Join our expenses-paid PhD short course on ‘Digital Data in Practice’ in York!

We’re hosting a three-day design/development workshop in December, open to students in the DialPast network.

Screen Shot 2019-08-21 at 17.51.40If you are a PhD student whose institution belongs to the Dialogues with the Past (DialPast) network (including universities across Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Sweden), you are eligible to join our expenses-paid short course focused on the critical design and development of digital resources. The course will run from 9-11 December in York, led by myself (Sara), James Taylor, Nicolo Dell’Unto and Åsa Berggren.

You can read the full call for participants below, or on the official DialPast webpages. Note the deadline for applications is 9 September.

Our intent is to work with PhD researchers who have a particular digital resource they wish to develop, and who are keen and willing to shape that resource through a participatory process involving critique and feedback from other PhDs, the course leaders, and digital experts based in and around York. Per the notes below, participants will pre-circulate a short proposal about the resource, then come to York in December to refine it through design sessions and related knowledge sharing events, ultimately producing a plan for implementation.

We hope this will be an exciting, hands-on opportunity to develop new digital media through the lens of critical design and with the support of many great practitioners working in the academic, commercial and charity sectors.

Please consider applying or spreading the word! And do get in touch if you have questions.

Digital Data in Practice – Now and in the Future, PhD Workshop

Time and place: Dec. 9, 2019–Dec. 11, 2019, University of York, King’s Manor

The digital turn in archaeology has meant a rapid development of methods of acquisition, analysis and dissemination, a change of interpretation processes and an opportunity to develop new perspectives and new knowledge. It has also resulted in vast amounts of data and is continuing to do so at a rapid pace. In this workshop we will explore both new digital tools for analysis and dissemination as well as infrastructures for long term repository and archiving.

This workshop aims at developing the digital skills of the students with a particular focus upon critical design of digital projects and their outputs. The workshop is conceived as a continuation of the September 2019 DialPast course “Digital pasts and futures of archaeology,” although it is open to any student with an interest in digital archaeology and in applied digital practice.

York is the home of the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), the Centre for Digital Heritage (CDH), and the Digital Creativity Labs (DC Labs), as well as a rich historical landscape that enables us to immediately apply our ideas and digital tools to local sites. Through engagement with these organisations and heritage partners in York and practical sessions, we will explore the state of the art as it relates to archiving, databases, access, sustainability, app development, web and social media development, digital curation, gaming, 3D recording and modelling, and other forms of interactive media. We will use the facilities of the CDH and ADS, as well as the local heritage landscape, to explore in hands-on fashion the future (and past) of digital archaeology. Students will develop proposals for independent digital projects, refined through design work and critical conversation with the instructors and the class. The aim is to leave the workshop with a realistic, critically-informed plan for a producing a digital resource that can be implemented by students in the future.

Course Work

The course will consist of practical design sessions and tours led by key digital institutions in York. Before the course starts, each PhD student will prepare a written proposal for pre-circulation concerning the development of a specific digital resource or output. The 5-page proposal (Times New Roman 12, Spacing 1.5) should provide description of (1) the purpose of the digital resource and a critical rationale for its development; (2) the intended audiences or users of the resource and how their needs are to be served by it; (3) the digital technologies to be used in the project and critical reflection on their strengths and weaknesses in relation to audience and project needs; (4) the archaeological or heritage context (i.e., the site, landscape, time period or other geographical location, event, theme or any specific context within which your project is situated).

Students will refine their proposal in York through participation in the design sessions and tours, and then will present a brief summary and plan for implementation to the class. Students will be offered critical feedback on their plans from the instructors and cohort.


Dr. Åsa Berggren (Lund University)

Ass. Prof. Nicolo Dell’Unto (Lund University)

Dr. James Taylor (University of York)

Dr. Sara Perry (University of York)



Location, Travel and Costs

The Graduate School will finance and arrange travel and accommodation, and supply a daily allowance during the seminar for all participating PhD students who are part of the Dialogues With the Past network.Two and two PhD students will share a room.


The Graduate school invites all registered PhD students to apply for participation. Please follow this link to apply for the course (in English only). From these applications, c. 10 PhD students will be admitted to the course.

For more information, please contact:

Important Dates

Application for participation: September 9, 2019.

Submission of written proposals (5 p., Times New Roman 12, Spacing 1,5): Nov 11, 2019.

Digital Pasts and Futures of Archaeology: PhD Short Course

Join us in Rome from 16-20 Sept, expenses paid!

If you are a PhD student whose institution belongs to the Dialogues with the Past network (including universities across Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Sweden) or you attend one of the following Indian or South African institutions – North-Eastern Hills University, Nagaland University, HNB Garhwal University, Sambalpur University, Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, University of Cape Town, University of Pretoria and University of the Witwatersrand – there is still time to apply for our forthcoming expenses paid short course in Rome from 16 – 20 September, 2019, coordinated by Åsa Berggren.

