Introduction
In addition to containing visitor service information (museum hours, directions, public program information) and basic information about the identity of the organization, most museum & historical society web sites include some information about their collections. So far, this information has been presented in a very limited variety of ways. Web sites from several years ago frequently included a collection statement and may have highlighted a small sampling of objects in the collection, but few attempted an on-line catalogue. To prepare catalogue information at the object level for public consumption is a costly and time consuming business and frankly has not been a high priority for most for organizations with the exception of art museums, where illustrated exhibit guides and collections checklists had a long tradition in print media. This has changed though over the last few years with the reduction of costs and ease of creating and storing images. Now history museums, natural history museums, historical societies, and others are provide useful and at times sophisticated presentations about their collections. In terms of content and design, the more elaborate presentations come from organizations that receive grants to fund their web efforts, but there are an increasing number of museums and historical societies that are building or redesigning web pages with the use of off the shelf collection management software designed to facilitate web page production. There has also been a marked improvement over the last few years to integrate images with text.
Why put collections information on the web?
-to facilitate collection accessibility for the distant audience
-to provide a teaser to the public to get them to visit the museum
-to provide material culture data to researcher and students
-to make collections accessible 24/7 The British government has even sponsored a project called the 24 Hour Museum.
While art museums tended to be a little more creative, history museums have been slow in showing much ingenuity and usually their sites are a reflection of their traditional publications which include basically object list in a catalogue card format or some specific objects mentions as examples in thematic on line exhibits. The National Museum of American History’s online exhibit on the feather trade is an example of this. In fact, most museums and historical societies present information about their artifact holdings through one or a combination of several the following formats, whether to add variety to the site or because the pages are developed at various times and reflect a particular reference of the staff.
Collection Summary or “Highlights”: Most basic format is to have a hyper link from the home page to a page labeled “collections.” Generally there is a description of the holdings of the organization and their may be additional pages according to collection area or object type. For some organizations (often with smaller budgets) limited textual descriptions may be all that is currently available to represent portions of their collections. Minnesota Historical Society for example provides images for artifacts in their Visual Resources Database but text only for objects represented in their library catalog. While it is more common now to find an interspersing of text with images, even some of the larger institutions resort to summaries of collections as introductions to their holdings, while they work through the complexities of making collection information available for public access. Content generally includes a statement about the significance of the collection, a few examples are mentioned and if a particular donor is involved additional credit line data is provided. “Highlights” may also reflect how a museum or historical society classifies their objects and object examples may be grouped by physical type, geographic association, or time period (sometimes presented on a timeline) Examples of this format include The Newport Historical Society and The Museum of the City of New York
On-line Exhibits
Another method of conveying information about a select group of the organization’s artifacts may be found by presenting on-line exhibits. These are usually present a theme or a particular thesis. The presentations range from mediocre to sophisticated as does the content depending on the target audience. Also an on-line exhibit may highlight several objects the New York Historical Society presentation of the furniture of Federal Hall. In rare instances, curator’s will focus on a particular icon for example The Star Spangled Banner on the NMAH site includes not only text and images in the design, but also multimedia, reference suggestions, and an elaborate education component.
On-line Tour:
A variation of the on-line exhibit, the on-line tour is designed to take the distant visitor through the galleries and exhibit halls, focussing on specific objects along the way. Some of these presentations grew out of earlier CD-Rom presentations such as The Louvre
which presents their collections in this format, or The Hermitage
which provides both a digital collection component and a virtual tour with item level object information and images included. Usually the presentation starts with a floor plan and then the user click on specific object information which may include the more descriptive catalogue information. Some also include video & audio narration, but frequently where the object information is contextual and the image is used as a substitute for any physical description of the artifacts.
