In museums, objects are often exhibited separately. Tools are shown alongside other tools, and glass objects are exhibited together with other glass objects. How do you tell a coherent and captivating story, connecting the dots between different exhibited objects? In co-creation with CNAM (Conservatoire national des arts et métiers), Waag has been prototyping a digital experience for Mingei’s pilot on glass. Developer Lodewijk Loos takes you along the journey towards the first prototype.

Visiting CNAM

The goal of creating this digital experience at CNAM is to engage visitors and give them insight into the process of glass making. The prototype should work on site (in this case in the context of the museum), and should add to the already available real objects on display. However, the technology used for the prototype should be non-obtrusive to the local situation. Visitors who do not wish to use the technology, should not be bothered by it.

In order to get a grasp of the local context at CNAM, Meia Wippoo and Lodewijk Loos of Waag went to Paris in March 2020. There, we had a fruitful co-creation session with a team of museum professionals from CNAM and conceptualized a rough version of the prototype. In the glass section of the museum, we made some observations that were key to the first version of the prototype.

First of all, the glass objects are exposed in vitrines, they couldn’t be touched or picked up and could not be looked at from all angles. Of course, not being able to pick up objects in a museum is normal. However, as a lot of these objects are tools and utensils, being able to do so would contribute to the understanding of the object. We also know from experience in earlier projects, like meSch, that being able to pick up objects leads to more user engagement.

The next thing we noticed is that some objects were related to other objects that were displayed in different rooms of the museum. For example, the glass tools and a glass product were not in the same room. The reason for this is that there are different ways to classify object. The tools were in the tooling section and the carafe was in a section with artworks. However, these objects are part of the same story that we would like to tell: the process of glass making.

Another observation that we made was that some of the objects key to the story were not on display in the museum, for example a furnace and piece of wet paper were not there.

Augmented reality

As we decided upfront, the prototype should help to get insight in the process of glass making. With these observations, we could translate the story of glass in a more generic story. One could say that in the context of crafts, a general pattern is that objects are used with other objects (for example tools with materials), in different parts of the process. That is what we want our digital experience to give insight in.

We also concluded that the use of augmented reality (AR) technology could be of value for this prototype. With AR, it is possible to create the sense of picking up (virtual representatives of) objects, use them in another room, and show objects that are not physically there.

Mark the process

We returned back home and worked out several concepts. Next, we aggregated common interaction principles from our concepts. Our interaction principles showed similarities to (adventure) games. Adventure games are like a puzzle: you often have to pick up objects, sometimes not yet knowing what for, and use them at another location, sometimes in combination with another object.

One of our concepts focused at the carafe, named “Mark the Process”. This concept would lend itself for this type of adventure-like (mini) game. The central piece in this game would be the various parts and stages of completion of the carafe. This is how the process of making this type of carafe is currently displayed in CNAM. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had pick up the tools associated with this process in the one room, and place them at the right “step” in the other room? We also liked the idea of being able to collect museum objects and take them home for closer inspection.

The use of markers

With this concept in mind, we started implementing a proof of concept as a smartphone app. From previous AR projects, we had experience with the combination of Vuforia (AR framework) and Unity3D (gaming engine). The former is very well integrated in the latter, making it an ideal tool for (at least) prototyping. Vuforia support various ways of augmentation, both marker-based as marker less.

Markers are physical signs that are recognized by the app to instigate interaction. Using markers makes the app less dependent on local lighting conditions, which were not ideal or constant at CNAM. Recognising a marker, instead of an object itself, generally just works better. Additionally, using markers could make it easier for users of our app to see at which locations in the museum they could interact, because they serve as a visual clue. When you’re in a museum with thousands of objects, it is convenient that you can see immediately (without using a device) which ones are interactable. Finally, markers are easier in use. Augmenting an object by placing a marker in front of it is less challenging then having to scan the object and markers make it also easy to place objects in the void. In the longer run, the use of markers helps to accomplish a more generic application for different venues with different content, that allows its content to be authored by curators (as opposed to software developers).

Living room demonstration

Our original intention was to test the prototype at CNAM with random visitors of the museum. But during the development of the app, Covid-19 came around and it became clear that testing the app in a public venue with a real audience would not be possible anytime soon. Furthermore, the Covid-19 situation might even change the way we design things permanently. For example, it might have become undesirable to have devices in a museum that are handed out to visitors or to have installations with touch screens. An AR app that people can run on their own phone should be relative safe and convenient.

