Category Archives: virtual heritage

Open Access publications

Academic, Announcements, Digital Humanities, Open Access, Proceedings, publication, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, ,

I am often asked to mail commercial books, sorry I normally have to refuse. However, there are recent-ish publications that are open access. allowed via institutional repositories or were free to download, that I have written down here:

Open access or available articles, chapters, etc

Books

  1. Champion, E. (2012). (). Game Mods: Design, Theory and Criticism, Pittsburgh: Entertainment Technology Center Press. 978-1-300-54061-8. URL: http://www.etc.cmu.edu/etcpress/content/game-mods

Book Chapters

  1. Champion, E. (2020). Games People Dig: Are They Archaeological Experiences, Systems, or Arguments? In S. Hageneuer (Ed.), Communicating the Past in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Methods in Teaching and Learning in Archaeology (12-13 October 2018) (pp. 13-25). London: Ubiquity. https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/chapters/10.5334/bch.b/
  2. Champion, E. (2019). From Historical Models to Virtual Heritage Simulations. In P. Kuroczyński, M. Pfarr-Harfst, & S. Münster (Eds.), Der Modelle Tugend 2.0 Digitale 3D-Rekonstruktion als virtueller Raum der architekturhistorischen Forschung Computing in Art and Architecture (pp. 337-351). Heidelberg, Germany: arthistoricum.net. https://doi.org/10.11588/arthistoricum.515
  3. Champion, E. (2017). “Single White Looter: Have Whip, Will Travel” in Angus A.A. Mol; Csilla E. Ariese-Vandemeulebroucke; Krijn H.J. Boom; Aris Politopoulos, (Eds.)., The Interactive Past: Archaeology, Heritage, and Video Games, Sidestone Press, pp.107-122. URL: http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/the-interactive-past-50944.html ISBN: 9789088904370.

Journal articles

  1. Rahaman, H., & Champion, E. (2019). To 3D or Not 3D: Choosing a Photogrammetry Workflow for Cultural Heritage Groups. Heritage, 2(3), 1835-1851. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/3/112
  2. Champion, E., & Rahaman, H. (2019). 3D Digital Heritage Models as Sustainable Scholarly Resources, Sustainability: Natural Sciences in Archaeology & Cultural Heritage, 11(8). MDPI. Editor, Ioannis Liritzis. Open Access. Invited article. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2425
  3. Nishanbaev, I., Champion, E., & McMeekin, D. A. (2019). A Survey of Geospatial Semantic Web for Cultural Heritage. Heritage, 2(2), 1471-1498. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage2020093
  4. Bekele, M., & Champion, E. (2019). A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage. Frontiers in Robotics and AI | Virtual Environments: Emergent Technologies for Cultural Heritage and Tourism Innovation. doi:10.3389/frobt.2019.00091
  5. Champion, E. (2017). Bringing Your A-Game to Digital Archaeology: Issues with Serious Games and Virtual Heritage and What We Can Do About It. SAA Archaeological Record: Forum on Digital Games & Archaeology, 17 No.2 (special section: Video Games and Archaeology: part two issue), pp. 24-27. March issue. URL: http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/Record_March_2017.pdf
  6. Champion, E. (2016). A 3D PEDAGOGICAL HERITAGE TOOL USING GAME TECHNOLOGY. International Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, (special issue, selection of VAMCT2015 conference papers). International Journal MAA (ISI Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Thomson Reuters, USA; Scopus) Vol.16, No.5, pp. 63-72.URL: http://maajournal.com/Issues2016e.php DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.204967
  7. Champion, E. (2016). Worldfulness, Role-enrichment & Moving Rituals: Design Ideas for CRPGs. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association (ToDIGRA), Volume 2 Issue 3 (special issue, “Diversity of play: Games – Cultures – Identities” selected DiGRA2015 conference papers). URL: http://todigra.org/index.php/todigra/index
  8. Champion, E. M. (2016). Digital humanities is text heavy, visualization light, and simulation poor. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (DH2015 Special issue). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw053 URL: http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/11/07/llc.fqw053
  9. Champion, E. (2016). Entertaining the Similarities and Distinctions between Serious Games and Virtual Heritage Projects. Special Issue in the Journal of Entertainment Computing on the theme of Entertainment in Serious Games. Vol. 14, May: 67–74. Elsevier. Online. DOI: 1016/j.entcom.2015.11.003. PDF available at Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284930065_Entertaining_The_Similarities_And_Distinctions_Between_Serious_Games_and_Virtual_Heritage_Projects
  10. Champion, E. (2015). Defining Cultural Agents for Virtual Heritage Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments-Special Issue on “Immersive and Living Virtual Heritage: Agents and Enhanced Environments,” Summer 2015, Vol. 24, No. 3: 179–186, MIT Press. URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/pres/24/3 PDF available at Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284930065_Entertaining_The_Similarities_And_Distinctions_Between_Serious_Games_and_Virtual_Heritage_Projects

