Digital Access to Audiovisual Cultural Heritage. Archives, Developers and Scholars Unite (or not)

Digital access to audiovisual cultural heritage

Archives, developers and scholars unite (or not)

Torino, Italy 17-19.12.2015

Mariana Salgado Department of Media - ARTS Aalto University Espoo, Finland [email protected]

Willemien Sanders Department of Media and Culture Studies

Utrecht University Utrecht, the Netherlands

[email protected]

2

www.euscreen.eu

3

Archives, developers and scholars unite (or not)

• Explore when / how collaboration works

• www.euscreen.eu and EUscreenXL

• Work for EUscreenXL: contextualization

• Collaboration in teams

-Hackathon May 2015

-EUscreenXL WP3, task 3.1 Contextualization

• Conclusion

4

The EUscreen portal „journalistic” approach

interactive

mobile version user-friendly

and appealing

5

31 partners | 20 content partners

1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1

3 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

2

3 4

DR

Kungliga Biblioteket Aalto University Lietuvos Centrinis

Valstybės Archyvas

Česká Televize

Deutsche Welle

Österreichischer Rudfunk

2

Radio Télévision Belge de la Communauté Française

ATiT

Universite de Luxembourg

Ireland’s National Television and Radio Broadcaster

Radiotelevizija Slovenija

Televiziunea Română

Nederlands Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid

Noterik

Universiteit Utrecht European Broadcasting Union

1

Nemzeti Audiovizuális Archivum

Eötvös Loránd University

Εθνικό Μετσόβιο Πολυτεχνεί

Royal Holloway University of London

The British Universities Film & Video Council

Screen Archive South East

Queen’s University Belfast

Institut national de l'audiovisuel

Narodowy Instytut Audiowizualny

Instituto Luce Cinecittà


European Broadcasting Union

Rádio e Televisão de Portugal S.A.

Εθνικό Μετσόβιο Πολυτεχνεί

Instituto Luce Cinecittà

European Broadcasting Union

Televisió de Catalunya

DR

Radiotelevizija Slovenija


6

Twin-track ingestion approach

Core Collection 20 000

Aggregation 1 000 000

7

WP3: Contextualization

• Added value through ‘curation’, providing context

for understanding

• Create tools and functionalities to this end

- for researchers -> more complex

- for general audience -> quick, easy to use, modular and

flexible

8

Archival content providers

Media scholars

Interaction designers

Graphic designers

Technical developers

* Embedded in larger social aggregates

* Diverse goals related to members and collective

* Interdependent tasks within larger project (McGrath 1991)

Agenda Expertise Tradition

9 Who is the user?

10

Video Poster

11

Critical aspects of collaboration the hackathon

Interaction designer

Media scholar/teacher

Graphic designer

Hackathon organizers

Technical developer

source: http://www.chowhound.com

Hackathon Team

12

Hackathon framework

Decisions organisation:

• Audiovidual cultural heritage

• Multiscreen application

• Tools: post-its, flip charts, dice, notebooks

• De Waag, Amsterdam

• Competition

-> Allocative power

(Bratteteig and Wagner 2012)


© Europeana Space

13

• Power as transformative capacity

(Giddens 1984 in Bratteteig and Wagner 2012)

-> Allocative power organisation: based on resources

-> Non-decisions hackathon team

• -> not discussed / debated / considered

• (Bratteteig and Wagner 2012)


Hackathon framework

14

Inception and acceptance (McGrath 1991)

- Recruiting participants from EUscreenXL

- Google doc with ideas

-Asynchronous communication: -> inertia (Gersick 1988)

-Decision: Advance meetings to discuss ideas

-Synchronus communication

(Massey, Montoya-Weiss, and Hung 2003)

•Value and expertise as sources of power

• (Bratteteig and Wagner 2012)


Hackathon framework

15

Interaction Designer’s perspective Collaboration


source: http://blog.mindjet.com

Hackathon perspectives

16

Interaction Designer’s perspective

Value: Distributed constructionism

Expertise: Design practices

Design and construction activities are effective to support the

development of knowledge-building communities

(Resnick 1996)

Decision: create artefact in collaboration



17

Media Scholar/teacher’s perspective

Alternation of assignments and learning formats

Value: effective practices to keep students motivated and

engaged in the classroom (Wiseman and Hunt 2014)

Expertise: teaching

Decision: plenary work,

small group work/individual work

+

inside / outside classroom


© Educational Technology and Mobile Learning


18

Technical developer’s perspective

Multiscreen Toolkit + Spacial spotting technique

Educational setting

Allocative power: based on technical resources

Legitimization:

company interests

(Bratteteig and Wagner 2012)

Decision: educational tool


Screenshot from Noterik’s existing spacial spotting technology


19


Decision:

To develop a multiscreen application using audiovisual

cultural heritage content that supports different classroom

activities and dynamics, allows building together, and

applies spacial tagging.

source: http://bestdemotivationalposters.com

20

Developing a use case scenario

Decisions and values:

- Collaboration: Analyse video together; share videos on a

screen

- Spacial spotting / multiscreen: tagging; swiping videos

- Create: Select clips and create video posters

- Name: the Carrot


21

Focus on collaboration -> discussion, compromise

Seeing – moving – seeing (Schön and Wiggins 1992)

-> discuss, wire frames, discuss -> steps

© Europeana Space



22

Discussions:

Tag or comment?

