Critical design, value-led design and spaces for experimentation with design in archaeology and heritage

Join us to discuss how we do design in archaeology & heritage, and how we might explicitly draw critical and value-led design principles into our practices…

Screen Shot 2019-04-18 at 14.28.38Next week I’ll be in Kraków, Poland with many of my friends and colleagues for the annual Computing Applications in Archaeology conference. As we’ve previously advertised, Francesca Dolcetti, Rachel Opitz and I are chairing a Roundtable (session #36) on User Experience Design in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage on Thursday 25 April, Exhibition Room A, from 8.40am – 12.40pm. We’ve been lucky to recruit an amazing group of presenters who work across the discipline and around the world, presenting on a range of projects from data design to multimedia and museum design, for online and ‘offline’ audiences.

This roundtable feeds into a larger stream of research and development that the EU COST Action ARKWORK has been generously supporting, and that Rachel, Francesca, myself, and many of our collaborators have long been interested in: namely, how do we do design as archaeologists and heritage practitioners?, and where are we (and where are we not) explicitly deploying design principles in our day-to-day practices, our records, our archives and wider publications?

A growing body of interdisciplinary work provides guidance and meaningful rationales for pursuing specific forms of critical design and value-led design, yet the extent to which such ethically-minded design is used within our discipline is unclear. Indeed, within the field of design itself, this is still a relatively underdeveloped topic, although there are various resources, like Jet Gispen’s brilliant Ethics for Designers, that offer crucial toolkits which are of relevance to all folks (including archaeologists) involved in crafting new methods, new projects, new tools and published outputs. Gispen herself writes that she was “Struck by the lack of ethical knowledge of most designers and design students” which led her to “explor[e] ways for designers to incorporate ethics into their design process.”

Next week we hope to probe some of these issues with our roundtable participants, our in-person audience, and others who might wish to contribute to the conversation via social media or our Google Doc (which we’ll open for editing on the morning of 25 April).

In particular, we would like to engage with two larger themes – namely:

(1) critical thinking/reflection in design and value-led design

(2) the spaces in our workflows and practices that afford more experimentation with design

And we will frame our discussion around five key questions:

(1) What does ‘success’ look like in terms of the user experience (UX) design process for archaeology/heritage? What constitutes ‘failure’ in relation to the UX design process for archaeology/heritage?

(2) What should the role of archaeologists and cultural heritage practitioners be in the development of UX and User Interface approaches for use in the discipline?

(3) What are the unconscious choices you’ve made in your design processes, of which you later became aware?

(4) Are archaeologists and heritage professionals ethically obligated to state the values driving their design practices and explore the role their values play in the process? Why or why not?

(5) What values are implicitly embedded in your design processes and products? Have you ever considered applying ethical, feminist, queer, decolonial, or value-sensitive design? How did – or might – you structure such community-minded design work? And where (i.e., in relation to which processes, outputs, practices, tools, etc.) would you apply it first?

We welcome reflections from those not present for the conference, and hence we encourage you to add to the Google Doc from Thursday 25 April, provide comments below (through this blog), or find us on Twitter at #krakcaa #s36. Our session is also likely to be recorded, so you should eventually find the talks online. In the meanwhile, see abstracts below and please join us next Thursday 25 April from 8.40am CEST in Exhibition Room A!

S36: User Experience Design in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Speakers & Abstracts

Part 1: ‘online first’ designs

Ksar es Said: Building Tunisian young people’s critical engagement with their heritage. Paola Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, Mark Winterbottom, Fabrizio Galeazzi, Michael Gogan

  • This paper describes the work undertaken as part of the Digital Documentation of Ksar es-Said Project. This project, funded by the British Council, combined education, history, and heritage for the digital preservation of tangible and intangible aspects of heritage associated with the 19th cent. Palace of Said in Tunis. We produced an interactive 3D model of Ksar es-Said and developed learning resources to build Tunisian students’ critical enagegement with their heritage through enquiry learning activities in the 3D model. We used a user-centred approach, based on pre-assessment, mid-term evaluation and post-assessment design. The selection of effective technologies, and the design of the online platform and its associated contents was a complex, non-linear process. It required formal and informal meetings, focus groups, and interviews with various stakeholders, as well as an important process of mediation between the different stakeholders involved in the co-creation of contents. While the selection of final contents and activities for the platform required us to reduce the complexity of intangible aspects of Tunisian heritage into a small number of ‘themes’, preliminary assessment of the activities suggests that the learning method proposed is an effective way to actively engage young Tunisian students with the concepts of hybridity and complexity and leaves an open space for teacher-students discussions around constantly changing heritage-values.

