12 July 2005 This is a list of observations gathered from the reports for Assignment 1 of the USI05 Hypermedia Module. The main problem with the reports was that a lot of factual information was given (this is what the information is, this is how it is structured, these are the media used) but very little analysis of what worked and what didn't work. What is an analysis? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis An analysis is a critical evaluation, usually made by breaking a subject (either material or intellectual) down into its constituent parts, then describing the parts and their relationship to the whole. Why is an analysis needed? Information available --------------------- Nice table showing comparison of information provided: http://fp.tm.tue.nl/medewerk/h.wang/3sites.htm#ip Good points: Rijksmuseum has extensive info about artists, artefacts and trends Rijksmuseum shows comparisons of works of art that have influenced each other. The Artchive has extensive info about artists and trends The Artchive presents information on where a work of art is stored. Bad points ICN very little information is given Artchive has no info about specific artefacts Media usage http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/attachments/QTVR/rijksmuseum_frans_hals.mov Rijksmuseum site has a bit of animation with images sliding in and out of view. Appropriate Interactive panoramas provide users a real context of the real exhibition chambers. The zoom in, zoom out function and the pan function make the movies very realistic. Inappropriate Navigation structures --------------------- The ArtChive enables browsing through the artists names and through the art styles. These two indices ar combined into a single alphabetical list. Good points ICN allows search on who, what, where and when Different types of links in Rijksmuseum: See figure 1 in http://lirix.kicks-ass.org/hypermedia/ Non-hierarchial browsing support at the Rijksmuseum is shown in Figure 4 http://fp.tm.tue.nl/medewerk/m.p.f.verschoor/Assignment%201.html Bad points: Rijksmuseum and the Artchive have no search based on time or place Artchive search function is only availabe in the main page that is not related to any contents. If you want to search for an artefact or an author, you have to go back to the main page, if you still remember there is a search button there. On ICN hyperlinks are used to connect works of the artist, works of the same time period and key words. These links are, however, displayed with text in white and on a white background are impossible to see until you hover over them by accident. Example questions ----------------- # Who were the most prominant artists of the renaissance? # Where did Van Gogh paint �otato Eaters� and what was the society like at that time? # What is the total list of Van Gogh's works of art that are in all Dutch museums? # Which is the best work of art depicting Amsterdam? In this case the ICN website could be used to search for works depicting Amsterdam. The names of the artists of the search result can be used to search for critics works in the Artchive website. The Artchive would also be able to give the style of work. # Who (Rijksmuseum biography) was Rembrandt (or any other painter) and did he/she have a preference for a specific style or location (ICN) and what is his/her relation to other painters (ArtChive review) # Which painting of Rembrandt was the first to become famous? # By which other painters or paintings was Van Gogh inspired? # What kinds of artefacts were popular in the Middle Ages (between 900 and 1300)? # Which artistic trend (in painting) is most colourful, and who are the famous painters? # What are typical characteristics of Baroque? Extra suggestions ----------------- User profiles: It would be cool if there are some interactive multi-media files that can guide users through the whole museum according to users' preferences. Navigational structures: Organise the information in the following ways: * Chronological order * theme * author/artist * era, year * media * type * place: depicted, location of artwork * title * technique * style When looking at an artwork, I would like to have all relevant information about this artwork directly accessible. Access structure to all the information: * Basic structure of two indexes: o Styles, or genres according to art theory; o Period or phase in art history * Detail pages about two primary elements: o information of the artists, typical arts, background, genre, biography, contribution in different art period o information of specific art (artist, invention time, collection place, material, method, style, content, size, collectors, influence in the art history) * Links between different arts can be categories as the information of the environment when the art generated, including the artist, the invention period&place, the genre, the society, the people and the living style, the custom etc. Media usage: Use at least a thumbnail image of the artefacts to show the search result. These thumbnails can be static, or animation. For instance, instead of listing all the result at once vertically in one page, we can present an animated slide show in a constant speed. If users see one image that they would like to explore more, they can just click the mouse to stop the presentation and check for more information. One or two prototypical pictures could be shown next to each theme name (Rijksmuseum) to give an idea of the meaning of the category. It would be nice to have videos on the production process of the artworks. Points from group discussion ---------------------------- Can one find out when information is _not_ in the repository, as opposed to not being able to find it when it is. It would be useful to be able to look for the name/title of a painting. The panorama of the museum area gives a user an experience of how the exhibits are grouped together, also a feeling for the lighting conditions and space. How many images should be presented when browsing? More than, say, 3, but less than, say, 40. Perhaps extending the linear view to a fisheye type view so the user doesn't need to click to see the details of the chosen image. The image should not extend over other neighbouring images, but there has to be some interaction method that prevents the user from becoming confused about the results of the mouse movements. There were differing opinions about the suitability of the 3 "hidden" images menu. It is a "cute idea", but can lead to confusion about where to move the mouse for the action you want. The information pop-up was deemed a good idea because it allows the user to access extra information (when desired) and is less intrusive than requiring the user to jump to another new place in the information space. The Artchive was confusing because of the adverts and also because the search box was sometimes available and sometimes not. ---***---