Category Archives: Uncategorized

Three low white pillars glow with light while one person leans over each, pressing a button on the right side of each pillar releasing a unique scent.

Accessible Exhibition Guide: Delivering Content to All

When the user is included in the design process from the start, choices multiply for everyone’s benefit.

In Cooper Hewitt’s newest exhibitions, Access+Ability (through September 3, 2018) and The Senses: Design Beyond Vision (through October 28, 2018), designing with the user and visitor at the center are integral. Accessibility and inclusion are a key focus of these current exhibitions and essential strategic goals for the museum, now and for the years ahead. There are many exciting ways we’re stepping up our efforts even more and aiming to provide all audiences the same quality of experience on campus and online. https://www.cooperhewitt.org/accessibility-at-cooper-hewitt

In The Senses, visitors are welcomed into a multisensory playground touching, smelling, hearing, and seeing in dynamic and new ways.

Four adults are lined along and facing a curving wall covered in black synthetic fur. They stand on a wooden floor with backs facing outward as the each touch the wall moving both hands along and around the wall's surface.

Visitors touching a furry wall activate orchestral musical compositions. Designed by Studio Roos Meermanand KunstLAB Arnhem

While preparing for the exhibition we knew that there would be many touchable objects and installations (43 to be exact) in The Senses. What we lacked was the medium to deliver the exhibition content to every visitor. Cooper Hewitt’s Pen offers agency and a new way to explore in a museum for people who are sighted but without audio, how might visitors with low vision and who are blind explore the content?

Making Cooper Hewitt Content Accessible
In 2017, we launched our large print label feature on our collection website. This system makes available each exhibition’s label content (text and image) responsive to the user’s device and customizable in six different font sizes. Our Visitor Experience team also has an efficient way to produce large print label binders, directly from our collection database, for the galleries to share with visitors. We began investigating solutions for making content labels and gallery cues readable for people who are blind. We considered Braille labels, using beacon notifications, and even floor mats in front of each object and installation to message that an interaction is calling. Asking questions such as “which text would be more meaningful to print in Braille on the labels—object tombstone (museum-speak for object stats) or text about the object?” Wrong questions! All of this research and internal discussion wasn’t leading to viable solutions. Our group of five sighted colleagues, good intentioned as we were, weren’t getting at what the user might want. It was during a gallery visit with Sina Bahram—computer scientist, consultant, and researcher and President and Founder of Prime Access Consulting (PAC), which advises museums and other institutions on website and digital accessibility—who was onsite for meeting when he simply said “Identification and verification.” So obvious but somehow we weren’t seeing it! Every visitor wants agency to determine what information to access, about which object, when he or she wants it.

White label displays a bright yellow textures bar that messages touch | hear in Braille. Also printed in Braille are the object ID number that the user will enter into the app.

Accessible Exhibition Content Design

The Scaffolding
Using our API and label rail system—designed for access to the collection in the galleries—we determined the identification would be an assigned object ID number e.g. 0103, and verification is why we have the name of the object in Braille as well. This way, once you type the number of the “identified” object into your phone you can “verify” that you’ve got the right one in front of you. An added benefit since users can choose if they even want to read more about that particular object. An app could call the API and deliver the exhibition content. After discussing with our colleagues we prototyped, tested, and moved forward—with about 15 days to go before exhibition opening—to develop a version 1 native app for iOS with v.2 web-based application for android use.

Cooper Hewitt Accessible Exhibition Guide printied in white type on black background about a blank box where the keypad below is used to type in content ID number. HELP appears in top right corner.

Content number entry screen for Coper Hewitt app.

Accessible Systems
Bahram and Joshua Lerner of Monorail built the app. The tactile labels were produced by Steven Landau, whose company Touch Graphics creates accessible audio and tactile graphics. Every label in The Senses features an object title and number, printed in braille and Latin characters. Smartphones are used to access the associated content. Labels are discoverable as they are installed at a consistent height throughout the exhibition on our label rail system. Cooper Hewitt’s first Accessible Exhibition Guide was uploaded and went live on April 18. Download it from the Apple App Store or connect from our website. The guide contains the exhibition’s descriptive and interpretive content in both text and audio formats. A visitor can choose to read the text, hear it with a screen reader, or listen to an audio recording.

From top down: Black background with drop-out white type: 0104, Dialect for a New Era, 2017–18; Image of six glowing white pillars; label text.

Image of screen that appears when Dialect for a New Era content ID is entered into the app.

The Cooper Hewitt Accessible Exhibition Guide was conceived as we looked for multi-modal channels for content delivery for users with differing abilities. Designing for multiple senses highlights that the methodology of access not dictate level of access, which is the goal for the Accessible Content Guide and for Cooper Hewitt.

Interactive timeline design: seeking feedback!

Guest post by Olivia Vane

I’ve been visiting Cooper Hewitt for the last few months designing a new way of exploring the collection using timelines and tags. (For more background and details of the project, I’ve written a post here).