From heterogeneous data to heterogeneous public: thoughts on transmedia applications for digital heritage research and dissemination. Damien Vurpillot, Perrin Pittet, Johann Forte, Benoist Pierre

  • In recent years, we have seen a tenfold increase in volume and complexity of digital data acquired for cultural heritage documentation. Meanwhile, open data and open science have become leading trends in digital humanities. The convergence of those two parameters compels us to deliver, in an interoperable fashion, datasets that are vastly heterogeneous both in content and format and, moreover, in such a way that they fit the expectation of a broad array of researchers and an even broader public audience. Tackling those issues is one of the main goals of the “HeritageS” digital platform supported by the “Intelligence des Patrimoines” research program. This platform is designed to allow research projects from many interdisciplinary fields to share, integrate and valorize cultural and natural heritage datasets related to the Loire Valley. From the valorization perspective, one of our main initiative is the creation of the “Renaissance Transmedia Lab”. Its core element is a website which acts as a hub to access various interactive experiences linked to research projects about the Renaissance period: augmented web-documentary, serious game, virtual reality, 3D application. We expect to leverage those transmedia experiences to foster better communication between researchers and the public while keeping the quality of scientific discourse. By presenting the current and upcoming productions, we intend to share our experience with other participants: preparatory work and how we manage with researchers to produce, in cooperation, tailor-made experiences that convey the desired scientific discourse while remaining appealing to the general public.

User Interface Design and Evaluation for Online Professional Search in Dutch Archaeology. Alex Brandsen

  • This paper will describe preliminary results from the ongoing user study with a small (n=9) representative group of archaeologists, in relation to the AGNES system. AGNES stands for ‘Archaeological Grey-literature Named Entity Search’. The search system has a web interface that allows archaeology professionals to search through a large collection of Dutch excavation reports. The purpose of the user study is twofold: (1) to collect user requirements and (2) to evaluate the search system under development. This is achieved by periodic workshops. In the evaluation stage both the UI and the search result quality are evaluated by users. The evaluation is done by screen capturing and the “thinking aloud” method, which asks users to motivate every interaction with the system, and explain their reasoning. This is combined with a more traditional UI feedback questionnaire. All evaluation is done with both controlled use (completion of a given task) as well as free use (completion of a freely chosen task). This empirical evaluation is combined with statistical evaluation of the system by analysing query/click stats as well as click heatmaps, created by user tracking. The iterative, user-led design process combined with intense evaluation and end-user involvement from the start of the project should ensure a more suitable, user-friendly and efficient tool for the target audience.

9.15 – 9.30 discussion slot

Part 2: ‘in person first’ designs

Unintended Outcomes – VR, Heritage and User Engagement. William Michael Carter, Rhonda Bathurst, William Ciaran Lim-Carter

  • This paper will discuss the ad hoc deployment of an archaeologically informed Virtual Reality research project, Longhouse VR, as a semi-permanent exhibit at the Museum of Ontario Archaeology (MOA). Originally intended as an exploration of the intersection of technology and archaeology, speaking specifically to the archaeological community, the research project’s aims were primarily around the construction of new archaeological knowledge through the 3D making process. The platform for interactivity was an HTC Vive VR headset and gaming engine, allowing for real-time user engagement, immersion and limited interactivity. As it was never intended for public use, notions of user engagement were secondary to the display and new knowledge creation of the archaeological record. We will explore the means in which the MOA has now physically deployed the Longhouse VR experience and technology, symbolically repatriating museum space from an outdated post-colonial exhibition environment. Further, after almost a year of deployment, over 1800 Indigenous and non-Indigenous users have engaged with Longhouse VR in addition to the post-experience qualitative survey, providing a unique window into the unintended outcomes of non-archaeological user engagement. Benefiting from the substantive user interaction, Longhouse VR is now being remodeled, to better support and address the needs and desires of the public and more importantly, the descendant Indigenous communities. This paper offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate how unintended outcomes can have a direct influence on User Experience Design and the intentionality and communication needed to balance agency, authenticity, authority, and transparency of heritage informed digital media experiences.

