into engaging stories - Prefer secondary sources for ease of understanding - Expert consultations for data accuracy - Exact, verified data for physical or journalistic reconstruction. - Prefer primary sources (excavation reports, original artefact studies) - High level of detail and authenticity in descriptions and visuals - Direct consultations with archaeological experts Data types - Primarily visual data (photos, sketches, reconstructions, artefact shapes) - General background information to contextualize visuals - Surface-level texts (museum labels, simple summaries) - Physical contact with real objects for emotional significance - Online exhibits, books, articles, documentaries, photos, videos, drawings - Visual and written formats, but simplified and accessible - Museum resources - Summary information that can be easily understood by a nonarchaeologist. - Excavation reports, museum records, specialist monographs, digital scans - Physical access to artefacts for measurements - Digitised primary sources with metadata and highresolution images Archaeology data archives are usually created by professional archaeologists for archaeology professionals, who apply a scholarly-based understanding of archaeology data and scholars' information behaviour. However, this behaviour – in many cases – could be misunderstood by members of other communities (semiospheres). 4.2.2. The archaeology professionals The barriers to using and reusing archaeology data and archaeology data archives by archaeology professionals are classified and analysed similarly, according to FAIR principles 35 (FAIR principles 2025; FAIR data 2025). A specific barrier related to the user's information behaviour is assigned to the following categories: findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. The definitions of FAIR categories are the same as in the previous 4.2.1. Chapter. Data deposited with the ADS is inherently FAIR. The ADS is an advocate of FAIR principles and ensures that its service supports the requirements of FAIR (ADS n.d.). Depositors with the ADS are required to provide information to build the necessary metadata to ensure discoverability. They also ensure sustainability by assigning DOIs to digital objects and supporting selected PIDs. Further, the ADS is engaged in multiple research efforts to develop new tools for interoperability and enhance semantic integration, such as ARIADNE. Utilising data housed with the ADS automatically hits key principles of FAIR, reducing some barriers. The following will outline barriers as they relate to FAIR. 4.2.2.1. Findability GO FAIR (2017) states, 'The first step in (re)using data is to find them’. The ADS ensures that data deposited with them meets the elements of ‘F’ by assigning PIDs, registering metadata in searchable indexes and assisting depositors with creating metadata that describes their datasets. Despite this, finding the right data was still considered a barrier to data reuse. Several users found the ADS search interface difficult to use. The interface requires users first to determine what type of search they want to perform, and when they have not used the website for some time, they forget which option to choose (fig. 7). Filters do not perform the way that respondents expected. One noted that a degree of familiarity with the website is required before data can be located. Younger researchers with less experience had little knowledge of how to utilise an archive. Errors on the ADS website also hinder findability, usually due to errors in the metadata—for example, mistakes in spelling for titles in grey literature. One user noted that occasionally, geographic boundaries are incorrectly reported or missing altogether, resulting in the exclusion of relevant results. This is also true for errors outside of the control of the ADS. One user noted that county boundaries had changed, but the changes have not been reflected in the archive's metadata. The respondent would not have known to expand their search without prior knowledge of these boundary changes. Respondents also noted that there were gaps in the coverage of data. For example, consolidated datasets presenting evidence for animal bone deposits stopped over ten years ago, and deeper searches were required to find the new data. Likewise, there are gaps in data coverage where no data exists in certain geographies. Reporting errors is currently handled by sending the ADS an email. However, respondents felt there should be an easier way to report errors. The citation analysis demonstrated that although the ADS provides DOIs, they are not always cited in academic articles. Using PIDs ensures good scientific practice by ensuring credit goes to data creators. Citation is used to demonstrate the impact of an individual’s work and contributes to career progression and future funding opportunities (Bierer, Crosas and Pierce 2017). We must also consider that some data reuse is not visible through citation analysis. For example, archaeologists may look at a grey literature report and engage with the resource to inform their excavation strategy. However, they may not use that data in future publications. Further, citation analysis focuses on academic outputs (Cousijn et al. 2019). In the UK context, where the ADS is located, 75% of archaeologists are employed in the commercial sector (Aitchison 2023). Therefore, their outputs are excluded from these results. A further barrier to citation is a lack of conformance on how to cite datasets. The ADS provides guidance on how to cite their data correctly. However, there may be a general discomfort with citations, with a preference for citing traditional publications such as monographs or books. 