Utilizing exhibit.so and IIIF

The exhibit I created on exhibit.so using IIIF can be found here.

Challenges:

I had trouble deciding which program would be best suited to my skill level and my technology needs to create a proper exhibit. I dabbled with Quire and linked data technologies, but their layouts were too open-ended and required a working knowledge of GitHub that I do not have. So ultimately I decided to use exhibit.so.

At first, I wanted to try to upload an exhibit using my items from my digital objects collection, but the process to do so was tricky and I just could not figure out how to translate my images into a IIIF URL format. So instead I decided to use an existing collection and found a collection I was interested in on the Smithsonian Institute’s website. IIIF has a list of collections on their site with directions on how to save items from each one in the proper format, so there was no trouble there. I did, however, have trouble figuring out how to actually display each of the items I found.

At first, I added each of the comments for each of the items without ensuring that each item was properly added to the exhibit. When I previewed the slides, they instead only displayed one of the items I had added. It took a little help from the professor to figure out the problem—I had to add the item, resize it to how I wanted it displayed, and then add the comment. I had done it the other way around, adding the comment first and then trying to add items.

Overall, despite the issues I had with exhibit.so and IIIF, it was much more novice-friendly than Quire or the other options for this collection. It was very straightforward what needed to be done to complete this collection and create a functioning exhibit, even if there are a few hiccups that could have been avoided with some tips from the creation site.

Benefits of Wider Adoption:

This program could be greatly beneficial when creating a standard practice for online collections. If museums wish to create spaces that patrons can easily understand and navigate and become familiar with across platforms and different exhibits, this program would be a good way to achieve that.

Ziebarth, Majewski, Marquis, and Proctor (2020) wrote that “designing for inclusion is about giving all museum visitors a scaffold to tell their own stories” (p. 13). By utilizing a system like exhibit.so, museums could potentially create more inclusive online spaces for their patrons who cannot visit physical locations. It would be important to ensure that in this endeavor great emphasis is placed on accessibility for patrons with disabilities such as vision or hearing impairment. In fact, their article offers a great many ways to ensure that an exhibit created using this technology is one that patrons of all ages and abilities and education levels can access and enjoy.

Challenges of Systemic Implementation:

While the hope that that this technology can increase access to exhibits and collections is not unfounded, there are many considerations to be made before calling for systemic implementation of only one particular technology for this purpose.

This program, first of all, is fairly rigid. Creating an exhibit requires using the IIIF format, and items can be a bothersome process to figure out how to find the IIIF URL for certain collections. While the IIIF website does have a list of collections that utilize IIIF and how to find those URLs, it is by no means exhaustive and does not help for collection developers who wish to add their collection if it is not already using the system. Beyond these technical annoyances, there are definitely other reasons that this program or any similar ones may be hard to implement systemically.

No matter how useful a system, it will not be what every single museum needs. Robert Stein (2017) hosted a professional forum about this very topic, with the consensus being that digital strategies are not one-size-fits-all. One participant was quoted as saying “digital is one tool in the toolbox. It may be the right way to fix the problem, or it might not” (para. 9). It would not make sense to say that every single museum—or even most of them—should implement this system. It really depends on the needs of the patrons and those cultivating the collections. Styliani, Fotis, Kostas, and Petros (2009) wrote in their article something along the same lines: “Usually, the structure of most virtual exhibitions is defined by the structure of exhibition spaces that consist of two types of elements: the Virtual Galleries and the Cultural Objects” (p. 521). They further detail the many different ways museums may need to operate digitally to meet patron and collection needs. Even Ziebarth et. al., who are proponents of this kind of implementation, write that “to build in maximum flexibility and inclusiveness, […] digital designers should provide multiple methods and options to share the same story” (2020, p. 14). It simply does not make sense to enforce adherence to one single system on all museums for the sake of standardization if that does not meet the needs of their patrons or the reality of their collections.

Conclusion

While exhibit.so is definitely a useful tool and IIIF would be beneficial for many online exhibits, it is not as easy as saying every museum should adhere to these standards. With the wide variety of collections being run in person and online, it is not realistic to claim that they should all adopt the same system. Rather, we should focus on ensuring every collection, no matter what system is used to run it, adheres to a high standard of accessibility to ensure as many patrons are served by the collection as possible. Museums should be flexible in implementing systems for their collections, finding one that fits their needs instead of trying to enforce standardization. As long as their system is user-friendly, it is not necessary that every museum uses the same one.

References

Stein, R. (2017). Museums and Digital Strategy Today. American Alliance of Museums. https://www.aam-us.org/2017/07/10/museums-and-digital-strategy-today/

Styliani, S., Fotis, L., Kostas, K., & Petros, P. (2009). Virtual museums, a survey and some issues for consideration. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(4), 520–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2009.03.003

Ziebarth, B., J. Majewski, R. L. Marquis, and N. Proctor (2020). Scaffolding to Build Inclusive Interactives: Ben Jones’ Digital Design Approach. In B. Ziebarth, J. Majewski, R. L. Marquis, and N. Proctor (Eds.), Inclusive Digital Interactives: Best Practices and Research (pp. 11-20), Smithsonian Institution. https://ihcd-api.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file+downloads/Inclusive+Digital+Interactives+Best+Practices+%2B+Research.pdf