An evaluation of an interface design theory called rich-prospect browsing and best practices for its use to visualize cultural collections.

1. ARt iN rICh-ProSpECt:
EvaLUatINg NexT-geN
InTerFAceS fOR
CulTUraL hERitAGe
ChRisTOpHer MOrSe
cHriStOPheR.mORse@Uni.LU
MUseUMs aNd ThE Web 2019
BOsTon, MA, uSA

2. HCI / UX
DESIGN
ART
HISTORY
COGNITIVE
PSYCHOLOGY
How can emotional design be
integrated into the creation
of interactive systems for
digital cultural heritage to
inspire user engagement and
connection?
ExPerIeNcE DesIGn
foR dIGitAL cuLtURal
HerITagE

3. Rich-prospect refers to interfaces that provide
a comprehensive visual representation of an
archival collection along with tools for further
manipulation of the display.
(Ruecker et al., 2011)

4. Visual information seeking
mantra: overview first, zoom
and filter, then details on
demand.
Show first, don’t ask. Provide
rich overviews. Provide
samples. Provide context.
Share high-quality primary
content.
The information flaneur:
horizontal exploration
(following curiosity) and
vertical immersion (pleasant
engagement with content).
(Shneiderman, 1996) (Whitelaw, 2013)
(Dörk et al., 2011)

5. Coins — University of Applied Sciences Potsdam
https://uclab.fh-potsdam.de/coins/

6. Curator Table — Google Cultural Institute
https://artsexperiments.withgoogle.com/curatortable/

7. Museum of the World — The British Museum & Google
Cultural Institute
https://britishmuseum.withgoogle.com/

8. Browsing for information is
a significant part of most
research activity, but many
online collections hamper
browsing with interfaces
that are variants on a
search box.
(Ruecker et al., 2011)

9. Browsing for information is
a significant part of most
research activity, but many
online collections hamper
browsing with interfaces
that are variants on a
search box.
(Ruecker et al., 2011)
What are you looking for?

10. RicH-pRosPEcT bRowSInG
TheORetICal FraMEwoRk
& FEatURes

11. ProSpECt AFfoRdANce
properties of an object that
demonstrate actionable
possibilities by a user within
a given environment
(Gibson, 1979)
discerning the essence of a
landscape through a high
level overview of it
(Appleton, 1975)

12. RepREseNtATiOn
I am able to see an image of every object in the collection on the home page.

13. OrGanIZatIoN
I am able to reorganize the layout of objects on the screen using controls or
filters within the application.

14. DEpTh
I am able to view additional information about objects in the collection when I
select them.

15. MUlTipLIciTy
I am able to view multiple images of an object or see it from different angles
and zoom levels.

16. AVaIlaBIliTy
I am able to explore and navigate the collection based on properties unique to
the collection itself.

17. COheREnCe
I am able to immediately understand the meaning behind the visual organization
of objects on the page.

18. SEleCtIoN
I am able to select objects of interest in order to return to them at a later time.

19. RicH-pRosPEcT bRowSInG
StuDy (N=30)
● 17 nationalities
● ages 19 - 70 (M = 34.4, SD = 11.76)
● varying museum experience

20. MusEuM
PerSOnaS
(Falk, 2006; 2009)
FAciLItaTOr
I am socially motivated. My
visit is focused on primarily
enabling the experience and
learning of others in my
accompanying social group.
PrOFesSIonAL /
HObByiSt
I feel a close tie between
museum content and my
professional or hobbyist
passions. My visits are typically
motivated by a desire to satisfy
a specific content-related
objective.
EXpeRIenCE seEKer
I am motivated to visit because
I perceive the museum as an
important destination on my
list of things to see. My
satisfaction primarily derives
from the mere fact of having
‘been there and done that’.
REcHarGEr
I am primarily seeking to have
a contemplative spiritual and/or
restorative experience. I see the
museum as a refuge from the
work-a-day world or as a
confirmation of my spiritual
beliefs.
EXpLorER
I am curiosity-driven with a
general interest in the content
of the museum. I expect to find
something that will grab my
attention and fuel my learning.

21. MusEuM
PerSOnaS
(Falk, 2006; 2009)
FAciLItaTOr
I am socially motivated. My
visit is focused on primarily
enabling the experience and
learning of others in my
accompanying social group.
PrOFesSIonAL /
HObByiSt
I feel a close tie between
museum content and my
professional or hobbyist
passions. My visits are typically
motivated by a desire to satisfy
a specific content-related
objective.
EXpeRIenCE seEKer
I am motivated to visit because
I perceive the museum as an
important destination on my
list of things to see. My
satisfaction primarily derives
from the mere fact of having
‘been there and done that’.
REcHarGEr
I am primarily seeking to have
a contemplative spiritual and/or
restorative experience. I see the
museum as a refuge from the
work-a-day world or as a
confirmation of my spiritual
beliefs.
EXpLorER
I am curiosity-driven with a
general interest in the content
of the museum. I expect to find
something that will grab my
attention and fuel my learning.