36 Fig. 7 Three search options offered to respondents when searching for data 4.2.2.2. Accessibility While some digital repositories require registration to access data, the ADS ensures free and open access using the HTTPS protocol (ADS n.d.). The ADS had previously offered website registration to offer its users functionality, such as bookmarking their favourite datasets. The functionality was removed due to privacy concerns, and registration is no longer offered. One respondent wished for the feature to return. However, respondents to the SEADDA User Needs survey disliked website registration and found it cumbersome. Where websites require registration, respondents would like a description of the data to be openly available before taking their time to register and download the data (see Seaton et al. 2023). Accessibility also requires the persistence of metadata. Two respondents discussed the possibility of archiving their data with services provided by their university. However, they were unsure about data persistence and preferred other options, such as the ADS, to ensure longerterm access to their data. 4.2.2.3. Reusability As with the above principles, the ADS ensures a level of compliance with ‘R’ for datasets. R1.1 requires transparency for how data can be reused in the future (GO FAIR 2017). By default, 37 datasets are disseminated under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license unless the depositor requests a different option (ADS n.d.; Creative Commons n.d.). The use of Creative Commons licenses was well-received by respondents. R1.2 requires detailed provenance to be associated with data, including necessary details for data citation (GO FAIR 2017). Some depositors provide additional provenance metadata that assists in reusing their datasets, but this is not always user-friendly. Other depositors also publish a monograph alongside their data deposit, which acts as a form of metadata. These are not always published simultaneously, and the monograph may not be available for consultation until a later time. Respondents saw access to provenance data as critical. Variances in collection and recording methods when creating data impact its reusability. One aspect was ascertaining data quality. The second aspect was ensuring that data could be reasonably compared. The degree or comparability of data can vary based on the quality of the data collection or the interpretation of that data. Drawing an equivalence between disparate archaeological phenomena can become problematic, failing to make meaningful comparisons. However, the expectations of grey literature differed from raw data, with one respondent being more concerned with the quality of the archaeology than the quality of the grey literature report. Data quality was identified as a barrier by several respondents. Archaeological data is presented in many formats, and the presentation of data can vary. This variance was seen as a barrier as there is no standard approach for evaluating data quality. In particular, the presentation of grey literature varies between commercial archaeological units. Respondents noted that if the reports followed the same format, finding the required information within a report would reduce the time required to reuse the data. They also felt more comfortable reusing data when they knew the reputation of the archaeologist or the institution. Interestingly, the Quality in Use Survey discovered that trust shifted from individuals towards institutions (Seaton et al. 2023). This shift in trust towards repositories was also discovered by Yoon (2017), who suggests that repositories' role in data management increases user trust in their archives. Fig. 8 Example of guidance given for the citation of a dataset 38 Data depositors struggle with creating datasets for future reuse. They are unsure who will want to use their data in the future or what they will do with that data. They had difficulty knowing what data to include or how it should be structured. The problem is exacerbated when they are compiling secondary data. When archaeologists use their own data, it is perceived to be easier because they understand how it was created. In addition to detailed provenance, R1.2 also recommends that data creators provide guidance on how they wish to be acknowledged. The ADS provides examples of how to cite each dataset on their website (fig. 8). Despite interview respondents giving positive feedback, the citation analysis results suggest that archaeologists are not confident in citing datasets. As discussed above, there is a preference for citing traditional publications over datasets. Time was perceived as a significant barrier to data reuse. Time is required to understand the work of other researchers. It takes time to understand data structures and approaches to data collection. Repositories also save time as they provide a starting point for finding new answers and filling gaps in data. However, archaeologists fail to use standard naming conventions. R1.3 recommends that data meets relevant community standards, including standard vocabularies, file formats, and other best practices defined by the relevant community (GO FAIR 2017). When reusing data, it takes time to map insular terminology to standard vocabularies. The problem is exacerbated by grey literature reports, where terminology can be regionally specific. Time passed was also problematic. Some datasets were reused more than ten years after they were deposited, and the data creators could not remember the specifics of their data. This highlights the importance of ensuring rich metadata creation so future users can understand the data. Utilising open data also saves time. While not all data is perfect, having access to openly available data provides individuals with a starting point, making it easier for them to find the right data for their projects. 39 5. Good practices 5.1. Good practices for the non-archaeology professionals The participants compare three archaeology data archives (ARIADNE, ADS, AIR) and Google. Based on their experiences finding specific archaeological objects, evaluating accessibility, search tools, and ease of use, participants mentioned these good practices related to the specific use case, and mentioned data archives and search engines (Table 4). Table 4. Good practices related to the mentioned data archives and the search engine. ARIADNE ADS AIR Google Reconstructor: “…easy to read the list of results found […] useable and convenient description of the single artefact….”