Engaging visitors with ‘invisible’ heritage: lessons learned on the impact of digital media, immersion, sound and storytelling. Jenny Wilkinson

  • My PhD investigates the role of digital media in optimising visitor engagement with non-visible outdoor heritage. Building on existing research regarding visitor engagement; this thesis proposes guidance to advise and support heritage practitioners and designers in the design, development and implementation of digital products to interpret heritage. The guidance includes a framework for engagement, defining the stages (process) and the states (experiences and behaviours) of visitor engagement. Visitor engagement is defined in this study as being a transformational experience in which the visitor’s emotional and/or cognitive relationship with the heritage is altered. Visitors featured in this study are people who are present at the heritage site, but may not be predominantly interested in experiencing the heritage of the location, consequently the guidance proposes a focus on both place-centred and user-centred design. The heritage site featured in this study is a public park with very little tangible evidence of the historical or cultural relevance of the location. A prototype digital product was created to help visitors understand and appreciate the period in the 19th Century when the park was used as the city’s Race Course and annually hosted horse racing. Mixed digital media, including sound, video and audio content were used to deliver location specific storytelling designed to immerse people who were on the park in the carnival atmosphere of the races. Findings from this study demonstrated that using the product had a positive impact in deepening people’s understanding of the park and their emotional connection to the location.

Mixable reality, Collaboration, and Evaluation. Erik M Champion

  • If we are to move past one hit AR wonders like Pokémon Go, scalable yet engaging content, stable tools, appropriate evaluation research, long-term and robust infrastructure, are essential. Formats like WebVR and Web XR show promise for sharing content across desktop and head-mounted displays (without having to download plugins), but there is also a non-technological constraint: our preconceptions about virtual reality. For example, in a 2018 Conversation article “Why virtual reality cannot match the real thing” by Professor of Philosophy Janna Thompson) she argued that virtual reality (and virtual heritage in particular) attempts to provide accurate and equivalent realistic interactive simulations of the existing real world. VR is not only a possible mirror to the current world. As Sir David Attenborough noted about the Natural History Museum’s “Hold the World” VR application, it provides a richer understanding of process, people can move and view virtual objects that are otherwise fragile, expensive or remote. And it allows people to share their mashups of reality, mixable reality. Collaborative learning can compel us to work in groups to see the bigger picture… your actions or decisions can be augmented and incorporated into the experience. However, there are few studies on collaborative learning in mixed reality archaeology and heritage. This presentation will discuss two projects, one using two HoloLens HMDs, one a game where two people with different devices must share and control one character, the theories adopted, and the range of possibilities for evaluating user experience in this collaborative mixed reality.

10.00 – 10.40 discussion slot

10.40 – 11.00 coffee break

Part 3: design process

Interaction Design (IxD) and Digital Heritage. Edward Gonzalez-Tennant

  • Interaction design (IxD) is the practice of designing interactive digital products. This paper address how IxD can improve the educational and public outreach potentials of digital archaeology and associated disciplines. Some of these challenges are broadly shared by digital heritage professionals. They include the ways we navigate incomplete evidence, the role of conjecture in digitally (re)constructing vanished places, and how we integrate descendant community and public voices across a project’s lifespan. I begin my discussion with goal-oriented design and how engagement with various stakeholders fundamentally changes our approach to creating interactive digital products. A closely related but oft-overlooked aspect is accessibility and usability. This portion of the paper will draw on recent work in video game design to advocate for ways we can engage broader audiences by anticipating atypical needs. I conclude the paper by discussing cognitive and affective methodologies. Cognitive refers to the processes by which we assess and modify our design choices, while affective IxD helps us better understand the emotional responses of users and how to employ them in moral and sympathetic ways. Case studies are drawn from the forthcoming Rosewood: An Interactive History, the Tragedy and Survival project that vetted digital reconstructions in front of public audiences, and the Virtual Museum of Human Evolution.

