Griot: An Open Source Toolset for Sharing Engaging Stories

Update, January 2018: This post (below) from 2015 describes the initial phase of a project to build and utilize an open source storytelling platform. Since that time, Mia has initiated a second phase of this initiative, backed with funding from the Knight Foundation, to re-imagine and upgrade the platform. The new software, called Lume, is scheduled for release in Summer 2018.

Original post:


The Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) has created an open source toolset for crafting and sharing engaging stories. The software tools – which create an optimized website - were developed in-house as part of the museum-wide project called The Digital Experience (nicknamed TDX).

Screenshot: ArtStories, published on the Griot toolset, featuring highlights from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

TDX is a cross-functional effort to delight our visitors by delivering interesting and accessible stories based on the museum’s vast collection using digital platforms. The MIA will continue to refine and implement the tools, while at the same time sharing them with the wider community in hopes of finding collaborative partners who will use and expand the functionality going forward.

The first phase of the TDX project was launched in November 2013, to coincide with the re-opening of the MIA’s African Art Galleries. Phase 2 was launched in February 2015, expanding the range of stories to include museum highlights across the entire collection. The museum branded the digital delivery as “ArtStories” to help visitors locate and recognize each installation (they can also access the stories on their own devices, onsite or offsite). The roll-out has been met with positive response from audiences and the press. The stories are accessed every day - engaging people, driving social interactions and shared experiences, as well as allowing individuals to dive deeply into the content on their own.

The development team has dubbed the software toolset "Griot" (a West African term for a wise story-teller). The toolset provides user-friendly methods for crafting stories, and incorporating multimedia content (e.g., images, audio, and video). The stories are presented online or in-gallery via an internet browser (works best on Chrome).

The Griot package includes three specific tools for (1) authoring content, (2) presenting stories, and (3) tiling & annotating large images to enhance zooming, panning and to highlight particular details. The tools can be used to produce mobile device-ready experiences and/or to develop websites.  Because the software is open source, it is available for free and can be used by many different types of organizations. In addition, open source enables any skilled developer to modify the software and to contribute those modifications to the project, enhancing Griot for all who use it.

Griot open source software that created the ArtStories responsive design website is one major deliverable of The Digital Experience (TDX) project. TDX was initiated in 2013 to deliver new interpretive media and technology projects that inspire and delight audiences and support deeper visitor engagement. All TDX projects meet the following strategic goals:

• Interfaces are quickly and easily navigated
• Provide multiple layers of content for varied audiences
• Enable self-guided exploration and learning
• Content has the greatest impact – audiences remember the stories, not the technology
• At the museum, encourage users to engage and/or re-engage with the collection
• Enable and encourage lively social interaction
• Accessible to all ages, cultures, education level and socio-economic standing
• Develop products using iterative cycles that include direct audience input

A survey of available software to accomplish TDX goals showed a paucity of open source options for audience engagement and storytelling. The MIA endeavors to be a leader in the cultural heritage field, developing software to meet needs beyond its own walls. By sharing the software tools openly and at no cost, the efforts of the TDX project are available to support museum interpretation and delight audiences widely.

To develop Griot, the TDX project considered:

• Visitors seek concise information that offers context, to help them understand and engage with the objects nearby.
• Museum tour guides can use the interface effectively.
• Art works will be presented with engaging stories, differing in tone to traditional museum didactics (more friendly, less formal, readily accessible).
• While visitors are increasingly bringing their own smart devices along on museum trips, the museum will continue to provide devices for those who do not.
• Content is shared via the internet to anyone who has ability to connect.

Of course, one of the most-important aspects of digital story-telling is each story itself. To empower the MIA's professional curatorial staff, a series of collaborative writing workshops were held over time.

Curators work with media production staff to craft engaging and intriguing content, published via the Griot toolset.

The second phase of Griot/ArtStories was completed museum-wide in February 2015. Announcing it to the public, the museum noted “ArtStories invites you into an interactive, in-depth conversation about great artworks, from hidden details to secret backstories. Zoom in. Dive deep. ArtStories is a web app. It’s available on iPads in the MIA galleries, and it’s also optimized for your smartphone or computer. Try it on your personal device as you explore the galleries or from the comfort of home.”

All ages can enjoy ArtStories, and the content is crafted to enable and encourage social interaction.

