Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Collections Cubed: Into the Third Dimension

452 views

Published on

Presentation accompanying the paper presented at the 2016 Museums & the Web Conference.
http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/collections-cubed-into-the-third-dimension/

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Collections Cubed: Into the Third Dimension

  1. 1. Collections Cubed Intothe Third DimensionRichard J. Urban – SchoolofInformation – Florida State University
  2. 2. #collections3D
  3. 3. Digitize Allthe things
  4. 4. Digitize Allthe things*» but only in 2 dimensions
  5. 5. Costandavailabilityof3D 1 1 (Hess, 2015)
  6. 6. SurveyMethod » Qualtrics survey » Distributed to community listservs and social media » Museum-L, MCN-L, AAM Media & Technology, iDigBio, Museums & the Web, SPNCH, etc. » Primarily focused on North America (but received a few responses from UK)
  7. 7. OrganizationType (n=48)
  8. 8. Limitations » Small number of respondents » Significant survey fatigue (of more than 100 starts only 48 useful responses, 13 completed surveys) » few art or historical museums
  9. 9. Organization Size (Staff n=38) (Budget n=36)
  10. 10. Motivations » Research documentation » Conservation concerns » Public access to collections » Education & Outreach activities
  11. 11. Focus ofdigitization efforts (bynumber ofobjects)
  12. 12. 3D Digitization Method (n=28)
  13. 13. Software Used (n=28)
  14. 14. File Formats (n=28)
  15. 15. Brieflydescribeyour 3D digitizationworkflow: It'sComplicated
  16. 16. Access (n=20) » Ad-hoc access via researcher requests » some use of existing content systems (ContentDM, WordPress, etc.) » Lack of support of OpenGL » curiously no mentions of Thingiverse or other 3D social sites
  17. 17. Metadata(n=14) <mine />
  18. 18. IntellectualProperty (n=16)
  19. 19. Accessto 3D Printers (n=15)
  20. 20. evaluation » Most respondents don't have a solid evaluation plan in place. » some web analytics tracking use of materials » no formal educational evaluation » some pilot studies working with educators
  21. 21. Challenges » Institutional support » Unknown value proposition » Most projects relying on soft grant money » Staffing » Hard to find people with 3D expertice or experience
  22. 22. Challenges » Rapidly evolving technical environments » No long-term digital preservation » Hardware/software changing quickly » Lack of best-practice guidelines » Evaluation? » How are 3D collections being used? » How can evaluation help grow support/ value?
  23. 23. RichardJ. Urban SchoolofInformation FloridaState University rurban@fsu.edu - @musebrarian
  24. 24. Photogrammetry
  25. 25. Laser Scanning
  26. 26. ComputerAidedDesign(CAD) 2 2 http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/IndArch3D
  27. 27. Structured Light
  28. 28. ComputedTomography(CT)
  29. 29. ContactScanning
  30. 30. ReflectanceTransformation Imaging(RTI)
  31. 31. File Formats

×