Conference paper

  1. Champion, E. (2016). Worldfulness, Role-enrichment & Moving Rituals: Design Ideas for CRPGs. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association (ToDIGRA), Volume 2 Issue 3 (special issue, “Diversity of play: Games – Cultures – Identities” selected DiGRA2015 conference papers). URL: http://todigra.org/index.php/todigra/index

 

 

 

New chapter: “Art History, Heritage Games, and Virtual Reality”

Announcements, Book, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, game, heritage, publication, virtual heritage, , , , ,

Traditionally, art history has been viewed as a concern about the context of creation, curation, critique, and classification of art, but its range and focus is seldom agreed on. A conventional view of art history may suggest that, as a field, it is dedicated to issues of classification and the development of related expertise in curation and critique. Yet, if we follow the arguments of the nineteenth-century philosopher Konrad Fiedler, 1 knowledge of historical form does not necessarily entail a knowledge of art, while knowledge of the history of art does not necessarily give one an understanding of art objects themselves, the material and symbolic qualities of an object of art, or deeper questions relating to the ontology of art.

update: we are allowed to upload author preproofs of our chapter and given the book is 524 pages, 34 authors and $319.20 Australian dollars in hardback format, that should make it more accessible. I will provide a link here when accepted at Curtin research espace.

 

PhD scholarship-University of York and Museum of London

Announcements, archaeology, digital heritage, PhD, virtual heritage

PhD Studentship: AHRC Collaborative Doctoral Partnership PhD in Archaeology: Digital Recording, Fieldwork and Craft at Museum of London Archaeology

Anticipated start date for project: 1 October 2020

Closing date for applications: 1 May 2020 (was 1 April)

(interviews w/c 17 May)

Project description:

This Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Collaborative Doctoral Partnership (CDP) PhD, Digital Recording, Fieldwork and Craft at MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) investigates the impact of digital methods on the documentation, interpretation, publication, and dissemination in archaeological knowledge production. The proposed PhD will evaluate digital recording strategies for commercial archaeological units, using MOLA as a primary case study and with consultation from the Archaeology Data Service. Previous studies of digital recording have focussed on academic projects that do not have the scope, impact or challenges of the large, ongoing projects such as those performed regularly at MOLA. This research also examines the process of how archaeologists interpret remains, understand the past and how we may better transmit this understanding to others. Work in this area is emerging and applicable to broader questions of learning.

Potential research questions:

  • Do digital recording strategies impact the interpretation of archaeological remains?
  • Can digital recording be used to improve working conditions and enskilling of archaeologists?
  • How does data captured in the field feed into collaborative analysis projects that are already primarily digital?
  • How do digital recording methods in the field sit within the context of the wider use of digital data capture by finds and environmental specialists?
  • Can digital recording strategies enable broader public engagement, reuse or creative synergies outside of the traditional archaeological audience?

These are potential research questions for the student to undertake; the successful applicant will be able to shape the PhD with the support of the student’s supervisors.

This project will be jointly supervised by Dr Colleen Morgan (University of York) and Louise Fowler (MOLA). The student will be expected to spend time at both York and MOLA, as well as becoming part of the wider cohort of CDP funded students across the UK.

Funding notes: 

AHRC CDP doctoral training grants fund full-time studentships for 45 months (or part-time equivalent). The studentship has the possibility of being extended for an additional 3 months to provide professional development opportunities, or up to 3 months of funding may be used to pay for the costs the student might incur in taking up professional development opportunities.