Griot specifications

• AngularJS MVW Framework
• WordPress CMS (similar systems could be adapted – Drupal, Joomla, etc.)
• JSON

Griot toolset components and documentation

• HTML5 application http://github.com/artsmia/griot
• WordPress plugin for annotating images & writing content http://github.com/artsmia/GriotWP
• Image tiling http://github.com/artsmia/tilesaw

Building Griot: How We Work
The TDX project embraces and depends upon cross-functional teams to deliver engaging content. A Core Team is made up of producers and developers, and a wide array of vital stakeholders provide guidance, content, and feedback at every step along the way. As always, it starts and ends with the Audience.

 The TDX project uses an iterative approach to software development. This begins with early prototypes – often sketches on paper – brought to the public for formative testing. Visitors are asked specific questions about the interface design, and their responses are collected, collated, and turned into action plans. From this feedback, working versions of digital interactives are built, and the cycle is repeated: visitors try them out, respond, and those responses are taken into account to build out the production version. For any given project, the team will go through from 3 to 6 cycles.

Museum visitors respond to an iteration of ArtStories, recording their impressions for developers to review.

This ongoing, iterative approach enables the museum to deliver experiences that the public has helped shape. Once final versions are installed and in-use at the museum, MIA conducts formal evaluations using standard evaluation methods (observation, timing and tracking, interviews). The data is analyzed and shared with the team before they begin the next production cycle. Combining formative testing, multiple iterations and summative evaluation empowers to team to work directly with the public in order to deliver engaging and inspiring content.
Is Griot Successful?
In 2014, the MIA contracted with Audience Viewpoints Consulting to evaluate the integration of in-gallery technology from the visitor viewpoint. Primary findings of the summative evaluation included:

• MIA visitors will use technology in the galleries. They will spend a significant amount of time with the technology, and will read aloud and discuss as they do so. The technology was used effectively and with positive response by individuals and groups.
• The use of technology does not detract from visitor focus on the art. The technology was transparent, allowing audiences to focus on the collections and their context. When visitors left the gallery, the descriptions of their visit were almost exclusively about the art, and notably not about the technology.
• People who used the technology spent more time in the exhibit than those that did not use the technology (even after subtracting the time spent using the technology).

Future plans for Griot include:

• Continue improving Griot tools using iterative cycles based on audience input.
• Grow the network of collaborative partners who implement and possibly extend Griot for the benefit of all.
• At the MIA, add more content to ArtStories for deeper and richer engagement with the collection.

The team at the MIA hopes that this software package, and the demonstrated results of using it to delight our audiences, helps all museums to continue to achieve their missions - all of which include making sure that all people can access, learn from, connect with, shared, and be inspired by the amazing collections entrusted to the institutions in our field.

More information and links for Griot.

Credits:
The MIA wishes to thank a long list of contributors to the success of Griot and ArtStories
The TDX cross-functional project team members included staff from the following museum divisions: Curatorial, Learning Innovation, Audience Engagement, Visual Resources, and Media and Technology. The project team ultimately extended to include several other departments of the museum. (Please see below a link for Supporting Document 4: TDX Project Team.)
Douglas Hegley: Executive Sponsor, Director of Media and Technology, project conception
Karleen Gardner: Steering Committee, Director of Learning Innovation, interpretive writing
Matthew Welch: Steering Committee, Deputy Director and Chief Curator
Mike Mouw: TDX Project Manager, project coordination
Alex Bortolot: Curatorial Content Strategist, research, content creation, interpretive writing, story editing
Paige Patet: TDX Project Assistant, project coordination, content creation, interpretive writing, story editing
Amanda Thompson Rundahl: Head of Interpretation, content creation, interpretive writing
Andreas Marks, Chris Atkins, David Little, Dennis Jon, Eike Schmidt, Erika Holmquist-Wall, Jan-Lodewijk Grootaers, Jennifer Komar Olivarez, Jill Ahlberg Yohe, Liz Armstrong, Nicole LaBouf, Patrick Noon, Rachel McGarry, Risha Lee, Thomas Rassieur, Yang Liu: Curators, research, content creation, and interpretive writing
Dawn Fahlstrom, Heather Everhart, Kristin Lenaburg, Kristine Clarke, Natasha Thoreson, Nicole Soukup, Nicole Wankel, Roma Rowland: Curatorial Administrative Assistants, WordPress authoring, image and video acquisition, rights coordination
Britta Jepsen, Camille Erickson, Elise Poppen, Laura Scroggs, Laurel Gramling, Zachary Forstrom: Curatorial Interns, research, interpretive writing
Meaghan Tongen: Media and Technology Project Coordinator, agile software development ScrumMaster, rights coordinator, WordPress training
Jennifer Jurgens: Graphic Designer-Web/Interactive Media, interface design and layout, art direction
Tom Borger: Web Developer, WordPress plugin development, front end integration
Kjell Olsen: Web Developer, image tiling / annotation development, front end integration
Andrew David: Head of Software Development, API development, infrastructure design
Tim Gihring: Editor, content creation, interpretive writing
Amanda Hankerson, Ana Taylor, Charles Walbridge, Dan Dennehy: Photography
Josh Lynn: Digital image processing, metadata coordination, image file preparation
Heidi Raatz: Image rights consultation
Mike Dust: Video and audio producer/director
Ryan Lee, Xiaolu Wang: Videography, video editing, installation
Mike Tibbetts, Rose Nelson, Ryan Jensen, Steve Scidmore: IT support, installation, maintenance
Frances Lloyd-Baynes: TMS consultation
Michael Lapthorn, VJAA: gallery iPad furniture design
Al Silberstein, Shawn Holster, Tom Myers: iPad furniture construction
Steve Johnson: Electrician

