September 26, 2007
May 23, 2007
I have also been pleasantly surprised by the number of museums already experimenting with these techniques. We have managed to list over fifteen links so far on this site.
It is our hope to keep this blog active as a resource and a forum to continue the conversation regarding visitor-authored experiences.
Thanks to all who participated in our panel, presenters and audience. Hopefully you found it enlightening. We had hoped for more time for questions, so if you do have questions for any of the panelists, feel free to contact one of us directly. You can find the session handout and presentations on the Media & Technology Web site.
May 15, 2007
Send2wiki lets users click a button and send the content of any web page to a wiki so that they can make a derivative work. Any content licensing metadata is inherited and retained.
Makeapath allows users to sequence web pages and share their "paths" with others.
Annorate lets people rate and annotate any web page, sharing those annorations with other users.
Ozmozr is a collaborative filtering system, a sharing tool, and an identity management tool that is about to be chopped into bits. We found that a large system will overwhelm users, so we are pulling it apart.
ContentLicensing is a plugin for Plone that allows users to license their works with a Creative Commons or GFDL license. It also lets site managers set a default site copyright license.
May 8, 2007
One of the core questions behind Web 2.0 and user participation (especially in the museum context) is this: what is the proper role and relationship of experts and amateur enthusiasts? As writer Steven Johnson stated in Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” issue, “How you feel about the broader cultural implications of the Web revolves around the response this permanent amateur hour triggers in you. For some, it has power-to-the-people authenticity. For others, it signals the end of quality and professionalism….”
This issue can play out in very concrete ways. For example, expert catalogers have a great deal to say about the notion of letting users apply their own taxonomy to museum objects (social tagging), which could result in an index that is messy, idiosyncratic, or just plain wrong. For opposing viewpoints on this issue, see here and here. Any populist form of interpreting or arranging objects which seems to encroach on the prerogatives of museum professionals is bound to be controversial.
I think any discussion on this issue needs to be grounded in the well-documented fact that users value the expert interpretation that museums provide. To that we may add an assumption that there are good reasons for making museum experiences more participatory and collaborative. Thus it becomes not so much an either/or issue (expert commentary vs. amateur input), but rather, how can we create experiences where both comfortably exist side-by-side? And how might that alter traditional relationships between museums and their audiences?
It seems to me that this is an area begging for more experimentation and evaluation (and the good news is, many are going to work doing just that).
May 6, 2007
Interestingly, when work first began on this project back in 2001 things like blogs, podcasts and wikis did not exist. The notion of "Web 2.0" was yet to emerge, however, the desire to integrate public collections with user-generated content had still been identified. In the intervening years the Internet has changed to such a degree that it is now possible to create an online application like Collection X that gives anyone with access to a computer the ability to upload images, video and audio as well as to create and publish exhibitions, and to connect with other users, all within a virtual environment.
What Collection X offers is a range of functionalities similar to websites like Flickr and YouTube but functionalities that encourage the emulation of practices specific to museums and galleries. As a first step visitors to Collection X are invited to search and browse artworks, artifacts, videos and audio clips that make up the collection and then to become registered users so that they can create, collect and curate content using a combination of our resources as well as their own. As part of this process users are also provided with the tools necessary to:
- contribute their own content in the form of images, video and audio;
- create exhibitions using content drawn from public collections as well as collections contributed by the public;
- connect exhibitions together around common themes, issues or ideas to create connections;
- use tags to describe themselves as well as all levels of content including collections, exhibitions and connections;
- share thoughts and engage in dialogue through published comments and e-mail exchanges;
- subscribe to RSS feeds and podcasts.
Similar to other Web 2.0 applications the success of Collection X is entirely dependent upon the interest and inclinations of its users as well as the kind of content they choose to create.
In order to generate interest and to model the kind of content that can be created using Collection X, the AGO is working with its project partners over the next two years to seed the collection and to create exhibitions and connections based on that seed content. To ensure that this work happens Collection X has evolved in tandem with another project initiated by the AGO, the ArtsAccess Project, an inter-regional outreach program designed to bring together artists, community members and cultural organizations through arts education. Together, ArtsAccess and Collection X are meant to encourage participation, foster creativity and build relationships through a combination of community-based and online experiences.