The studentship covers  (i) a tax-free annual stipend at the standard Research Council rate (£15,285 for 2020-2021), (ii) an allowance of £1000/year to enable collaboration with the partner organisation (as they are based in London), (iii) an additional allowance of £1000/year for expenses incurred in undertaking research, and (iv) tuition fees at the UK/EU rate.

Entry requirements: Students with, or expecting to gain, at least an Upper Second Class Honours degree, or equivalent, are invited to apply. The interdisciplinary nature of this research project means that we welcome applications from students with backgrounds in any relevant subject that provides the necessary skills, knowledge and experience for the project, including archaeology, user-experience design and computing, anthropology, and digital sociology. We endeavour to be inclusive and flexible regarding applicants with caring obligations, disabilities and other considerations.

Nationality restriction: 

Candidates must have a relevant connection with the UK to qualify for a full AHRC award, i.e. they must have been ordinarily resident in the UK throughout the three-year period preceding the date of application, or have settled status in the UK. Non-EU candidates who have not been ordinarily resident in the UK for the last three years, or who were resident wholly or mainly for the purposes of education, are not eligible to apply.

Candidates from EU countries are eligible for full awards if they have been resident in the UK, for education or other purposes, for at least three years prior to the start of their programme. Candidates from EU countries who have not resided in the UK for three years prior to the start of their programme will normally be eligible for a fees-only award.

The University is committed to promoting a diverse and inclusive community – a place where we can all be ourselves and succeed on merit. We offer a range of family friendly, inclusive employment policies, flexible working arrangements, staff engagement forums, campus facilities and services to support staff from different backgrounds.

We particularly encourage applications from BAME, LGBTQ+ and disabled candidates, who are currently under-represented within the University of York in Archaeology.

How to apply:

Application is by covering letter, CV and online application form, and should be made through the University of York online application system.

Please read the ‘How to apply’ tab before submitting your application: http://www.york.ac.uk/archaeology/postgraduate-study/research-postgrads/application/

Further Enquiries

For further enquiries, please contact Colleen Morgan (colleen.morgan@york.ac.uk).

Writing Your Own Position Description

Academic, Digital Humanities, job, virtual heritage, visualisation

More than a decade ago I was asked to write my own (ideal) job description.

A lot has changed since then but it was an interesting exercise, and I recommend it. In a few weeks I might even write my own new ideal job description.

Position description for <insert University research centre here>

Job title: Director of Research into Virtual Places

Duties

  1. Help <the centre> structure research agenda and aims.
  2. Develop research resources; establish academic and professional terminology, evaluation strategies, rigorous research methods and innovative case studies that are likely to be of use to other researchers.
  3. Advise on, direct and augment the publication record and reputation for <the centre> as mentor for junior researchers and in own research field.
  4. Chair and advise <the centre> research committee on new and emerging research trends, events, gaps, and issues.
  5. Help mentor and coordinate (and in some cases, supervise), students who can combine innovative technological research with theoretically polished writing that reveal constructive but critical thinking.
  6. Develop some or all of the below research themes via collaboration and personal research.
  7. Help develop research-industry collaborations, and associated industry links (in digital media, tourism, digital entertainment, etc).

Address the Below Research Themes as A Researcher

  1. Virtual places, theory, definition, and design.
  2. Meaningful Interaction in virtual places (appropriate inbuilt evaluation, public and specialist annotation methods, serious gaming and instructional design issues of virtual places, natural mapping for thematic interfaces and peripherals to afford improved platial experiences).
  3. Presence (especially cultural presence) in virtual places: terminology and experimental validation (clarify the relationships between place, presence, and intentional/non-intentional interaction).
  4. Prototyping virtual places and environments: develop and evaluate new techniques and procedures.
  5. Research Methodologies for virtual places: internal and external, pre and post-experience, emic and etic methods and tools for virtual or otherwise digitally mediated places.

Expected <Research Centre> Outcomes

  1. A strong international academic profile through advising on, directing and augmenting the publication record and reputation for <the centre>.
  2. A strong web presence.
  3. A flourishing staff-student research culture.
  4. The research committee has been helped by the research director to create and maintain a lucid and coherent ethical clearance procedure for proposed experimental designs involving user testing and the general public.