Managing Engagement Design Risk through Creative Constraints. Claire Boardman

  • Non-practitioners often confuse design with art. Whilst each designer develops, through constant application and revision of their craft, a unique and often identifiable style, their work is not to express an inner world but to deliver pre-defined outcome(s). As such and contrary to popular belief, the ‘design process’ is fundamentally analytical and reductionist in nature; it is a constant cycle of data and information acquisition, evaluation and decision making which ultimately results in a single output – the design. Drawing on current research, this paper exposes the key design decisions made by the Researcher during the creation and employment of a digitally enabled ethnographic intervention consisting of two interrelated engagement designs: one a creative digital process and the other and interactive digital product. Through a reflexive and candid account, the development and success – or otherwise – of each presented design decision is discussed whilst acknowledging that user experience design does not exist in isolation but is nested in the broader processes of interaction and engagement design and therefore the wealth of technology and non-technology based affordances this offers. Further, the inherently iterative and collaborative nature of design practice, the necessity of the early inclusion of users and the importance of adopting a multi-disciplinary ‘mind frame’ whether working alone or within a wider team are highlighted.

Creating a unified design system across web, mobile, AR and VR. Damir Kotorić, Luke Hollis

  • A challenge that faces current archaeological data presentation and interpretation is establishing a shared visual vocabulary for user interface components across web browsers, mobile devices, and augmented and virtual reality experiences. Working closely with archaeologists, at Archimedes Digital we create cross-platform experiences for web, mobile, and VR/AR. A critical element that ties together all these diverse experiences is our unified design system. We aim to give users a sense of familiarity that allows them to easily move from one device to the next, and give them the best experience possible no matter the device they’re using. Building on the groundwork laid down by design systems like Apple’s HIG, Google’s Material Design system and Facebook’s Oculus VR Design Best Practices, we utilize tools like Figma, and Realtimeboard, in combination with design thinking workshops inspired by Google’s design sprints, to help us create this unified design system. We do this with the aim of creating user experiences that feel familiar to users, and with the goal of making archaeology accessible to people around the world.

Inclusive Digital Engagement for Heritage. Eleonora Gandolfi, Grant Cox

  • Access, participation and representation have been identified as the mechanisms that allow an audience to fully experience a museum or site. Traditionally, access issues were frequently limited by architectural and financial restrictions but with the rise of technology, new barriers need to be taken into account. Consequently, increased attention has been paid to sensory and cognitive interaction, cultural differences (interests, life experiences), aptitudes (the culture an the overall atmosphere of an institution), technology (lack of ICT use to enhance access to cultural offerings) and elitism (e.g. perception of cultural institutions as exclusive places, reserved to educated and sophisticated people; refusal of certain forms of cultural expression, considered to be of little interest or offense; low priority given to cultural participation). In relation to communication of archaeological and heritage content via an online medium, this happens mainly visually, symbolically and textually. Communication, especially textual, is just one of the tools that archaeologists have available to create a bridge between heritage and the public. This proposed case study will critically analyze how digital material, produced for educational and research purposes and for a variety of different audiences, can be adapted to meet the needs of different communities and bridge the gap between physical and digital space. Methodologies such as Action Research and language analysis have been applied in association to IT platform user testing to create a new ideal digital space to collect, access and share heritage information and data.

