| CIDOC NEWSLETTER | Volume 9, August 1998 |
First session: 17 peopleNote The membership of the CIDOC MMWG is an evolving group, with a very small core present at each meeting. However, there is a strong interest in multimedia within the community. The agenda of the group's activities was structured to engage those present in a joint exploration of issues.
Second session: unknown (together with Internet Working Group). Estimate: 25
Third session: 12 people
Activities
Separated into sections of content, functionality, interface, implementation and overall effectiveness, the criteria will enable those developing, reviewing and using museum multimedia to apply a common framework to their assessment. Having shared criteria will further our understanding of 'what makes good museum multimedia' and enable the community to work together to further our development of new documentation and interpretation tools.
An initial set of questions and criteria were developed in a brainstorming session. These were then articulated as a series of questions. The questions were used as the framework for an afternoon of evaluation, of five museum or heritage CD-ROMs and a number of web sites. The group then met as a whole to share the results of their analysis, and to critique and revise the evaluation framework. The revisions are reflected in the version produced after the meeting.
The group as a whole affirmed the value of this collective exercise, and felt that the opportunity to look critically at multimedia products with their colleagues enabled them to develop a broader and more complete analysis. It was decided to repeat this exercise at the Melbourne meeting. Possibly, however, all members of the group should look at the same group of titles, so as to enable their further analysis and discussion.
The questions will be posted on the CIDOC web site, with a feedback button, and further circulated for additions and comments. Members are encouraged to apply them to the review of Web Sites and CD-ROMs. Archives and Museum Informatics: the cultural heritage informatics quarterly (produced in The Netherlands by Kluwer Academice Publishers) regularly publishes reviews of museum titles and would be a place for this information to be disseminated. We might also want to consider the CIDOC discussion list, the web site, and collaboration with other organizations such as IVAIN as means of carrying on the discussion.
Chair's Note: Subsquent to the Nuremburg meeting, the guidelines were posted on the web at http://www.archimuse.com/cidoc/cidoc.mmwg.eval.crit.html. LISTSERV postings were made requesting feedback and comments, and a number of replies received. An ICOM News article also featured highlights, and called for comments and suggestions.
The "Criteria" were used in the judging of the "Best of the Web" a peer-reviewed contest held in conjunction with Museums and the Web 1998.
A 'first public version' of the Report was distributed at the Nairobi CIDOC meeting in 1996. However, at that time there were still significant lacunae in the chapters, particularly those dealing with technical standards and design methodologies. The draft was also made available linked to the CIDOC Web Site, mounted by RKD, thanks to the work of the Group Secretary Jan van der Starre, and markup at the Getty Art History Information Program. (Plans to mount a mirror at the Getty Information Institute were not carried out.)
Prior to the Nuremberg meeting, the Editorial Committee (David Bearman, Costis Dallas, Jennifer Trant, Jan van der Starre, and Tine Wanning) and members of CIDOC were canvassed for their opinions regarding the revision of the report. It was noted that while the report was used, the technical and operational frameworks for the creation and delivery of multimedia have evolved rapidly in the last few years, and that the report was not fully complete in 1996, and no work has been done on its updating. Significant revisions are required to ensure the report is accurate. Concern about further distribution in this form was also expressed, as there are places where it could be misleading, given present circumstances.
At the moment there is no plan to revise the Report. It is recommended that some sections - such as those on Standards - be removed from the Web, and a statement made that the Report, while it represented the opinion of the group at the time of its writing, can no longer be considered authoritative. A note will be added to the Title Page of the online version of the Report: "Note: This report was drafted between 1993 and 1995, and will not be updated. Multimedia has changed dramatically since then. As a reflection of this, some chapters are of limited utility. Others, which discuss general issues, continue to provide background to the museum community on how multimedia might be used in the museum."
The link from the CIDOC site to the report should be qualified as well. The Chair will contact the maintainers of the site regarding this update. [Noted and done - LDW]
The issue of the currency of CIDOC publications was raised by the Chair of the Group at the Board Meeting. Given the rapidly changing technological climate that we work it, CIDOC needs to have a strategy for how it will update, or withdraw documents it produces.
Questions or comments about the activities of the CIDOC Multimedia Group should be directed to:
Jennifer Trant
Chair, CIDOC/MMWG
Archives & Museum Informatics
5501 Walnut St, #203
Pittsburgh, PA
15232 USA
Email: jtrant@archimuse.com