. Reconstructor: “…very good filtering possibilities; a lot of very good information […] very detailed descriptions of artefacts…”. Writer. “...It is comfortable that on the first page the information is already divided into blocks, by location…”. Writer: (i) visuality of interface (“...is possible to search the information visually, following the images…”); (ii) easy to copy and save data; there are al lot of references to other data sources (books, museum collections, etc.) Reconstructor: (i) visuality “…the search by images is a good option…”; (ii) a lot of information “...you can find the photos of probably all archaeological findings…”; (iii) selflearned algorithms “…recognise the user and learn his information needs per some time of searches and well filter the information…”. Participants also express the opinion, that these databases provide structured, detailed information but often have limited geographic scope or content range. They require specific terminology for effective searches and lack certain user-friendly features, like broad keyword flexibility. These databases provide in-depth information but often lack visual content, making it harder for users to verify artifacts. They struggle with precise searches for unique or specific items and lack flexibility to correct minor input errors or language variations. While rich in specialized content, these systems generally lack user-friendly, item-specific search functionalities, requiring clearer navigation paths and accessible search bars for specific 40 artifact types. Their current structures favor in-depth archaeological projects over quick, item-specific searches. Google remains the most efficient system for initial artifact research, offering broader filtering, intuitive search tools, and a visually accessible interface. However, users need to be aware of specialized databases separately to leverage them effectively. Google’s simplicity and userfriendliness make it suitable for quick, general inquiries, though its coverage is less exhaustive in niche fields. Google provides immediate and familiar access to general and detailed content but may miss some niche data available in dedicated archeological databases. Google’s comprehensive reach and flexibility make it ideal for general and quick searches, though finding specialized academic content requires effective keyword use and filtration. As a general search engine, Google effectively provides both images and a wide variety of sources but includes excessive commercial results. Its predictive search and filter options remain useful for finding targeted information, even when initial search terms are broad. Google may improve artifact-specific searches by including more links to specialized academic databases, promoting academic resources as part of its filtered search categories. Improving user interfaces for specialized systems and providing clearer search guidance (such as language settings) could bridge usability gaps across these platforms, offering a more streamlined experience for both generalists and specialists. These systems offer structured archeological data but are limited by language restrictions, inconsistent search functionality, and some confusing navigation features. Improvements in language support, clearer search guidelines, and enhanced media support would benefit users. Improving keyword flexibility and navigation within specialized databases, and expanding their geographic scope, would enhance their functionality for both general and academic users seeking detailed information on archeological objects like chess pieces. Specialized databases could enhance user experience by incorporating image results and expanding search flexibility for more precise artifact identification. Specialized systems could benefit from implementing simpler, itemfocused search tools and a more intuitive layout for artifact identification. 5.2. Good practices for the archaeology professionals Finding the correct data for reuse presented as a significant issue for respondents. The ADS can improve searchability by updating metadata, particularly regarding geographic locations appearing correctly. A lack of metadata is directly linked to the usability of data. Professional archaeologists can enhance the usability of their data by ensuring adequate contextual metadata is provided and that this additional information is available at the time of deposition. No standard workflow was reported amongst respondents about evaluating data quality. The ADS provides Guides to Good Practice for guiding depositors with the best practices for archiving various types of archaeological data (see ADS 2009). However, the focus of these guides is on the creation and deposition of data. While the ADS performs quality checks on data before deposition, this does not ensure the usability of data. There could be some benefit to creating a similar guide for data reuse practices, including workflows for evaluating data quality, identifying and managing gaps in data, or providing worked examples of data reuse. The current lack of standard workflows around reuse will be problematic when developing best practices. Respondents deposit with the ADS to ensure data persistence over other solutions offered. The ADS provides PIDs that adhere to FAIR. The utilisation of PIDs is low, requiring the development of citation practices. A general level of discomfort in citing datasets was identified despite the ADS providing guidance at a dataset level. The ADS assigns a single DOI per dataset, while other providers provide PIDs for each digital object, allowing more granular citations. The citation of data does not hinder reuse but inhibits our visibility of the impacts of research outputs. A potential improvement for citation is to note the author of the digital object as part of the citation, similar to a book chapter. For example: 41 Russ, H. (2012). Newport Ship Fish Remains from the Newport Ship, In: Nayling, N. et al. (Eds). Newport Medieval Ship [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service. Available at: doi:10.5284/1044659. Overall, more education on the correct citation of datasets is required, not just within archaeology but across research and publication. The responsibility lies with publishers and editors who do not enforce policies created to protect authors. The quality of metadata is variable. As mentioned above, the ADS provides a degree of quality control before data is deposited. However, changes to geographic references or systems issues may make metadata inaccurate in the future. Proactive maintenance of metadata can address these errors, but may not be feasible in all contexts. Depositors also need more encouragement to provide additional contextual metadata at the time of deposition. Provenance metadata can help improve the reusability of data and increase the quality of future outputs. Potentially, this metadata could also be used to estimate data quality.