11.40 – 12.00 discussion slot

Part 4: discussion

12.00 – 12.40 group discussion of key questions & roundtable themes on critical design and value-led design

 

Workshop on the Co-Design of Digital Experiences in Archaeology, 1-2 April, 2019

Join us in York in April 2019 for a 2-day workshop exploring co-design for digital archaeology/heritage projects…

 

Co-design of digital experiences in archaeology
Designing with and for your audience… join us in York to develop user-driven digital experiences for archaeology and heritage. Photo thanks to Sarah Drewell and the York Young Archaeologists’ Club (https://www.yac-uk.org/clubs/york)

Francesca Dolcetti, Rachel Opitz, and myself are very excited to announce that we will be hosting a workshop in York in April on digital experience co-design for archaeologists and heritage practitioners. Generously sponsored by the EU Cost Action ARKWORK, and linked to our forthcoming roundtable on User Experience at the CAA conference in Poland, this two-day event will entail small groups working together through a four-phase model (case study description, experience design, prototyping, & evaluation), towards the creation and critique of mock-up digital archaeology/heritage experiences.

We are seeking a small group of interested participants to join us for this expenses-paid workshop on 1-2 April. To be eligible, you must be a member of ARKWORK, and you can apply to join via ARKWORK’s ‘join us’ page. We are particularly keen to support participants from Inclusiveness Target Countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Serbia and Turkey.

Please read below for a fuller description of the intent of the workshop, its schedule, and how to apply. The deadline for expressions of interest is 16 December. We hope to host you in York!


Co-Design of Digital Experiences in Archaeology, 1-2 April, 2019

King’s Manor, University of York, York, UK

User experience (UX) is a critical component of effectively mobilizing legacy datasets and collections in archaeology. In this sense, it is crucial to the success of the discipline as a scholarly, professional and pedagogical pursuit. However, our understandings of UX in archaeology, and our tools to facilitate UX design and evaluation, are arguably negligible. This workshop is focused on the interdisciplinary co-creation and user testing of digitally-mediated experiences geared at archaeological sites and collections. It aims to provide a forum for testing the benefits of design strategies and tools coming from the field of Participatory Design, and devising a digital publication work pipeline that involves end users and stakeholders from the outset. We seek to bring together a multidisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners working in the field of archaeological knowledge production, use and communication.

The activities proposed here will provide practical experiences on how to integrate archaeological data, storytelling and digital platforms to encourage professional and wider public engagement with the past. Moreover, the workshop aims to foster reflections on the importance of evaluation and iterative design, especially within the prototyping phase, to create experiences bespoke to diverse users’ needs and expectations.

The workshop is organised as a two-day event with participants working in 4 groups, structured in four phases:

  • case study description: each group will work on a preselected case study and articulate its basic information and available sources (metadata/paradata);
  • experience design: each group will define both contents and intended audience, what kind of message they intend to convey and how to structure the experience;
  • prototyping: each group will build a 2D/3D paper mock-up to visualise the experience and make it tangible;
  • evaluation: each group will act as end users and cross-evaluate other groups’ experiences.

1 April

9.30-10.00 introductions

10.00-10.30 coffee break

10.30-11.00 introduction to the aim and structure of workshop activities

11.00-12.30 activity 1: case study description

12.30-13.30 lunch break

13.30-15.30 activity 2: experience design

15.30-16.00 coffee break

16.00-17.00 discussion

19.00 Social dinner

2 April

9.30-10.00 resume activities

10.00-10.30 coffee break

10.30-12.30 activity 3: prototyping

12.30-13.30 lunch break

13.30-16.00 activity 4: evaluation

16.00-16.30 coffee and final discussion

Call for participants

We are looking for 16 participants who

  • are working on projects focused on the creation of digital resources related to archaeological collections and heritage sites;
  • have research interests in UX design, UX evaluation and participatory design fields.
  • Are a member of COST Action ARKWORK.  If you are interested in joining the action please contact the workshop organisers, and submit an expression of interest at https://www.arkwork.eu/join-us/

If you are interested in participating in this workshop, please send a short expression of interest (no more than 150 words) to Francesca Dolcetti (fd648@york.ac.uk).

Deadline for expressions of interest is Sunday 16 December 2018.