Expected Technical Skills

  1. Some experience in digital media skills (including web design).
  2. 3D and related design skills in creating virtual places.
  3. Experience in creating or supervising prototypes.
  4. Ability to run, mentor or advise on experimental designs, case studies, and evaluations.

Suitable Background

  1. Related academic qualifications in architecture, philosophy, engineering, or HCI.
  2. Familiarity with the research fields of virtual environments/ VR, virtual heritage, place theory, the design and use of online places, architectural theory of place, philosophy and aesthetics and place, and presence research.
  3. Experience in developing and or supervising virtual environment research, digital media research, and methodological studies into appropriate research methods (especially spatial design research) at tertiary level.
  4. Experience in game design may be beneficial.
  5. Experience with Instructional design and user documentation (for procedures, methods, and terminology.
  6. Some experience in digital media skills (including web design).
  7. 3D and related design skills in creating virtual places.
  8. Understanding of scripting issues in creating virtual places.
  9. Experience in creating or supervising prototypes.
  10. Experience with both academic studies in the area and industry practices in IT.
  11. International academic profile and reputation for research, speaking, and publication in cultural presence, meaningful interaction, and virtual places.

Suitable Aptitudes/Skillsets

  1. Ability to work with different skill sets, cultural backgrounds, professional perspectives, and disparate disciplines.
  2. Ability to work individually and as a member of a team.
  3. Work experience in different countries and cultures.
  4. Ability to source research material, write high quality academic publications, and deliver/edit online articles for  <the centre> website.
  5. Analytical mind.
  6. Experience in public speaking.

 

Conferences, Journals: h-index, Impact

Academic, Conference, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, Journal, Proceedings, publication, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, , , , , ,

Cultural heritage journals, especially digital heritage journals (and a few related conferences) don’t fare well at SJR-Journal Search. Compare their H-index and Quartiles to games journals and conferences. In the more VR side of things, Presence still does quite well but Virtual Reality journal is not doing as well as I expected.*

*CAVEAT: In many cases the latest figures seem to be from 2017 or 2018.

“Rethinking Virtual Places” on track

Academic, augmented reality, Digital Humanities, publication, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, visualisation, ,

Final internal review for my latest book draft was highly complementary so if given final  permission by the board, it should be published in IUP’s Spatial Humanities Series next year…

It becomes clear that the work stands on the shoulders of the research conducted by the author of many years. The topic of the manuscripts intersects greatly with many scholars’ research. It is hence of significant importance to many who engage in the generation and designing of places in virtual environments. The manuscript undoubtedly makes an impressive contribution to learn the author’s standpoint and see through his lens the research and developments of the field.C

Chapter Summaries

Chapter One explores the innovation and wilder inventions of early virtual environments and computer games. Have these developments, along with the increasing popularity of science fiction, promulgated fertile concepts of virtual places? I will suggest they have not.

Chapter Two explores the early development of virtual worlds, and game-worlds. Despite the hype of early virtual worlds, they, along with virtual museums (Huhtamo 2010), have seldom managed to capture and retain worthwhile visitor numbers (Styliani et al. 2009). What were the main features and attractions of virtual museums? Why have they gone in and out of fashion and have they actually been of any benefit to real-world museums? I will specifically look at how they use or change the use of space, and which if any place affordances were used in their design. I will then look briefly at the changing commercial and community virtual worlds that were developed, grew and fell during the last two decades.

Chapter Three discusses the representation-orientated and essentialist nature of major architectural theories. The second half of this chapter describes related design tools and asks a question of the training of architects for designing virtual places. If architects are not trained in usability and interaction design principles, how can they design engaging and profound interaction in these virtual worlds? Are traditional devices and technologies for designing, experiencing, and reflecting on place in danger of being lost in this digital era?

Chapter Four summarizes relevant philosophical exploration of real places and extrapolates them to virtual places and to notions of cyberspace. Related concepts discussed include the notion of VR as control, realism, authenticity and presence.