I’m set up with a prototype on a touchscreen in the Cooper Hewitt galleries today seeking impressions and feedback from visitors. Do drop in and have a play! I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

Exploring the Cooper Hewitt collection with timelines and tags: guest post by Olivia Vane

‘Black & white’ timeline detail, Cooper Hewitt data

A physical museum is itself a sort of data set — an aggregation of the micro in order to glimpse the macro. One vase means little on its own, beyond perhaps illustrating a scene from daily life. But together with its contemporaries, it means the contours of a civilization. And when juxtaposed against all vases, it helps create a first-hand account of the history of the world.
From ‘An Excavation Of One Of The World’s Greatest Art Collections

The ability to draw on historic examples from various cultures, to access forgotten techniques and ideas and juxtapose them with contemporary works, creates provocative dialogues and amplifies the historic continuum. This range is an asset few museums have or utilize and provides a continuing source of inspiration to contemporary viewers and designers.”
From ‘Making Design: Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum Collection’ p.28

Guest post by Olivia Vane

I’m 4 months into a 5-month fellowship at Cooper Hewitt working with their digitised collection. I’m normally based in London where I’m a PhD student in Innovation Design Engineering at the Royal College of Art supervised by Stephen Boyd Davis, Professor of Design Research. My PhD topic is designing and building interactive timelines for exploring cultural data (digitised museum, archive and library collections). And, in London, I have been working with partners at the V&A, the Wellcome Library and the Science Museum.

The key issue in my PhD is how we ‘make sense’ of history using interactive diagrams. This is partly about visualisation of things we already know in order to communicate them to others. But it is also about visual analytics – using visuals for knowledge discovery. I’m particularly interested in what connects objects to one another, across time and through time.

I am very fortunate to be spending time at Cooper Hewitt as they have digitised their entire collection, more than 200,000 objects, and it is publicly available through an API. The museum is also known for its pioneering work in digital engagement with visitors and technical innovations in the galleries. It is a privilege to be able to draw on the curatorial, historical and digital expertise of the staff around me here for developing and evaluating my designs.

As I began exploring the collection API, I noticed many of the object records had ‘tags’ applied to them (like ‘birds’, ‘black & white’, ‘coffee and tea drinking’, ‘architecture’, ‘symmetry’ or ‘overlapping’). These tags connect diverse objects from across the collection: they represent themes that extend over time and across the different museum departments. This tagging interested me because it seemed to offer different paths through the data around shape, form, style, texture, motif, colour, function or environment. (It’s similar to the way users on platforms like Pinterest group images into ‘boards’ around different ideas). An object can have many tags applied to it suggesting different ways to look at it, and different contexts to place it in.

Where do these tags come from? Here, the tags are chosen and applied by the museum when objects are included in an exhibition. They provide a variety of ways to think about an object, highlighting different characteristics, and purposely offer a contrasting approach to more scholarly descriptive information. The tags are used to power recommendation systems on the museum collection website and applications in the galleries. They constitute both personal and institutional interpretation of the collection, and situate each item in a multi-dimensional set of context.


Some examples of tags and tagged objects in the Cooper Hewitt collection

I was interested to trace these themes over the collection and, since objects often have multiple tags, to explore what it would be like to situate or view each object through these various lenses.

The temporal dimension is important for identifying meaningful connections between items in cultural collections, so my first thoughts were to map tagged objects by date.

I’m working on a prototype interface that allows users to browse in a visually rich way through the collection by tags. A user starts with one object image and a list of the tags that apply to that object. They may be interested to see what other objects in the collection share a given tag and how the starting image sits in each of those contexts. When they click a tag, a timeline visualisation is generated of images of the other objects sharing that tag – arranged by date. The user can then click on further tags, to generate new timeline visualisations around the same starting image, viewing that image against contrasting historical narratives. And if they see a different image that interests them in one of these timelines, they can click on that image making it the new central image with a new list of tags through which to generate timelines and further dig into the collection. By skipping from image to image and tag to tag, it’s easy to get absorbed in exploring the dataset this way; the browsing can be undirected and doesn’t require a familiarity with the dataset.


‘Coffee and tea drinking’ timeline: designs in the collection stretch from 1700 to the present with a great diversity of forms and styles, elaborate and minimal.

‘Water’ timeline. Here there are many different ways of thinking about water: images of garden plans with fountains and lakes from the 16th–18th Century, or modern interventions for accessing and cleaning water in developing countries. Contrasting representations (landscape painting to abstracted pattern) and functions (drinking to boating) stretch between.

‘Water’ timeline, detail


‘Space’ timeline: 1960s ‘space age’ souvenirs (Soviet and American) precede modern telescope imaging. And a 19th Century telescope reminds us of the long history of mankind’s interest in space.