While the appeal of Collection X remains to be seen it already provides an interesting case study that highlights the many issues at play when a museum takes on a web-based project this complex. In recent months the AGO and its partners have had to grapple with issues almost too numerous to mention, including copyright, censorship, liability, accessibility, bilingualism, institutional buy-in and support, the challenges inherent in community-based partnerships and the constraints of government funding. These are all the things that have made this project both challenging and interesting at the same time and will likely continue to be debated within the context of "Museums Re-Mixed" at the AAM but also in the long term as Collection X finds its audience.
May 2, 2007
Sometimes the assumption is made that most Web users want to take a more active role if given the opportunity. What else explains the meteoric rise of sites like MySpace and YouTube? But is that what users of museum Web sites want? The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History attempted to find out in a survey they conducted in preparation for a new Web portal on oceans - the survey results are available here (for the time being anyway). It’s worth taking a look at what potential users rated as important (or not) to their online interaction with the museum.
Now that social networks and other collaborative sites have been around for a few years, people are taking a closer look at the dynamics of those communities. What they tend to find is that relatively few users undertake the more intense forms of participation, while most of us “lurk” and remain fairly passive. (See relevant blog posts by Ross Mayfield and Seb Chan.) The most successful applications leverage the efforts of the few into an experience that benefits the many. An oft-mentioned online example of this is Wikipedia; a good museum example is the Conversations exhibition from the L.A. County Natural History Museum.
The practical implications of this are that the participation of even a small sample of our audience can have benefits far beyond the small group of direct participants.
April 25, 2007
Below are a few guiding principles gleaned from writings by Lynn Dierking, John Falk, George Hein, Jay Rounds, and Daniel Spock:
- Visitors do not view museums as classrooms for learning so much as smorgasbords of content from which they construct their own meanings. We fear this reality but we should not discount it.
- Museums provide unique environments for engaging with ideas, sparking the imagination, and inspiring further inquiry.
- Rather than presenting a single version of "truth," visitors may be best served when museums facilitate informed discussion incorporating multiple points of view.
- "Minds-on" interactivity is even better than "hands-on."
- Social interaction with group members, fellow visitors, and knowledgeable mentors is a crucial part of museum learning.
- Successful museum learning is about making connections - social, emotional, intellectual...
April 19, 2007
The issue of trust comes up frequently when discussing visitor involvement in museums, and can be viewed from a couple perspectives. First is the trust that audiences have in museums. A “brand” such as the Smithsonian, where I work, commands a great deal of authority. Most museums play trusted roles in their communities, or aspire to do so. Some feel that inviting users to participate in substantive ways diminishes our ability to be authoritative – and in a way is an abdication of our duty.
An experience I had recently illustrates this point. My staff and I were talking to a group of interns here at the museum, explaining our program which oversees the Web site. We thought it would be good opportunity to toss around some ideas for the future of the site with this group of young, smart students who undoubtedly all had their own Facebook profiles and were otherwise immersed in the world of Web 2.0. However, when it came to notions of user-contributed content on the site, all we got were blank stares. A few of them explained to us that as users, they would be looking for authoritative information from the Smithsonian, not input from other users or opportunities to participate. This group of aspiring museum professionals may not be a representative sample, but it definitely provided food for thought.
The flip side of the coin is the ability of museums to trust their users to be collaborators and co-creators. Bloggers have been talking about this point for some months now – see for example posts by Jim Spadaccini, Seb Chan, and Jennifer Trant. One of the interesting points they make is that loosening institutional control over our content, while it may have distinct benefits, also entails risks. To invite the possibility of someone posting mistaken, misleading, or offensive material under our banner is a big step to take. Other collaborative online spaces have been grappling with these issues for a while now and have come up with a variety of self-regulatory mechanisms that can serve as models.
I’ll explore this issue further in future posts – but meanwhile, I’ll throw these questions out there: if museums were more collaborative ventures, how would that affect mutual relationships of trust? Is user participation counterproductive to our mission, or essential to it?