Chapter Five overviews select recent developments in neuroscience and how they may help our understanding of how people experience, store and recollect place-related experiences. Can these discoveries help our design of virtual places? Do philosophical explanations of memory and place (Ihde 2002, Tavanti and Lind 2001) reflect recent discoveries in scientific experiments (Farovik et al. 2015)? Can science help us better design virtual places (Johnson 2013, Moore 2005)? Do they explain how people navigate and orient themselves in virtual places (Cockburn 2004, Zimring and Dalton 2003)? The second part of Chapter Five discusses the importance of affordances and the confusion surrounding them.

Understanding game mechanics is of great relevance to virtual place designers, Chapter Six summarizes conflicting definitions of game mechanics and an explanation of different types of game mechanics suited to differing design purposes. This chapter also briefly discusses gamification.

Chapter Seven asks “Do Serious Gamers Learn from Place?” We could summarize this concern in the following three questions: do we know if learning has taken place, if it has taken place effectively, and if the knowledge that resulted from the learning is transferable? In contrast to James Gee (Gee 2003) I do not believe that all games are good games, and that all games are therefore good learning environments but in I will discuss procedural rhetoric and whether serious games help people engage with pedagogical objectives of humanities subjects.

Chapter Eight focuses on the relationship of culture to place. This chapter revisits definitions of culture, explores how culture can be communicated and understood in virtual places (transmissions), and determines whether there are specific requirements with virtual worlds. I also discuss the importance of roles, rituals and agents. In order to measure how closely culture can be observed, appreciated or understood through virtual environments, I have suggested that cultural presence be defined as the feeling of being in the presence of a similar or distinctly different cultural belief system (Champion 2011).

Chapter Nine explores evaluation methods (both traditional and recent), which address the complicated problem of understanding how people evaluate places, and whether this knowledge can be directly applied to the evaluation of virtual places. How do they get around the problem of the newness of virtual reality or the subjectivity/objectivity debates surrounding immersion and presence? Are they inspired by related but highly theoretical fields such as phenomenology, or has philosophy in general been left behind in the practical evaluation of place?

Chapter Ten discusses the emerging platforms and related tools that claim to help distribute, store and preserve virtual places Understanding the significance of the latest research is not enough, we also need to understand the significance and issues of the software, hardware and platforms that can be used for the design and experience of virtual places. There is an increasing trend to the more accessible, portable and component-based, does this mean we are on the brink of Convergent Cultures? In particular, I suggest that virtual heritage has focused more on communication than on preservation. We cannot afford to have our digital heritage disappearing faster than the real heritage or the sites it seeks to “preserve,” Otherwise all of our technological advances, creative interpretations, visualizations and efforts will have been in vain.

Uncertain Realms

archaeology, publication, virtual heritage,

I am not sure, but it appears the reason for my use of the word “realms” in “Explorative Shadow Realms of Uncertain Histories“* may not be clear to people who quote me.

In “Negotiating ‘Culture’, Assembling a Past: the Visual, the Non-Visual and the Voice of the Silent Actant” [http://hdl.handle.net/2077/30093] Jonathan Westin wrote:

In the introduction to article 2, my co-author Thommy Eriksson and I write:

“Our cultural heritage is increasingly experienced as a virtual heritage, a space, or realm as Champion puts it (2008), consisting of representations.
Three-dimensional scanning through photogrammetry and laser, virtual reality, augmented reality, photorealistic computer graphics and interactive displays; all these are technologies that in days to come will shape the profession of both archaeology and museology” (article 2, p. 87-88).

I used realm in the sense of an area where the social rules/laws have as much influence on people as physical ones. My intention was to suggest this is not a common feature of virtual heritage environments, but to explain culture, perhaps it could and should be. I was not trying to suggest a field or that digital technology is creating a culturally meaningful or completely inclusive “world” (in the past I have defined virtual worlds in at least three markedly different ways). Virtual reality does not only have to mirror physical reality. Physical reality is not a 1:1 relationship to experienced reality.

There is another passage which may or may not correlate to what I thought I meant by uncertainty, Westin wrote:

I consider the communication of uncertainty to be a key element, and in two of the articles my co-authors and I propose different visual signifiers conveying insufficient data (article 1 and 2). For an exchange to be productive, both parties have to be able to communicate uncertainty. To return to the example above, the exact, certain, image representation of a banister appears to be non-negotiable, even though it may be based on insufficient data, while a representation that communicates its uncertainty invites other actants to question its form.