With this in mind, we slightly changed our prototyping strategy and made the decision to create a living room demonstration. Originally, the prototype was meant to include virtual copies of the museum objects. By the lack of museum objects in the developer’s house, we used general building tools and convincing 3D models from online repositories.

The prototype demonstrates a few of the principles. The user can pick up object and place them back again, objects can be collected in a treasure chest for later use, objects can be used with other objects by using them with a marker next to that other object, referenced media for the collected object is available as background information, information overlays (giving hints) can be shown and a collection of objects can be used to make simple puzzles. As a gamification element, the user receives badges after completing specific tasks or reaching certain goals.

Next steps

This simple approach allows for a lot flexibility to create puzzle-like games. For example, a timeline game could be created by changing the physical placement of the markers into another linear layout. One could also imagine having different kinds of visual markers for different kind of interactions. One type of marker could indicate that an object can be picked up, and another marker could indicate that an object can be used at that spot.

At this point it is also interesting to think about how these principles can be applied at the other pilot locations. Part of the Mingei project is a pilot in Chios (Greece) on the craft of harvesting and processing Mastic from the mastic tree. Would it be feasible to apply the prototype at the local situation over there by augmenting the Mastic tools and placing markers on and around a real tree? There is still enough work to be done and questions to be answered towards a generic AR application for on-site craft experiences!

Written by Lodewijk Loos (Waag)

Limerick Lace is an active community of local lace makers, the Limerick Museum and Archives and local educational institutions in Ireland. The community is an intriguing example of how traditional crafts are kept alive and relevant. Waag’s Dick van Dijk  spoke to Gabriela Avram, lace making enthusiast and lecturer in Digital Media and Interaction Design in the Department of Computer Science and Information Systems of the university of Limerick. What can we learn from the Limerick Lace project?

Lace making

Limerick lace is a hybrid lace made on a machine made net base. It is a ‘mixed lace’ rather than a ‘true lace’, which would be entirely hand made. Though Ireland has around 7 or 8 types of lace, Limerick lace is the most famous of all Irish laces. It has been worn by thousands of women, including Queen Victoria, American First Lady Edith Roosevelt and Countess Markievicz.

Limerick lace comes in two forms:
• tambour lace, that is made by stretching a net over a frame like a tambourine and drawing threads through it with a hook;
• needlerun lace, which is made by using a needle to embroider on a net background.

As the holes of the net (called gaskets) on which you create the pattern are very small, making lace is not only about carefully looking, but it relies on muscle mind and practice as well. There are 47 distinct stitches in Limerick Lace. The first steps of lace making are explained here.

Made in Limerick

The recent revival of lace making started in 2014 when Limerick was cultural capital of Ireland and several ‘Made in Limerick’ projects were funded by the Irish government, Limerick Lace being one of them. Its main objectives were to design and create an exhibition of Limerick Lace for the Limerick Museum, and to produce a book on the history of Limerick Lace.

The Limerick Museum and Archives host a valuable collection of local lace, partly ecclesiastic, partly domestic (dollies, aprons, christening robes). But before 2014, there were only two cabinets in the museum displaying lace.

One of the locals who got involved in the Limerick Lace project is Gabriela Avram. She joined the project out of personal interest in civic engagement and the potential link with modern technologies, such as augmenting lace with digital technology and creating digital tools to support lace makers.

Gabriela Avram was commissioned to build an interactive installation for the 2014 exhibition, Amazing Lace. Together with interaction design master student Suzanna Melinn and the local community they co-designed the installation Enlaced, consisting of an artificial leather laser cut front dress on a mannequin, augmented with lace pieces contributed by various local community members mounted on the sleeves, including NFC tags allowing the visitors to identify each maker.

Additionally, the exhibition presented instructions for visitors on how to make lace and try lace making out themselves. Later on, a Limerick Lace starter kit was constructed and made available through Etsy. It is hard for novices to get access to the materials needed, so the kit is an important step in making the craft more accessible.

Friends of Lace

In the years that followed, the activities to revive the lace community continued. The Limerick Lace project encouraged locals to bring out their own lace pieces to show and discuss, in a series of events titled Bring Out Your Lace. In the local Fablab, several local artists and makers started experimenting with lace making through other means than textiles, such as paper, 3D printers and laser cutters.

In 2016, Limerick Museum and Archives, in collaboration with the Limerick School of Art and Design organised a festival titled Hybrid: the identity of liminal lace, addressing the role of lace and its social-economic history. The festival included several exhibitions and lace-making workshops, as well as a conference.