22. ATtRakDIfF
(Hassenzahl et al., 2003)

23. ATtRakDIfF
(Hassenzahl et al., 2003)
Pragmatic Quality (PQ)
usability from the perspective of accomplishing a particular goal or task
Hedonic-Stimulation Quality (HS-Q)
how well the application fulfills the stimulation needs of the user
Hedonic Identity Quality (HI-Q)
how well the application allows the user to relate to it
Global Attractiveness Quality (ATT)
overall value in the context of pragmatic and hedonic aspects

24. RIcH-pROsPecT sURveY

25. RIcH-pROsPecT fEaTUre
SEleCtIoN & ORdeRInG

26. REsuLtS

27. REsuLtS: ATtRakDIfF
(Morse et al., 2019)

28. REsuLtS: ATtRakDIfF
(Morse et al., 2019)

29. REsuLtS: fEaTUre RAnKinGs
(Morse et al., 2019)

30. COheREnCe
I am able to immediately understand the meaning behind the visual organization
of objects on the page.

31. DEpTh
I am able to view additional information about objects in the collection when I
select them.

32. AVaIlaBIliTy
I am able to explore and navigate the collection based on properties unique to
the collection itself.

33. REsuLtS: fEaTUre RAnKinGs
(Morse et al., 2019)

34. REsuLtS: pERsoNA raNkINgS
(Morse et al., 2019)

35. REsuLtS: pERsoNA raNkINgS
(Morse et al., 2019)
While describing their preferences, one
participant who identified as a Recharger
likened the organization of the layout to
the process of curating a collection as one
would do in a museum. Another Recharger
explained that the process of moving items
around on the screen allowed them to
compare and contrast with other objects to
find the most important objects for them.

36. REsuLtS: INfoRmATiOn BehAViOrS
(Morse et al., 2019)
Fluent Browsing
The ability to rapidly intuit a desired usage pattern when
introduced to a new interface (e.g. quickly understanding
how to navigate a complex layout).
Generosity Blindness
Interface generosity (e.g. a pop-up with information about
how to use a particular feature) may go unnoticed even
when it is prominently displayed due to cognitive overload.
Filter Confusion
Losing one’s place in the filtering of a collection due to
complex or poorly structured filtering.

37. TAkeAWayS
● Always communicate the visual
organization of complex layouts at
every level of interaction (coherence).
This can reduce cognitive load.
● Where possible, consider multimodal
presentations of information such as
text, image, audio, and video (depth).
● Maximize the ordering potential of
collections through meaningful filters
specific to the type of collection on
exhibit (availability).

38. TAkeAWayS
● Avoid generosity blindness as a result
of split-attention effect in the design
of interactive features (Sweller et al.,
2019). Isolate interactive features when
introducing them rather than
displaying everything together.
● Avoid filter confusion by clearly
articulating the structure and location
of dynamic filtering throughout all
levels of interaction.

39. TAkeAWayS
● Encourage fluent browsing by adopting
features which already have an
established community of practice (e.g.
pinch zoom to zoom into a particular
area of an image). In cases where novel
features are the goal, situate them
within the larger context of the
application.
● Consider different kinds of audiences
and the types of usage patterns that
may occur within the interface.

40. FutURe wORk
Partnership with the National Museum
of History and Art in Luxembourg City,
Luxembourg.
Participatory design workshops
Design probes
Development and evaluation of digital
prototypes featuring the MNHA digital
collection (IIIF)
Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art. https://www.mnha.lu/themes/mnha/images/dbfiles/199/large.jpg

41. UX foR cULtuRAl HerITagE
https://experiencing.art/pamphlet

42. DEsiGn PrOBes

43. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: John Wiley
& Sons.
Coins—A journey through a rich cultural collection. (n.d.). Retrieved
January 5, 2019. Available at: https://uclab.fh-potsdam.de/coins
Dörk, M., Carpendale, S., & Williamson, C. (2011). “The information
flaneur: A fresh look at information seeking.” In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp.
1215–1224). ACM.
Falk, J. H. (2006). The impact of visit motivation on learning: Using
identity as a construct to understand the visitor experience.
Curator, 49(2), 151-166.
Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience.
California: Left Coast Press.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Google Arts & Culture Experiments—Curator Table Experiment. (n.d.).
Retrieved January 5, 2019. Available at:
https://artsexperiments.withgoogle.com/curatortable/
Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: Ein
Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und
pragmatischer Qualität. In G. Szwillus & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Mensch &
Computer 2003 (Vol. 57, pp. 187–196). Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner
Verlag. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19
The Museum of the World. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2019.
Available at: https://britishmuseum.withgoogle.com/
Ruecker, S., Radzikowska, M., & Sinclair, S. (2011). Visual Interface
Design for Digital Cultural Heritage A Guide to Rich-Prospect
Browsing. London: Taylor and Francis.
Shneiderman, B. (1994). “The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type
Taxonomy for Information Visualizations.” In Proceedings of the
1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (1994): 336-343.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive
Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational
Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Whitelaw, M. (2015). “Generous Interfaces for Digital Cultural
Collections.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 9(1).
Artwork:
Kutter, Joseph. (1929). Woman Leaning on Her Elbows [Oil on
canvas]. Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art. Luxembourg City,
Luxembourg.
All icons in this presentation were downloaded royalty-free from
The Noun Project (www.thenounproject.com).