  1. Not sure an image can only be certain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion or http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150624-arts-most-famous-illusion)
  2. An image that communicates uncertainty (and here I am not sure if it is communicating uncertainty of the source or other uncertainties) does not necessarily invite us to question its form.

I have however, in Critical Gaming, and in Playing With the Past, wrestled with notions of realm, world, and uncertainty. I hope to write a chapter in an upcoming book, on authenticity. But, in short, I probably will have to go back to this term and write a clearer summary.

*The 2007 Explorative Shadow Realms book chapter (for New Heritage, Kalay et al) is the same content as the 2006 conference paper.

6 month Research Assistant position

Announcements, infrastructure, Linked Open Data, virtual heritage, visualisation, , , , , , ,

I require a research assistant for an ARC LIEF project:

Fixed Term Research Assistant for Time Layered Culture Map Project (Web-based Mapping and AR/MR/VR technologies] 

  • Develop exemplars of cultural heritage data integrated with GIS data, on open source web platform Recogito [https://recogito.pelagios.org/] or equivalent.
  • Advise and develop related semantic web ontologies, features and supporting data.
  • Develop working examples of cultural heritage sites on this platform along with requested visualisation and annotation features (requested by supervisor)
  • Help integration with envisaged virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality platforms and related devices
  • Assist development of reports, tutorials, scholarly publications and grant applications based on the above including sourcing earlier papers and case studies
  • Store all examples and codes on accessible software repositories as requested by supervisor
  • Demonstrate, where required, the above GIS, mapping and semantic web examples.
  • Expertise required: knowledge of GIS, GeoJSON or similar, programming, familiarity with recent AR/VR technologies would be an advantage.
  • SALARY: G05.3  level.
  • The work is based at Curtin and can be shared but covers 6 months fulltime worl starting ASAP.

The job will be advertised soon but please contact erik dot champion at curtin edu au for any questions.

Workshop on Digital Heritage and Humanities

Academic, archaeology, Architecture, Conference, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, Symposium, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, , ,

February 17-18, 2020, The CREASE
University of South Australia, Kaurna Building Level 2, City West Campus

This workshop will explore examples of how the application of digital technologies in the humanities, built environment, creative arts and design are affecting how heritage environments are studied, preserved, shared and celebrated. The advent of technologies such as LIDAR (Laser scanning of natural and built environments), Virtual and Augmented Reality and immersive interactive environments, in areas such as site data collection, site visualisation and heritage exhibitions, are transforming how we study heritage environments and experience them both in situ and elsewhere. These changes have implications in diverse domains, including archaeology, anthropology, museology, tourism, architecture, restoration and education.

Program

Day 1 Monday February 17, 2020

13:00 Welcome to Country

A/Prof. Jane Lawrence, Head: School of Art, Architecture and Design

13:15 Introduction to the day, Prof. Simon Biggs

13:30 Keynote: Prof. Erik Champion, Curtin University, Perth (Chair: Prof. Ning Gu)

Prof. Champion is UNESCO Chair of Cultural Heritage and Visualisation, and Professor of Media Culture and Creative Arts, in the Humanities Faculty of Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia.

14:45 Q&A

15:00 coffee and networking – Catered by Folk Lore

15:30 Burra Digital Heritage Project: Dr. Julie Nichols and Darren Fong

16:30 Discussion

17:00 Drinks at West Oak Hotel

 

Day 2 Tuesday February 18, 2020

09:00 coffee and networking – Catered by Folk Lore

09:30 Presentation 1 – Dr. Aida Eslami Afrooz – Time Layered Cultural Map project

10:15 Presentation 2 – CAD Walk – immersive environments for heritage simulation

11:30 Presentation 3 – Dr. Gun Lee – Augmented Reality in Outdoor Experience

12:15 Discussion

12:30 Lunch – Catered by Folk Lore

13:30 Presentation 4 – Sahar Soltani – The HYVE (in the HYVE)

14:15 Presentation 5 – Ben Keane and Alex Degaris Boot – AR for Heritage (in CCS)

15:00 coffee and networking

15:30 Discussion

16:00 end.

