MeSch Meeting Notes

From CSISWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


13.06.2013_Skype Meeting Gabriela, Fiona, Lui & Daniela

  • Consider developing different typologies of co-designers as a way of working with a range of curators with varying technical skills.

Develop a reflection or structured detail of the different types of people. Curators work with content and exhibition designers work with the technical side of exhibitions.

  • Consider carrying out an ethnographic study on museum professionals. It could take the form of an incident analysis, i.e. for an exhibition that has already occurred.

'How did the curators select the objects?'

  • For future workshops, consider that we are developing a toolkit to enable curators to connect objects to digital content.
  • The fundamental difference between curators and exhibition designers is that curators deal more with content and exhibition designers deal more with the technical systems.

Skype meeting with Lui, Gabriela, Fiona and Laura

Meeting commenced at 8:36am

Agenda 1: Interviews Agenda description: Fiona discussed the interview questions she compiled to ask participants (i.e. the curators) with Lui. The aim of the interview is to gain insights on how curators set up exhibits.

  • Fiona suggested asking a follow up question at the end of the interview to curators regarding their interest in taking part in our prototype study in 12 months. Lui mentioned this was a good idea. If we want to gain their interest, however, we would have to let them know they would be amongst the first to try it out and they would also have a chance to change their mind.

Lui’s suggestions: Related to overall interview

  • Rewards for taking part in the study could be something like a book or a book voucher. Lui mentioned that it was important to keep participants anonymous.
  • Lui suggested that the number of participants at the interview should be 10 – 15
  • When gathering participants, it is important to provide a short description of the overall project (meSch)
  • The overall interview should be kept specific. Focus on the exhibition. When asking questions, possibly encourage the curators to talk about their most recent exhibition project.

Related to the drafted questions:

  • Lui suggested the questions should be phrased in a friendlier manner, less academic
  • Lui also suggested that questions similar to those stated below should be asked at the beginning of the interview:

- What is your name? - What institution do you work for? - How long have you been curating?

  • Suggestion to ask some more probing questions, e.g.

- How would you feel about having visitors involved in the planning of the exhibition?

Agenda 2: Gabriela and WP1 meeting on Monday Agenda description: There will be a WP 1 meeting on Monday and Gabriela was emailing the different institutions involved in WP1 regarding their availability Daniela confirmed she could email Gabriela an update about WP1 in Sheffield, as she has to attend another WP meeting

Suggestions: Gabriela suggested a monthly conference meeting with WP1 members each month. Lui thinks this is a good idea, as long as everyone does it.

Agenda 3: Seminar in November with IMA Agenda description Laura discussed a seminar meSch will be hosting in conjunction with the IMA in November. Initially, the idea was to demonstrate potentials of DIY technologies in cultural heritage. However, this idea may be too technical and may be overwhelming. Therefore, Lui suggested:

  • To keep the theme as easy to understand as possible
  • To show videos of simple Interaction Design projects and how they can be applied in cultural heritage
  • Show sketches/animations of animation of a simple interactive exhibit, and how it could work
  • Describe that this is the work we are doing as part of meSch
  • As the seminar will be in November, we could also discuss some of the field studies we have done
  • Following this, we could offer a workshop. Only those interested would follow up on this; therefore, the theme could be specifically aimed at DIY in cultural heritage.

Agenda 4: Workshops aimed at locals with knowledge on cultural heritage and cultural heritage professionals Agenda description Gabriela suggested workshops that could be aimed at locals with knowledge on cultural heritage, as well as cultural heritage professionals. These workshops could be related to the use if DIY technologies. Gabriela also mentioned that a questionnaire could be drafted to gain an insight on the technical skills of cultural heritage professionals.

Lui suggested to:

  • Keep the workshop framed to cultural heritage themes
  • Keep in mind that the workshop should benefit our research in the project. To gather insights from the workshop, we could:

- Interview the participants - Keep the tasks meSch themed

Agenda 5: Planning for Fiona and Laura’s visit to Sheffield Agenda description: Fiona and Laura will be visiting Sheffield on the 18th/19th July. Lui proposed a skype meeting with Dick and Gabriela when Fiona and Laura arrive in Sheffield. Other activities we could complete while Fiona and Laura are in Sheffield include:

  • Visiting the cemetery
  • Seeing data from the studies that Sheffield has completed

Following this, Lui suggested that Fiona and Laura discuss what other activities we would like to plan for Sheffield. The activities should be preferably sent to Lui before Sunday 7th July.

Agenda 6: Exercises for Trento Agenda description: Fiona briefly raised ideas for co-design exercises in Trento. The activities in Amsterdam lacked concepts relating to personalization and linking the physical with the digital. Fiona suggested that the activities at this meeting should relate to this.

Agenda 7: Meeting with Lui in UL Agenda description: Following a discussion, Laura, Fiona, Gabriela, and Lui agreed on having a meSch related meeting in August on the 27th and 28th.

Meeting finished at 9:21am

18.07.2013 WP1 Skype Meeting GA, LM, FM, LC, EH, DvD

Lui - one of the main issues arising from WP1 is the issue of authorship - who is the author? Lui - the personalisation aspect of the project has 2 strands - 1)the personalised content delivered to the visitor and 2)what the visitor can bring to the table.