On line catalogues
On line catalogues come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from pure textual lists (example) or simple image and label (example) to a presentation that includes both. Online collections may represent one or more collections of the institution or the entire holdings or while working toward that goal may attempt to systematically present item level information using a variation of “highlights” to allow public access to a greater percentage of the collections than could normally be exhibited through conventional means. Online collections are the most problematic presentations for a number of reasons. The previously mentioned formats are developed with information that is assembled for the intention of public consumption; scripts and labels are written specifically for the web. They also be created for the site by web designers with information selected by curatorial staff or they may been developed to accompany a physical exhibit or promote a redesign of exhibit galleries. On-line catalogue or digitally available collections on the other hand, usually originate from catalogue cards or curatorial research files. The type of information usually includes collections management catalogue data traditionally found on cards (scan examples not showing up here so send examples from work) That information is now usually captured on either created and customized in-house collections information systems or with vender developed off the shelf software such as Cudra Asssociate’s Star, Gallery System’s The Museum System, Willoughby’s MultiMIMSY, Pastime’s PastPerfect or System Simulation’s MUSIMS. Once information is captured into one of these systems, it can be exported relatively easily to a web page. Legacy databases traditionally contain more mundane inventory information that may not be of interest to most (condition, size, location) and could easily include information not suitable for the public such as insurance value. Description information may include terms no longer politically correct, and if catalogue information isn’t updated, contextual information may reflect outdated biases. As a result, many museums have opted to include only the bare bones i.e. name, rank (classification) and serial # (registration or museum catalogue number) and maybe a brief physical object description. The more interesting web catalogue card will also include related maker and user information (name of maker, date and place of manufacture, production techniques, materials and any marks or inscriptions on the objects and will include at least one image per object, more if detail pictures are warranted. Unfortunately, in-depth contextual information is often scant or excluded altogether either because the organization does not have the resources to update the records or because they are trying to avoid controversial issues (example Enola Gay in both it’s on-line and museum label) that may offend a portion of their audience or potentially threaten the physical security of the object and staff. When a museum opts to provide more content, the records tend to be more interesting.
I particularly appreciate when the effort is made to provide links to other objects through key words and topics. An example of this can be seen at the The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF which has a feature to search “the Imagebase.” Surprisingly this is more than an image database as it includes interesting label copy as well as frequent related keyword links at the bottom of many of the item level records. Their keyword searching works well however I was not very successful with their artist searches which indicate either the need for a selection list or that variations on names and spellings be built into the name searches or for selection lists like the Guggenheim in New York which provides their audience with “Directories” or pick lists for artist, movement, title, medium, date, and concept and well written artist biographies.
The People’s History Museum web site is an excellent example of what a small history museum can do with sufficient resources applied to the production of their collections information. Their collections derive from the Trade Union, Labour and Cooperative History Society scope pertain to the history of the “working people “ in Britain. Because the museum is less than 40 years old, collections were documented with using current standards and formats designed for electronic public access. The version of the site currently available was created in 2002. It also helps that they have received funding from the British governments Heritage Lottery Fund and that their collections are a very manageable size. The page content is well written and solidly researched. They provide a glossary of terms as well as contact information for questions and dialogue with the staff. Their image quality is acceptable and in many cases detail images are also available although these may be accessed through a “multimedia” icon at the bottom of the object record screens. Pages are designed both at a browse level in a “contact sheet” format with a thumbnail image consistently on the left , followed by a catalogue number, object name, and title. Additional information about each object may be obtained by clicking on the image.
The navigation is generally good except that the browse pages are just that; they can’t be sorted or searched. The user may browse the collections through icons such as “highlights” objects with images, and object records that include more associative information and detailed cataloging. They also have made available through the same search capabilities, the National Banner Survey which is a survey of over 2,000 historic banners including those of trade and labor unions, held by British museums and private collections.
The site does however provide superior search capabilities which entail three levels of searching, and The most basic search is a keyword search under “general search.” Within the “defined search,” the user may search the following categories of information: Catalogue Number, Object Name, Title, Collection Title, Key Word, Place, People, Event, Date, Creator, and through the free Text field. Word lists are provided for several of these categories. The “smart search” allows for advanced boolean searches; the “without feature” didn’t appearing to function properly but all other strings worked well. From a collections information standpoint, catalogue information on the item level that might be useful to a researcher or interesting to the general public is easily obtainable from this site. What is not included are fields of information pertaining to the size, material and production of the object; nor is the provenance included. As the site continues to be developed the museum may decide to include additional categories of information. Currently though, the lack is barely noticeable and does not detract from the site.