I’m plotting the object images themselves as data points so users can easily make visual connections between them and observe trends over time (for instance in how an idea is visually represented or embodied in objects, or the types of objects present at different points in time). The images are arranged without overlapping, but in an irregular way. I hoped to emulate a densely packed art gallery wall or mood board to encourage these visual connections. Since the tags are subjective and haven’t been applied across the whole collection, I also felt this layout would encourage users to view the data in a more qualitative way.


Yale Center for British Art: Long Gallery, image credit Richard Caspole, YCBA & Elizabeth Felicella, Esto

Moodboard, image credit ERRE

Dealing with dates

How to work with curatorial dating?

While most of the post-1800 objects in the dataset have a date/date span expressed numerically, pre-1800 objects often only have date information as it would appear on a label: for example ‘Created before 1870s’, ‘late 19th–early 20th century’, ‘ca. 1850’ or ‘2012–present’. My colleagues at the Royal College of Art have previously written about the challenges of visualising temporal data from cultural collections (Davis, S.B. and Kräutli, F., 2015. The Idea and Image of Historical Time: Interactions between Design and Digital Humanities. Visible Language49(3), p.101).

In order to process this data computationally, I translated the label date text to numbers using the yearrange library (which is written for working with curatorial date language). This library works by converting, for example, ‘late 18th century’ to ‘start: 1775, end: 1799’ For my purposes, this seems to work well, though I am unsure how to deal with some cases:

  • How should I deal with objects whose date is ‘circa X’ or ‘ca. X’ etc.? At the moment I’m just crudely extending the date span by ±20 years.
  • How should I deal with ‘before X’? How much ‘before’ does that mean? I’m currently just using X as the date in this case.
  • The library does not translate BC dates (though I could make adjustments to the code to enable this…) I am just excluding these at the moment.
  • There are some very old objects in the Cooper Hewitt collection for example ‘1.85 million years old’, ‘ca. 2000-1595 BCE’ and ‘300,000 years old’. These will create problems if I want to include them on a uniformly scaled timeline! Since these are rare cases, I’m excluding them at the moment.

Skewing the timeline scale

The Cooper Hewitt collection is skewed towards objects dating post-1800 so to even out image distribution over the timeline I am using a power scale. Some tags, however, – such as ‘neoclassical’ or ‘art nouveau’ – have a strong temporal component and the power scale fails to even out image distribution in these cases.

How are the images arranged?

My layout algorithm aims to separate images so that they are not overlapping, but still fairly closely packed. I am using a rule that images can be shifted horizontally to avoid overlaps so long as there is still some part of the image within its date span. Since images are large data markers, it is already not possible to read dates precisely from this timeline. And the aim here is for users to observe trends and relationships, rather than read off exact dates, so I felt it was not productive to worry too much about exact placement horizontally. (Also, this is perhaps an appropriate design feature here since dating cultural objects is often imprecise and/or uncertain anyway). This way the images are quite tightly packed, but don’t stray too far from their dates.

‘Personal environmental control’ timeline: a dry juxtaposition of these decorated fans against modern Nest thermostats.

‘Foliate’ timeline, detail

‘Squares’ timeline

I’ve also tried to spread images out within date spans, rather than just use the central point, to avoid misleading shapes forming (such as a group of objects dating 18th century forming a column at the midpoint, 1750).

Things to think about

Interface design

  • The layout algorithm slows when there are many (100 or more) images visualised. Is there a more efficient way to do this?
  • I’m considering rotating the design 90° for web-use; I anticipate users will be interested to scroll along time, and scrolling vertically may improve usability with a mouse.
  • Would a user be interested to see different timeline visualisations next to each other, to compare them?
  • It could be interesting to apply this interface to other ways of grouping objects such as type, colour, country or other descriptor.
  • I need to build in a back button, or some way to return to previously selected images. Maybe a search option for tags? Or a way to save images to return to?

Tags

  • This visualisation design relies on curator-applied tags and, therefore, would be difficult to apply to other datasets: might there be a way to automate part of this? Maybe using computer vision technologies?
  • Since objects are only tagged if they are featured in an exhibition, the interface misses many relevant objects in the collection when visualising a theme. For instance there are 23 objects tagged ‘Japanese’, but keyword searching the collection for ‘Japanese’ returns 453 objects. While the interface works well with the current quantities of images (up to about 100), what changes to the design would be needed to increase this number?
  • What about grouping tags together? There is no dictionary or hierarchy to them so some are very similar, for instance: ‘floral’, ‘floral bouquets’, ‘floral swag’, ‘flower’, ‘flowering vine’, and ‘flowers’. Though it can be interesting to see the subtle differences in how related tags have been applied. For instance: ‘biomorphic’ is more often applied to modern objects; ‘nature’ is generally applied to depictions of nature such as landscape paintings; while ‘organic’ is applied in a more abstract sense to describe objects’ form.

I’m at a stage where I’d like to get user feedback from a range of audiences (general and scholarly) to explore some of these questions.

This is very much a work in progress, and feedback is welcome! (olivia.fletcher-vane@network.rca.ac.uk to get in touch by email)