Fiona to inquire about how Anna (MdG) felt about the prototypes demonstrated in Amsterdam so as to feed into the upcoming Trento workshops.

Dick spoke of an authoring / co-design activity concept that could be executed in Trento. The concept being that for a given exhibition the curator comes up with an interaction concept. The co-designer then introduces a set of modules e.g. wayfinding, narration, performance

?? guided through the buiidlng an experience relevant sensors at your disposal.

Typologies of experiences - defining what are the constituting elements of the experience

Dick suggested 2 co-design days - 1) working with all the design related participants and 2) working with the specific co-design participants. He suggested testing the prototypes on-site in Trento with visiitors.

Fiona to organise a skype meeting with anna/elena (and Dick) in planning for Trento.

19.07.2013 Project discussion @ SHU DP, FM

Priorities for the co-design workshops in Trento

Further explorations of the ideas generated at the kick-off meeting in Sheffield. For the deliverables of WP1 it would be good to show the range of ideas that have been generated.

An exercise that examines how the editor will work 1) from the curators perspective 2) from the exhibition/interactions designers perspective.

Use of the workshop as an opportunity to hone in on the month 12 deliverable i.e. user system requirements.

?? Ask WP2 - what has been your experience with the prototypes?

Look at concepts generated via the meSch concept blog.

25.07.2013 WP3 Kick-off skype meeting FM, Dick van Dijk, Adriano Venturini, Fabio Caparrelli and Massimo Zancanaro (FBK)

Initial discussion on the planning of the authoring tool. Discussion centres on the draft document 'workflow curator in authoring tool' as issued by Dick. He notes that the personalisation aspect still needs to be integrated into the workflow. Fiona notes that the authoring tool will need to be defined in terms of both the authorship of the curator (what are the curators user requirements?) and the authorship of the exhibition designer (what are the technical requirements?)

The possibility of creating a community environment to allow curators to share information and learn from one another was discussed.

From the suggested templates available i.e. wayfinding, narration, etc, we will need to establish whether or not these are realistic templates from which the authoring tool can offer a conceptual framework from which the curator can begin to devise the exhibition.What are the other possible templates? What are the other points from which a curator may begin to conceptualise an exhibition.

The group agreed that under the stage 'preparation' the template should be about setting a goal, then choose format should be about establishing the form.

Technical issues discussed included the following points: - In using the map as a deployment tool, one must be realistic as to the locational ability, robustness etc of the sensors. - As a new model of authoring environment and as an alternative to a 2D map, the possibility of a 3D authoring tool was suggested. But how comfortable would a curator be working in a 3D environment? What are the limits of knowledge and accessability from the curators perspective? - The UI should make it very visually clear to the curator how to drag and drop objects.

Other authoring tool examples were discusses e.g. Scratch (MIT) and 7Scenes (WAAG)

As leader of WP3, Fabio has suggested designating a half day meeting in Trento to discuss WP3. In preparation for this meeting, 2 deliverables were established: 1. WAAG is to collect a survey of example authoring tools 2. Bold textUL is to feed information from the curatorial interviews into the task of template descriptions.

25.07.2013 meSch Meeting

Agenda 1: Bodystorming exercise in Sheffield To kick off the meeting, LM discussed the outcomes from the bodystorming exercise in Sheffield. Overall, instructions need to be provided as they were prepared and aim should be clear from the onset. Other outcomes can be found on the user research planning page. There could be a possibility of integrating the bodystorming exercise with activities that WAAG are planning for Trento.

Agenda 2: Activities discussed for Trento in Sheffield

  • FM discusses initial idea about exploring place and the system; LC mentioned this was not a priority in our research
  • Focus instead on activities to develop the editor:
 - WAAG and FM to look
 -  Gather ideas and concepts generated from Sheffield
 -  Look at meSch concept blog

Agenda 3: FM interview LC feedback: it’s too short. Add extensions to questions.

Agenda 4: Seminar to be discussed with D. Another similar seminar will be running from Derry.

Agenda 5: FM and GA to prepare an abstract for Nodem conference

Agenda 6: We need to interview more curators/exhibit designers before September preferably. Have interviews analysed for October’s meeting

09.08.2013 meSch Meeting

Agenda 1: INTERACT abstract LM to upload the INTERACT abstract and distribute to partners

Agenda 2: Update on interviews Discussing the progress on interviews and transcriptions. We are to analyse these interviews on 22/23 August

Agenda 3: Workshop in November Discussing the plan for the workshop in November. Send in the blurb, and plan pilot studies. Plan to attend the seminar in Londonderry also.

Agenda 4; Nodem abstract FM to prepare the abstract for the Nodem conference.

Agenda 5: CHI deadline Should we prepare a submission for CHI? The deadline is 18th September.

Agenda 6: Skype call with A - (MdG) Prepare a skype call with A when LC arrives, either 27/28/early 29 August.

Agenda 7: UL Links Prepare advertisement with UL Links when INTERACT conference is over.