As mentioned in the introduction, art museums have a long history of publishing illustrated catalogues, so is is not surprising that they would be further ahead of other kinds of museums when it comes to developing on-line catalogues. The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a typical example. Basically the same format that was used in their print media is also used for web pages. Visits to the sites of other good size art museums such as National Gallery of Art, The National Gallery of London, Boston Museum of Fine Arts Houston Museum of Fine Arts and others for similar results. Below is an example from The Metropolitan Museum of Art Guide of 1983.
*
Compare to the search results for the online page of the same painting. While there is 20 years difference between the dates of publication, the format of providing an image, maker/artist, maker dates, title of the work, medium/support, dimensions and donor credit line remain consistent.
Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze
Only the label changes, with the online version being found on the secondary detail screen. The online version provides less of an art history lesson-the timeline on the web and other web pages serve that function- it does provide additional information about the history of the object. Not all of the Met’s collection records have descriptions posted although it appears that all have images and the basic catalogue identification information.
*
One aspects to the Met’s site which is also found on other sites like the New York Historical Society is that the user can create their own Art Gallery page (the New York Historical Society calls it a “Personal Catalog”) and add or subtract object records from the on-line permanent collections pages. It is a clever gimmick to gain audience participation and get the user to register for their mailing lists, but unfortunately “My Gallery” only permits the end user to add or subtract object records, not arrange or create your own labels. Also the background for these pages is rather dark in contrast to the rest of the Met’s site which is very pleasing to the eye. Their current content is effective an accurate, the site is easy to navigate with consistent headers and adheres to the principals of good design with a balance of contrast and repetition.
The on-line collections of the British Museum maybe found on a portion of their site called Compass This site was redesigned recently to reflect preferences from audience surveys. As a result, there is only a hint of the old catalogue card format and that is only on records that are found by searching as oppose to going on a “tour” or a directed browse of the collections. The site includes several pages that describe the features of “Compass”, including how to order images, contact addresses, and best of all, how to change background colors and font sizes within the site.
There are actually two versions of “Compass,” that can be accessed from the main page, the standard adult version, and one designed for elementary school age children (7-11 year olds). The object description information includes thought provoking questions designed to engage the young visitor. Navigation through both the search and the more directed “Tours” is through icons and choice of topics. Both the adult version and the child’s version typically include object name/title, date and location in the exhibit hall since this system is available on kiosks throughout the museum. Similar to the create your own gallery feature previously mentioned, the British museum includes a “folders” feature, which isn’t yet activated. At the bottom of each item level page are icons (or text if the user chooses the text only feature) which link to related objects pages. Educational games are also included on the Tour pages. There is an “Ask the expert” section so that even the young visitor can request additional information about an object, and some of these are shared on the site. There is also helpful related curriculum guides for parents and teachers to provide additional contextual information. The site has limited but appropriate multimedia features and bright engaging colors on the index pages.
The complementary adult version is also easy to navigate and cleanly designed. There are a number of guided tours using select topics which function the same as an online exhibit. These all include suggested reference along with the text on the topics and related item level pages. The images are superb; many include several detail images. Searches can be done through a general keyword, by gallery (again there is that floor plan component), or with suggested topics under who, what, how where, and when. Clear search tips are included on the search page for guidance. There is also a terrific section on the collections history and provenance pages concerning the Elgin marbles. My only fault with this site is that the print defaults are for the British so unless the American user knows enough to change the page setup, the printer will get hung up.
In terms of on-line collections information, the researcher or museum colleague may still wish for additional item level information, but this site was designed for the public and does a great job providing images and object label copy.
Conclusion:
I believe public enjoys access images and text of objects in their public institutions. On-line exhibits in particular have enjoyed considerable success if the “hit” numbers and public feed back is to be believed. Whether full catalogues will be desired by the general public or just the province of researchers, educators, and other museum professionals remains to be seen. Certainly most of the larger institutions feel the need to make much of their collections web accessible as more are being produced each year. If searching is easy and content is of a high enough quality then there may be a “market” for producing these.
Talk about Chin efforts & Standards
International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CIDOC Information Categories. Developed by the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), this is a description of the Information Categories that can be used when developing records about the objects in museum collections
Format & terminology Standards: http://www.getty.edu/research/
Museum Documentation Association
Posted by Debbie S-J at October 12, 2004 12:44 AM