-> Eduaction -> focus on video -> just tag

Tags visible?

-> Education -> students respond to each other -> at the end



23

Spacial spotting:

- Tagging with smart phone or tablet

- Tags based on research question / topic

- Tags to be defined per session

- No comments

- Individual

Design by Neea Laakso



24

Discussion of tags:

- Tags visible to teacher all the time

- Tags visible to students at the end of the viewing session

- Discussion on relevant scenes / shots

- Plenary discussion




25

Creation of Video Poster:

- Selection of clips based on tags and discussion

- Adding of text to construct argument

- Integration of video and text




26

Non-decisions

Tagging technology -> proof of concept

Graphic design -> autonomous, input wire frames

Decisions based on

- Trust

- Power: expert knowledge

Design by Sebastian Zelonka


27

source: http://www.chowhound.com

EUscreenXL team

-> more hierarchical; PMB, WP leaders, pilot co-ordinators,

collaborators

Critical aspects of collaboration EUscreenXL

© ila; http://www.inomthings.com

28

Project decisions (non-decisions team):

• Expand EUscreen

• Limited meetings / workshops

• Online collaboration / tools

-> Global virtual project teams (GVPT)

(Massey, Montoya-Weiss and Hung 2003)


EUscreenXL framework

29

Inception and acceptance:

‘ROI’

Agenda’s

- Different liaisons

- Different projects

- Different interests



30

Non-decisions

- Scholarly perspective

- Accept set backs

Loyalty: stick together



31

Common Goal?


source: http://www.multifaithpeace.org


32

Group functions: contribute to

1. Production -> part of something bigger

2. Members

3. Wellbeing as group (McGrath 1991)

How groups work

33

TIME FLOWS

Temporal ambiguity (Shen, Lyytinen, and Yoo 2015)

How groups work

34

Temporal patterning problems

Temporal ambiguity

Conflicting temporal interests and requirements

Scarcity of temporal resources.

(Massey, Montoya-Weiss and Hung 2003; McGrath 1991)

How groups work

35

temporal ambiguity

interests and requirements

resources

How groups work

36

Hackathon

1. Non-hierarchical, inclusive

2. Communal Inception and

acceptance

3. Decisions based on expertise,

resources and values

4. Synchronous communication

5. Less problems of temporal

patterning

EUscreenXL team

1. Hierarchical, ambiguous

2. No communal

inception/acceptance

3. Decisions based on resources

4. Mainly asynchronous

communication

5. Huge problems of temporal

patterning

Conclusion

37

Hackathon

- Useful sprint

-to understand what we were doing

-to understand each other and each other’s work

-to come to concrete results

- Constraints work to advantage – pressure cooker

competition

Conclusion

38

Hackathon

-Limitation: proof of concept but no real tool in 2.5 days

Remaining question/challenge:

-> How to retain the hackathon team energy and dynamics

in EUscreenXL?

Conclusion

39

© RTÉ / Ireland

Questions?

40

References

Bratteteig, Tone, and Ina Wagner. 2012. “Disentangling Power and Decision-making in Participatory Design.” In , 41–50. Roskilde, Denmark: ACM Press.

Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. “Time and Trasition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development.” Academy of Management Journal 31 (1): 9–41.

Massey, Anne P., Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Yu-Ting Hung. 2003. “Because Time Matters: Temporal Coordination in Global Virtual Project Teams.” Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4): 129–55.

McGrath, J. E. 1991. “Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups.” Small Group Research 22 (2): 147–74.

Resnick, Mitchel. 1996. “Distributed Constructionism.” In Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences, 280–84. ICLS ’96. Evanston, Illinois: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Schon, Donald A., and Glenn Wiggins. 1992. “Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing.” Design Studies 13 (2): 135–56.

Shen, Zixing, Kalle Lyytinen, and Youngjin Yoo. 2015. “Time and Information Technology in Teams: a Review of Empirical Research and Future Research Directions.” European Journal of Information Systems 24 (5): 492–518.

41

How to reach us?

info[at]euscreen.eu

https://www.facebook.com/EUscreen

https://plus.google.com/114583222201094670383

https://twitter.com/EUscreen

https://www.flickr.com/photos/euscreen/

http://vimeo.com/euscreen

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]











42

Thank You

Willemien Sanders

Mariana Salgado

[email protected]

[email protected]

Date post:	23-Jan-2017
Category:	Design
Upload:	mariana-salgado
View:	241 times
Download:	0 times