Mobile apps: the good, the bad and the impossible!.v2
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•478 views
Mobile Heritage Trail production from grant application to final product launch. What we did well, what went wrong, crisis management and improvements for the future.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Mobile apps: the good, the bad and the impossible!.v2
Similar to Mobile apps: the good, the bad and the impossible!.v2 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Mobile apps: the good, the bad and the impossible!.v2
- 3. The project • • • • • Clear vision for product - model Grant application Dept. Culture and the Arts Match outcomes to eligibility criteria Provide budgetary information and get quotes Support provided from Dept.
- 4. • Contract an Historian • Assess the area • Plot sites • Map out potential routes • Assess sites against collection • Establish draft route
- 5. The Route
- 6. • Local and State Collections • Script creation • Community impact • Permission to use images • Tracking
- 7. Tracking
- 16. The Good • • • • • Fulfilled our goal on time and within budget $29k Successful trial for further tours Fantastic professional development Great feedback from launch and from Dept. Beautiful tour in neat package
- 17. The Bad It wasn’t all smooth sailing… • Community awareness • Proof reading • Indigenous consultation • Workload/stress • Inflexible design – try Acoustiguide mobile • Reporting • Complaints – You can’t please everyone!
- 18. • Think big… • Get ALL the facts • Over estimate • Be flexible with design • Access to reporting stats – embed into original agreement
Editor's Notes
- What did we do? Going to talk about how we managed the project and discuss what worked, the issues we encountered along the way and finally offer suggestions on how we can improve for any future APPs we develop.
- Firstly we needed a clear idea of what we wanted to do. It became obvious that we would need to apply for a grant. We decided on the Connect grant offered by The Dept. of Culture and the Arts. The application process was quite time consuming and as it was my first attempt at grant writing, I found it a little complicated. In essence I needed to match the eligibility criteria to the outcomes for the project. I guess a bit like addressing selection criteria when applying for a job. Next I needed to supply budgetary information. This necessitated obtaining several quotes for various services such as researcher, development of the software, design and publication of marketing material. I needed quite a bit of help which was kindly supplied by Erica Boyne from Mosman park – now Co-ordinator of Community Heritage Services for City of Subiaco and also from Roz Lipscombe from the Dept. Several versions later I had a completed grant application. I was elated to be successful and ploughed straight into the project.
- The first step was to secure the services of an historian. We were lucky enough to gain the services of Dr Sue Graham Taylor who I had worked with before, so I was familiar with her work and knew we were in good hands. Between us we assessed the area and plotted the historic sites on a map. From this we could quickly see several viable routes. These were matched against the collection and a final draft route was established which contained sites carrying the greatest cultural significance and the largest quantity of information available.
- 22 historic sites were marked in a loop from The Grove Library past PLC (who were our collaborative partners), down to the foreshore to Keanes Point and back to The Grove. Although we felt this route was an easy 4k walk it did offer a shorter option by returning down Leake Street at the half way point. This flexibility proved to be of vital importance as many of the participants at the launch chose the shorter route. It was essential to walk the route to establish any obstacles blocking viewpoints and so establish the best co-ordinates for the sites. We also noticed potential hazards along the way such as steep slopes etc. and good elements like toilets and cafes.
- Sue Graham Taylor spent 3 months researching the sites and creating short 2 minute narrative scripts. She consulted our collection primarily but also sourced material from State Collections and also PLC. She added little snippets from newspaper articles which uncovered little known facts, and worked very well to add a bit of humour – PLAY AUDIO. During the time Sue was researching, I was busy writing to the owners of the properties included in the tour and obtaining permission to use material which was not held within our collection. One vitally important element to ther project was to organise and track all the data collected.
- Discuss the tracking sheet
- Proofreading and editing was very much a three-way affair. The developer sculpted the scripts so that they flowed well and the historian ensured the factual integrity was protected. I sat in the middle to approve changes and explain historical facts to the developer who was not familiar with the area. Once perfected, the scripts were sent to be recorded. Three professional voice artists were contracted to record the scripts. This gave some variation to the voices. This was one of the most expensive elements to the project. The recording studio, sound engineer and voice artists cost $8000 per day. It is therefore vitally important to ensure that your scripts are 100% accurate BEFORE going to studio, (we found later that ours weren’t – but more about that later).
- While the scripts were recorded and sound effects and music were added, I was informed that I would need to prepare the images for the APP. I had no idea how to do this and had assumed it would be done by the developer. The APP contains 150 images…these needed to be prepared for 4 differing platforms, that’s 600 image preps (crop, resize and mount onto black canvas), in 4 days. That was a challenge and very intense, time consuming work. Timing the image transitions was the final step. We were then ready for production.