Participation to this event is open to Arkwork members only. If you are interested in joining the Action please contact the workshop organisers, and submit an expression of interest at https://www.arkwork.eu/join-us/

Keen on digital media applications? Seeking reviewers!

Contribute a (paid) critical review of archaeology-themed digital media to the journal Advances in Archaeological Practice…

SAAJournal_Advances_Web343x119_R1

I’m very excited to announce that the Society for American Archaeology‘s (SAA) journal Advances in Archaeological Practice has recently launched a new section to appear in all future issues of the publication. We’re calling this section “Digital Reviews”.

You can read more about these Digital Reviews here (via the journal’s online presence) or on my academia.edu profile. The reviews will be short, critical commentaries on digital media produced for archaeology and heritage audiences. By digital media, I mean any computer-based communication form meant to engage wide groups of people. These could include YouTube videos, podcasts, Snapchat or Facebook or Instagram or Twitter sites, subReddits, TED talks, apps, video-games, blogs and other online forums, digital TV programmes or news channels, online collections, virtual museums, SoundCloud accounts or other audio files delivered through digital means. Effectively any kind of digital communication platform that’s been deployed in the name of archaeology / heritage is open to review.

The intent of these reviews is to critically evaluate archaeologically-themed media with the same rigour as we apply to book reviews. We’re following a model akin to the reviews section of Internet Archaeology, with a concern for the full range of media being produced for public audiences about heritage/archaeology. Every issue will focus on a specific type of media: August’s Advances will feature a review of Minecraft applications at heritage institutions by Eleanor Styles; November’s Advances attends to online news reporting about archaeology, authored by Adrian Maldonado.

We are in the fortunate position of being able to offer authors a payment for their contributions – to be distributed upon final publication of the review in the journal. We’ve established a flat-rate fee for authors, so please approach me if you’d like more detail.

Following publication in the journal, authors can upload an openly-accessible copy of their reviews on their own webpages or other online profile (with credit to Advances in Archaeological Practice as the original publication venue). And we are amenable to any and all suggestions about types of digital media to review. I’m particularly keen to see a selection of impactful heritage-themed blogs, e-books, online collections, virtual museums, YouTube (or other) videos, podcasts (or other audio products), and mobile apps subject to critical reflection through Digital Reviews.

I’ve reprinted our author specifications, as outlined on the SAA’s webpage, below. As I’m now the Digital Reviews Editor for the journal, please contact me if you’re interested in writing a review, if you’d like to talk through possible review subjects, or if you know of others who we might approach to prepare future reviews. Very much looking forward to reading your reflections on archaeology’s various digital applications and otherwise building the presence of the SAA’s Advances in Archaeological Practice journal. I hope to hear from you!

Digital Reviews

Digital Reviews are 1500-2000 word assessments of digital media applications that have been produced to engage general and specialist audiences with archaeology and heritage. Going beyond standard book or exhibition reviews, these commentaries are intended to subject current initiatives directed at archaeology’s digitally-savvy publics to comparison and critical reflection. They might explore discipline-relevant blogs, YouTube videos, virtual reality or augmented reality applications, TED talks, Tumblr, Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat sites, web-based crowdsourcing projects, online collections, video games, virtual worlds or other media of interest to wide markets. Review authors will provide constructive, professional and courteous – yet critically-engaged – appraisals of the content, significance and impact of these media. Each review should be oriented around a discussion of one, two or three medium-specific digital initiatives (e.g., mobile apps or virtual museums), briefly summarizing them, contextualizing them against one another (and against related initiatives), and offering thoughtful critique of their presentation, methods, objectives and emotional, physical and intellectual effects upon audiences.

Reviews should be written for a wide readership and at a level that high school students can comprehend. Authors are encouraged to reprint their reviews on their personal or professional webpages (giving clear acknowledgment to Advances in Archaeological Practice as the original publication venue), in order to broaden the reach and accessibility of the commentary. Reviews should (1) rigorously evaluate archaeology’s digital media; (2) showcase to readers the breadth and depth of relevant digital media production today; and (3) provide a space of comparison between – and critical engagement with – such productions to enable others to build upon them.