Spatial Humanities mini-symposium

Announcements, augmented reality, Conference, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, UNESCO Chair, virtual heritage, visualisation, workshop

caption, Dr. Juan Hiriart, PhD game project, Communicating the Past, Cologne, 2018.

Space, Place, People and Culture

This free mini-symposium of talks from leading UK NZ and Australian experts will explore recent developments and intriguing challenges in spatial and platial design involving aspects of both culture and technology.

10:00 Dr Stuart Dunn, Head of The Department of Digital Humanities King’s College London, UK

10:40 Dr. Juan Hiriart, Senior Lecturer in Interactive Media Art and Design, Salford University, Manchester, UK.

11:20 Mr Chris McDowall, Geographer, New Zealand, independent consultant.

12:00 Ms Nat Raisbeck-Brown, Experimental Spatial Scientist, Indigenous Ecological Knowledge Project, Atlas of Living Australia, CSIRO, Perth.

12:20 Dr David McMeekin, Senior Research Fellow, Spatial Sciences, Curtin University and member of the Ancient Itineraries project.

12:40 Professor Erik Champion, UNESCO Chair of Cultural Heritage and Visualisation, Curtin University.

NB Some details may change.

VENUE Chemistry Building 500, “Exhibition Space” Theatre, Room 1102ABex, Manning Road entrance, Curtin University Bentley Campus, Perth, WA, 6102

DATE Friday 10:00-13:00, 21 February 2020

new OA Chapter for Communicating the Past book

Book, Digital Humanities, heritage, virtual heritage, visualisation, , ,

Just added an early version of my chapter “Games People Dig: Are They Archaeological Experiences, Systems or Arguments?” in the Communicating the Past Book.

Every chapter is full open access. For book see https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/10.5334/bch/

researchgate.net/publication/33 CC-BY 4.0.

One of the many but important dilemmas we may encounter in designing or critiquing games for archaeology (Champion 2015) is determining the why: why we should develop, buy, play, and teach specific games for the above disciplines. For archaeology, I propose there is a further important trifurcation: games aiming to convey an experience of archaeology (Hiriart 2018); games aiming to show how systems, methods, findings, and unknowns interact either to produce that experience; or games revealing what is unknown or debated (how knowledge is established or how knowledge is contested).

“Rethinking Virtual Places: Dwelling, Culture, Care” book to publishers

3D and game editors, augmented reality, Book, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, visualisation, , , , , , ,

I have sent this off to Indiana University Press Spatial Humanities Series. There have been 3 reviews, by 2 reviewers, and probably there will be a fourth (internal?) one. And i would love to know how to automatically convert Chicago 17 Author-Date reference style to Chicago 17 Footnotes (but I don’t think it exists). Hopefully it will be published early 2021.

Chapter summaries currently read as:

Chapter One explores the innovation and wilder inventions of early virtual environments and computer games. Have these developments, along with the increasing popularity of science fiction, promulgated fertile concepts of virtual places? I will suggest they have not.

Chapter Two explores the early development of virtual worlds, and game-worlds. Despite the hype of early virtual worlds, they, along with virtual museums (Huhtamo 2010), have seldom managed to capture and retain worthwhile visitor numbers (Styliani et al. 2009). What were the main features and attractions of virtual museums? Why have they gone in and out of fashion and have they actually been of any benefit to real-world museums? I will specifically look at how they use or change the use of space, and which if any place affordances were used in their design. I will then look briefly at the changing commercial and community virtual worlds that were developed, grew and fell during the last two decades.

Chapter Three discusses the representation-orientated and essentialist nature of major architectural theories. The second half of this chapter describes related design tools and asks a question of the training of architects for designing virtual places. If architects are not trained in usability and interaction design principles, how can they design engaging and profound interaction in these virtual worlds? Are traditional devices and technologies for designing, experiencing, and reflecting on place in danger of being lost in this digital era?

Chapter Four summarizes relevant philosophical exploration of real places and extrapolates them to virtual places and to notions of cyberspace. Related concepts discussed include the notion of VR as control, realism, authenticity and presence.

