This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. The Needs Assessment Toolkit created for the Web-at-Risk project describes the project's needs assessment activities and includes data collection tools, which are designated to identify the needs and requirements of curators, web-content producers, and end users with regard to the Web Archive Service. Additionally, information gathered by some of the data collection tools will help to identify curators' requirements for the web crawler and its crawl analyzer tool, which will be developed as part of the project. Each of the assessment activities described in the Needs Assessment Toolkit was designated to follow a collection development framework for web archives. This report contains a data analysis of the survey results. Results from focus group discussions and interviews with content providers and end users are presented in separate reports.

Handout accompanying a presentation for the 2007 Texas Library Association (TLA) Annual Conference on the Web-at-Risk project and the Web Archiving Service (WAS).

This report discusses a focus group that was part of the Web-at-Risk project. The report includes the following three sections: (a) the methodology used to conduct the focus groups and analyze the data, (b) the detailed results of the analysis organized into phases of the collection development process, and (c) a discussion of the key findings.

This report discusses the usability test results for the Web-at-Risk project at the University of North Texas (UNT). Usability testing of the Web Archiving Service (WAS) Release 4 was conducted on May 29, 2007. Eight of the project's curators participated in test sessions, which generally were completed in 45-60 minutes. Two testing teams, each consisting of a facilitator and two observers were involved in testing.

This report discusses the curators' evaluation of Web Archiving Service (WAS) release 1, as part of the Web-at-Risk project. This report summarizes the feedback received from the curators and provides details details to illustrate the areas that were either confusing or problematic to them. Their recommendations as well as some considerations for future development are also included. Additionally, many of the observations and suggestions in the Quick Heuristic Evaluation of the WAS echo the feedback received from the curators. These commonalities are noted in the document.

This report discusses the curators' evaluation of WAS release 2/3, part of the Web-at-Risk project.

This report discusses the curators' evaluation of WAS Release 4, part of the Web-at-Risk project.