The Florence Vere O’Brien lace drawing competition, initiated in 2015, invited art students to come up with new designs for Limerick lace, and the submissions went beyond any expectations, encouraging a potential move away from the dominant, traditional motives of flowers towards streetscapes and everyday objects.

A local group of lace enthusiasts formed in 2017 and became known as the Friends of Lace. They became more structurally involved to help to conserve and preserve artefacts, for example by repacking the lace in storage at the Museum following strict conservation rules, catalogue lace items, create teaching resources and support novel interpretations and uses of Limerick lace.
The revival made them visible as an active community group, which led to other groups following their example. In July 2019, Limerick lace was added to the National Inventory of Intangible Heritage.

Embracing new possibilities

Gabriela sees her role as attempting to bridge a gap between a valued traditional craft, and the opportunities offered by modern digital technologies for its preservation, documentation, further development and outreach.

One of Gabriela’s findings in liaising with art students is that new audiences lack dexterity, they don’t know how to use the needle – as they are mostly used to keyboard and mouse. In learning the craft trying things out is necessary, including the nuisance of undoing what you have already created, and starting over.

By now, the community’s activities also target tourism, through information leaflets in hotels, workshops for tourists, which especially receive high interest from American tourists. Apart from their own website and social media channels, the Friends of Lace are working towards an all Irish laces website, dreaming of a Limerick lace study centre (modelled after the one in Sydney) and potentially a free online lace images repository, created and edited by volunteers around the world.

Gabriela Avram is Lecturer in Digital Media and Interaction Design in the Department of Computer Science and Information Systems of the University of Limerick, Ireland, and a senior member of the Interaction Design Centre. Her current research focuses on sustainable urban development, collaborative economy and the role of technology in supporting civic engagement of local communities.

Written by Dick van Dijk from Waag

References

How do you know what impact the product you are developing will have? Your initial answer to this question might be: You don’t know and, unless you are clairvoyant, you can’t know. If you consider impact something that can only occur once a product is finished, you would be right to say this.

However, the Mingei team believes that a product, or to be more precise, the project delivering the product, can have significant impact during its development phase. We use the same definition of impact as Europeana uses in their Impact Playbook for Museums, Libraries, Archives and Galleries. Impact consists of “the changes that occur for stakeholders or in society as a result of activities (for which the organisation is accountable.” In this context, we focus on impact that might occur as a result of growing awareness amongst our target audiences, the impact of our scientific publications on the academic community, and the organisational learning that happens as a result of Mingei collaborations.

We decided to measure and work to optimise impact throughout the lifecycle of the project, rather than merely measuring the end result. While developing our tools, our understanding of their capabilities will shift and grow, making it possible to better understand the potential impact and to take action to optimise this potential as part of our development process. So, how are we doing this?

Work as a team

Rather than appointing one or two people in charge of monitoring impact, we decided to take a more proactive approach and work in several small teams to actively improve the impact our work may have on our key stakeholders. Our heritage partners are particularly important in this process, as they are most closely in contact with (some of) the potential future users of our tools.

To make sure we progress in pace with the project, keeping our research relevant for whatever phase we are in, we are using a method called Team Based Inquiry, or TBI. TBI was developed by the Nanoscience Informal Science Education Network and was initially used to continuously assess and improve (nano)science education projects. It makes use of a cyclical process, consisting of four steps: question, investigate, analyse and improve. This allows you to be topical and progress in your research, while also aiming for continuous improvements.

We will use the TBI cycle throughout the project, where our heritage partners will each be leading their own cyclical processes, with input and contributions from technical partners when needed. During the first phases of the Mingei project, we will focus on developing relationships with our key stakeholders, as well as better understanding their needs. Later on, the same approach will be used to focus on skills development. What skills do key players have, or need, that can help make the Mingei tools a success? By better understanding key stakeholders and their skills, we can together work towards improving the tools we will offer them.

Monitoring impact

Finally, we will also be monitoring the impact the Mingei project will have on our heritage partners. Not only because they will be important users of the Mingei tools in their own right, but also because by better understanding the impact the project has on them, we will be able to optimise our tools for use by other heritage professionals. Each heritage partner has finished their first TBI cycle, delving into a question they deemed relevant to their situation at that time. Although these first cycles were seen as a test run of sorts, the results were very promising.

Written by Merel van der Vaart from Waag