I’ve had the good fortune of teaching on several previous Dialogues with the Past courses (in Athens and Paris on both archaeological and museums themes), and I can say that, from the point of view of an instructor, it’s an incredibly rewarding experience. It’s an opportunity to spend time in a small, diverse group talking constructively about PhD researchers’ in-progress studies, with commentary offered both formally by other PhDs who act as respondents, and by questions asked by the teaching team and the other student participants. We dine together and tour local sites together; we do hands-on media development together (in Rome we will experiment with making chatbots ‘of conviction’); and many of us have kept in touch with – and, in fact, have applied for funding and collaborated on other research endeavours with – the graduates of the programme. These long-term connections and friendships are a testament to how incredible the Nordic Graduate School in Archaeology’s DialPast programme is – and a special shout-out is needed for its fabulous coordinator Julianne.

I’ve copied below the call for participants, and I hope you might consider joining Åsa, James, Nico and myself in September! Application deadline = 20 May.

Digital Pasts and Futures of Archaeology

PhD course, Rome, September 16 – 20, 2019

The use of digital methods in archaeology has a decades long history. However, the digitalisation of all aspects of archaeology has increased on a large scale during the last few years. It is changing the foundations of the practice of archaeological documentation and dissemination and influences the processes of archaeological interpretation.

The aim of this course is to keep theoretical and critical engagement with the digital as our centre of attention. As the development of digital methods and applications is quick, so too must we prioritise critical concern for how, why, by whom and for what purpose digital technologies are deployed. Accordingly, the course will have a two fold focus – looking forward and looking back.

On the one hand, we will explore the future development and use of digital methods in archaeology. Our aim is to think ahead to see how digital development will critically impact future archaeological documentation, interpretation, visualisation and sensorial explorations of the past, as well as archiving and data management. The discussion will span projects of various sizes, from examples presented in students’ papers to national and international projects discussed by the course lecturers, e.g. the creation of national digital registers, the cross-European EMOTIVE project (, etc.

On the other hand, we will contemplate the development of digital methods in archaeology from a historical perspective. The archaeological record and the use of legacy data depend on a proper understanding of this history. Digitisation is affecting the nature and longevity of archaeological practice. Yet its quick, often reactionary implementation and varied sustainability means that understanding of its historical development is narrow, and hence appreciation of its impact over time is limited. We hope to consider the legacy of digital practices in archaeology, and weave it into a discussion about the archiving of that legacy. Our aim is to consider the implications at both project, national and international levels, critically analysing the conditions for availability, accessibility, searchability, relevance and reuse (e.g., the FAIR data principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability).

The course is supplemented by excursions to local projects and facilities to see digital applications in the field. We will also work hands-on with prototype interpretative tools designed for archaeologists to engage their audiences in critical discussion around archaeological research and data. Participants will draft their own simple digital experiences intended to foster critical reflection and historical perspective taking amongst their users.

Course Work

The course will consist of both seminars and lectures. Before the course starts, each PhD student will prepare a paper for pre-circulation, addressing her or his research project in relation to the course theme. In the course seminars, each paper will be allotted ca. 45 minutes, beginning with the student presenting a 15-minute summary of its contents. This is followed with a 10 min commentary from one of the other PhD students (selected in advance), after which she or he will chair an open discussion on the paper for approximately 20 minutes.


Dr. Åsa Berggren (Lund University)

Ass. Prof. Nicolo Dell’Unto (Lund University)

me (University of York)

Dr. James Taylor (University of York)

The participating lecturers will each give a lecture during the course, as well as participating as prime movers in the discussion of PhD presentations. The seminar days will be structured with adequate time for spin-off debates and networking opportunities in mind.


1 month or 7 ECTS

Location, Travel and Costs

The Graduate School will finance and arrange travel and accommodation, and supply a daily allowance during the seminar for all participating PhD students who are part of the Dialogues With the Past network as well as participating PhD students from the following Indian and South African institutions: North-Eastern Hills University, Nagaland University, HNB Garhwal University, Sambalpur University, Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, University of Cape Town, University of Pretoria and University of the Witwatersrand. Two and two PhD students will share a room.


The Graduate school invites all registered PhD students to apply for participation. Please follow this link to apply for the course (in English only). From these applications, c. 15 PhD students will be admitted to the course.

For more information, please contact:

Important Dates

Application for participation: May 20, 2019. Confirmation on your participation will be sent out shortly after this date together with a reading list.

Submission of working papers (10 pages, Times New Roman 12, Spacing 1,5): August 5, 2019.

Appointment of discussants: August 14, 2019.

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