21.08.2013 Skype Meeting with FM and Elena Not and Anna Pisetti

Agenda 1: Overall Trento Schedule and Arrangements

Rooms Booked

Monday 1 room booked at the FBK (downtown & close to the train station)

Tuesday 1 conference room available at the MdG

Wednesday & Thursday 3 rooms booked at the FBK (up the hill and we would need to take a bus)

If people want to stay on Friday, rooms can be booked, no problem. Merel and Diane have already confirmed that they will stay on Friday to discuss personalisation with Elena.

Suggested Activities

Monday afternoon - Consortium / wrap-up meeting?

Tuesday - MdG and trenches site visit

Agenda 2: Issues of concern following the Amsterdam meeting and leading into Trento

The final design and video demonstration exercise generated very interesting discussion but it was too rushed. For future co-design workshops, we need to ensure that there is enough time for this type of discussion and ideas generation.

The technical prototypes on display were in general too restrictive in that it was difficult to imagine new ideas in comparison to these.

Elena asked 'Is the topic of the next co-design workshop is “Co-designing around smart objects”, as per the WP descriptions?' FM said we do not have to adhere to these descriptions.

Agenda 3: Suggestions for co-design activities at the Trento meeting - Exercise 1

Elena would like to see a follow up exercise to the content/context mapping exercise as ran by Daniela in Den Haag.

The exercise is aimed at curators and works towards the eliciting and structuring of content and personalised content in relation to smart objects. The objective of the exercise would be to work towards the delivery of meaningful content. It could be used to work towards different prototypical classes of objects.

It has 2 main questions / challenges for the curators to decide:

1) What is the type of content that you would like the object to tell? For example, what are the stories that you would like it to tell? What types of media would you like to use?

2) What are the behaviours of the object that you would like? For example, how would you like the object to behave if one visitor is present? How would you like the object to behave if five visitors are present? What would you like the object to do?

Agenda 3: Suggestions for co-design activities at the Trento meeting - Exercise 2

Elena also suggested an exercise that investigates how the curators would like the objects to behave in alternative contexts.

For example, via the simply presentation or build of a prototype, there is an opportunity to find out from the curators how should the object behave in different contexts.

For example, what will the object do? Would you take the object with you? Would you leave it behind you? What would be appropriate for your museum? For example, the needs of the Allard Pierson are very different to Museon and the system needs to support different deliveries.

Skype meeting 23rd August 9am

Agenda 1: UL activities

Workshop Thursday 22nd Limerick Items for consideration: LM raised the following question after hosting the aforementioned workshop. 1. Should we provide the materials to participants after they have devised their concept/narrative? EH responded to this issue with the following points: 1. Computer Science people tend to come up with ideas that are very boxy and 2. Design people tend to be more creative. EH mentioned it might be a good idea to influence the participants in some way, but not too much.

Interviews FM has conduced 5 interviews to date GA has conducted 1 interview LM has conducted 1 interview

Skype meeting UL: GA, FM, LM and WAAG: DvD 18th Sept 9.30am

Meeting notes 18th Sept 2013 9.30am

Agenda 1: Workshop in Trento: GA requested DvD to facilitate at the workshop:

  • DVD mentioned he had to attend the WP3 workshop, that takes place at the same time the WP1 workshop takes place
  • Suggestion to move the WP1 workshop on another day?

Agenda 2: Interviews: Discussion of the interviews UL will have for Trento meeting

  • Possibly 10 – 12 interviews

Discussion of interviews WAAG will have for Trento meeting

  • 4 – 5 interviews

Agenda 3: Planning for new workshop day in Trento: Discussing possibility of having the workshop on Thursday morning, then DvD can facilitate the workshop Contact HG about update in WP1 workshop plan Compile a list of people we want to invite so the workshop will not be overly crowded Invite curators/cultural heritage professionals from project to join to ensure outcome reflects their practices

Agenda 4: Planning content for workshop day in Trento: Continuing to plan for the activities in Trento: DvD suggested an element of the exercise to link with the authoring tool FM suggesting using the workflow template used by DvD for workshop:

  • DvD thinks it would be best to leave out the template, gather feedback from workshops and update the workflow template
  • Allocate 3 – 4 hours for the workshop
  • From the interviews, we should generate personas of the curators, and ask curators at workshop to reflect on the personas as a way to validate connections

FM asked will we use objects from all museums in the project or just MdG:

  • DvD suggested asking all three museums to think of an object from their museum and provide a picture and some material on the object for the exercise.

Discussing where the exercise should take place:

  • DvD suggests at MdG, as being in a museum space would help keep exercise focused

Agenda 5: Planning transport for MdG on Thursday Planning the transport for the workshop on Thursday morning:

  • Contact EN at FBK re the options available

Agenda 6: Testing of prototypes Initially, visitor testing of prototypes was to be done on Thursday morning:

  • DvD suggested that other members from WAAG could lead the activity, though they would need to speak Italian and English

Agenda 7: Re-write the schedule

  • The schedule for Italy needs to be re-written and sent to HG

Agenda 8: Follow up meeting

  • A follow up meeting is provisionally scheduled for 9:30am Wed 25th October

Meeting ended 10:30am

Personal tools