April 16, 2007
The term “Web 2.0” is thrown around a lot these days but it is difficult to pin down a single definition. There are some good attempts to describe it here and here (including thoughts from Tim O’Reilly, one of the term’s inventors). For our purposes I would boil it down to a shift, both in technology and use patterns, from thinking of the Web as a collection of pages passively accessed by users to thinking about it more in terms of building connections between active participants.
Some museums have begun experimenting with the tools of Web 2.0 – blogs, social tagging, social networks, and various forms of user-contributed content – and many others are contemplating doing so. On this page we have begun accumulating a list of interesting museum Web sites and other projects built around the concept of user participation. If you have favorite examples, or know of exciting new projects in the works, share with the group! We’ll add to our link list.
April 12, 2007
Thanks for visiting Museums Remixed. We are excited to present a couple of panel discussions at this year’s American Association of Museums conference on the subject of participatory museum experiences and user-contributed content. All the panelists have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and putting it into practice in various ways.
As John mentioned in his post, we are serious about the “discussion” part of panel discussion – starting with this blog. We want YOU to participate as much as possible by raising issues and questions, sharing experiences, and pointing to resources or examples that shed light on the subject. We hope the conversation will include not just the already-converted, but educators, designers, curators, and others who are essential to the museum-public dialogue and who may have questions or even concerns about the issues that will be raised here.
After the Part 1 session opens up the world of possibilities for visitor-authored experiences in museums, the second session which I’m chairing, “Museums Remixed Part 2: Can We Allow Users to Become Participants?” will take a deeper look at participatory Web sites and how previous notions about passive online “users” are being upended by the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Though the panelists will draw on their experience with a number of case studies, we are eager to move the conversation beyond show-and-tell and dive into some of the thorny practical and philosophical issues that arise when we talk about ceding greater measures of control to our constituents.
In the coming weeks we will be raising additional topics for discussion, pointing to examples, and taking your comments. Whether you will be attending the conference or not, please join the conversation as we engage this important topic.
April 11, 2007
As an independent designer focused on creating visitor experiences, I want to engage in a conversation regarding the effectiveness of visitor authored experiences in the museum setting. The question is, can we open the way to more effective design processes and more engaging visitor experiences by making the user a participant, by both open sourcing the design as well as the experience itself. Specifically, there seems to be great potential for this at the intersection of three ongoing goals in the interpretive design field:
• Creativity in the Design Process – how the user can be a wildcard creative force during the design process.
• Depth of user interaction – how the user’s presence and interaction completes the mechanism of interactivity and focuses the experience on the user’s personal characteristics.
• Adaptability of visitor experiences – how exhibits can continue to evolve once they are in place offering new perspectives each time a visitor returns to use it.
Related to these goals is the ongoing desire to have a higher level of engagement with our visitors. Does the visitor authored approach point to ways in which the user or visitor could be more engaged in the museum setting? The expectation is that the three goals above can be better fulfilled by empowering users to do the following:
• engage in the problem solving process regarding the design of an exhibition,
• contribute content and/or organizing frameworks,
• participate in a real time, two way conversation with the institution and other users.
These three forms of empowerment are characteristics of visitor authored experiences.
How can we stage these forms of visitor engagement? What positive outcomes could we expect? Are there any good examples out there and what can we learn from them? These are some of questions we wish to explore at the American Association of Museums Annual meeting in Chicago, during the Museums Remixed Sessions.
For Part I, the first session, speakers include:
• Wayne Lebar, Vice President of Exhibitions and Theaters at the Liberty Science Center who has created the Exhibit Commons website that seeks to engage the public in the design of exhibitions.
• Ray Shah, Principal of Think Design who has produced a web-based product for museums that permits visitors to curate their own exhibitions.
• Eric Stuer, Creative Director for Creative Commons, the organization founded by Lawrence Lessig that seeks to ease the way for copyrighted material to be more accessible to the public. In his role as Creative Director, Eric has seen many forms of Open Source Design implemented.
We are interested in what you think. Equally important, we are interested in how you wish to explore these issues, for via this blog, we hope to elicit comments and questions that will help us tailor these two sessions to your interests - the user.
Finally, I’d like to thank Matthew MacArthur, session Chair for Part II of the Museum Remixed Sessions, for setting up this blogsite. I would also like to acknowledge Tina Glengary and Graham Plumb for first exposing me to the potential of visitor authored experiences.