The Right Kind of Rejection

Note: this post originally published on LinkedIn

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/28946154@N00/3043955183/

I've spent nearly two decades working in museums. I love it. That being said, I don't love every part of it. I had an experience this week that gave me pause to think a bit (and now to write a bit) about our field - and frankly this may apply to any number of other fields, although that's not for me to say.

I am a strong advocate for professionalization. I believe in the power of a commitment to being the best that we can be. I try to apply that to my own work, to the work of my institution and its staff, and - when I can - across our field more widely. Professionalization in the museum sector remains a debate, but I'm firmly in the "yes, please" camp.

Professions are advanced by many methods, but one tried-and-true approach is sharing. In order to share, we submit our work - perhaps as articles for publication, projects for recognition, and/or proposed conference sessions and workshops. Sharing drives wider dissemination and supports iteration - we build on one another's work, and thus need not re-invent the wheel time and again. "Research is a pyramid, with previous discoveries serving as the foundation for later research".

Once submitted, our work is subjected to judgment: somebody, or some body of somebodies, reviews-evaluates-decides whether our submissions are worthy to be shared, via whatever channel is at the judges' disposal - journals, websites, awards, conference sessions, webinars, etc.

Next: we receive word. We find out if our submission was accepted. Typically, this news comes in one of two forms:

1. The simple Yes/No This response is often couched in carefully-crafted positive-sounding messages. Something along the lines of "Thank you for your outstanding submission. We received a great many worthy entries, and the decision-making process was very difficult this year. Unfortunately, your submission was not selected. But we encourage you to submit again next time!" It's almost a version of the infamous "it's not you, it's me" cliche.

2. Detailed Feedback Regardless of acceptance or rejection, word comes back WITH detailed feedback from the judges. By carefully considering the feedback, the submitter can learn: What were the strengths? Weaknesses? Any blind spots? What could be improved? Why was the submission accepted/rejected? What could be done to make things better, both in terms of the work itself and any later submissions? What are the next steps we can take to make this better? And one final note: receiving such feedback communicates a level of respect and actual encouragement from the judges to the submitter.

Question: Which of these two responses serves to advance the field? I believe the answer is obvious: it's number 2. The information that we receive as feedback is vitally important, for all of the parties involved.

Submitters learn the parameters around measures of success, understand how their peers evaluate their work, become informed about subsequent work and subsequent submissions – learning concrete ways to improve over time.

• Contrast that with folks who are rejected but receive no feedback: they have no understanding about how the work was evaluated, develop suspicion of bias or politics having been involved, gain no concrete steps to improve subsequent work, and ultimately lose motivation to try again - regardless of the syrupy language in the rejection notice. Ouch.

Judges also benefit by providing clear and constructive feedback. First and foremost, shouldn't that be their role in the first place? If they cannot honestly and professionally evaluate work and provide clear reasons for their conclusions, I'd proclaim them unfit to judge. And all of the time they've committed to judging: shouldn't that investment of time result in adding value to the profession? As a judge, it's your opportunity to inform, teach and inspire - please take advantage of that. It's your chance to contribute to the field.

My point: to contribute to the professionalization of our chosen field, all of us should make the commitment to respect one another and collaborate as strongly as we can. That includes providing clear, constructive and timely feedback to each other whenever possible.

Alternatively, I suppose we could just submit everything to the Journal of Universal Rejection.