Chapter Five overviews a few key recent developments in neuroscience and how they may help our understanding of how people experience, store and recollect place-related experiences. Can these discoveries help our design of virtual places? Do philosophical explanations of memory and place (Ihde 2002, Tavanti and Lind 2001) reflect recent discoveries in scientific experiments (Farovik et al. 2015)? Can science help us better design virtual places (Johnson 2013, Moore 2005)? Do they explain how people navigate and orient themselves in virtual places (Cockburn 2004, Zimring and Dalton 2003)? The second part of Chapter Five discusses the importance of affordances and the confusion surrounding them.

Understanding game mechanics is of great relevance to virtual place designers, Chapter Six summarizes conflicting definitions of game mechanics and an explanation of different types of game mechanics suited to differing design purposes. This chapter also briefly discusses gamification.

Chapter Seven asks “Do Serious Gamers Learn from Place?” We could summarize this concern in the following three questions: do we know if learning has taken place, if it has taken place effectively, and if the knowledge that resulted from the learning is transferable? In contrast to James Gee (Gee 2003) I do not believe that all games are good games, and that all games are therefore good learning environments but in I will discuss procedural rhetoric and whether serious games help people engage with pedagogical objectives of humanities subjects.

Chapter Eight focuses on the relationship of culture to place. This chapter revisits definitions of culture, explores how culture can be communicated and understood in virtual places (transmissions), and determines whether there are specific requirements with virtual worlds. I also discuss the importance of roles, rituals and agents. In order to measure how closely culture can be observed, appreciated or understood through virtual environments, I have suggested that cultural presence be defined as the feeling of being in the presence of a similar or distinctly different cultural belief system (Champion 2011).

Chapter Nine explores evaluation methods (both traditional and recent), which address the complicated problem of understanding how people evaluate places, and whether this knowledge can be directly applied to the evaluation of virtual places. How do they get around the problem of the newness of virtual reality or the subjectivity/objectivity debates surrounding immersion and presence? Are they inspired by related but highly theoretical fields such as phenomenology, or has philosophy in general been left behind in the practical evaluation of place?

Chapter 10  discusses the emerging platforms and related tools that claim to help distribute, store and preserve virtual places Understanding the significance of the latest research is not enough, we also need to understand the significance and issues of the software, hardware and platforms that can be used for the design and experience of virtual places. There is an increasing trend to the more accessible, portable and component-based, does this mean we are on the brink of Convergent Cultures? In particular, I suggest that virtual heritage has focused more on communication than on preservation. We cannot afford to have our digital heritage disappearing faster than the real heritage or the sites it seeks to ‘preserve’ otherwise all of our technological advances, creative interpretations, visualizations and efforts will have been in vain.

Digital Heritage: Presenting Futures Past

augmented reality, Conference, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, HCI, heritage, Presentation, slides, UNESCO Chair, virtual heritage, visualisation, , , , ,

I gave a keynote Monday 9 December at Dhdownunder 2019, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. The title was Digital Heritage: Presenting Futures Past

The slides can be viewed and downloaded in the nzerik directory at slideshare.

MAIN POINTS

  1. Digital heritage, Virtual Heritage, Extended Reality (XR): what are they?
  2. Can gaming, AR or MR provide insight to the past?
  3. OR: Are they a waste of money, expensive new technology?
  4. Could, for example, digital heritage pose a threat to culture?
  5. Ziauddin Sardar 1995: “Cyberspace is a giant step forward towards museumization of the world: where anything remotely different from Western culture will exist only in digital form.”
  6. Digital Heritage highlights and challenges (interactive + immersive examples).

To cut over 80 slides short, my answers to the initial questions are

  1. VR: “reality”: untapped potential, save the IxD!! (We should preserve and disseminate the interaction design and experience, academic papers are not the answer here).
  2. Gaming, AR, MR provides insight to the past-but learning more from designing.
  3. High-technology gets in the way.
  4. Digital Heritage poses a threat to culture, if we don’t clearly consider “culture”.
  5.  Sardar: Cyberspace a symptom not a cause, museumization a partially necessary evil, Western culture is a vague target.
  6. Digital Heritage communicates, seldom preserves, more end-user involvement required.

I suggest future research and potential solutions are

  • Flexible formats, agreed standards, sensory interfaces
  • New mechanics, cultural significance and care
  • Levels of resolution, access layers
  • 3D infrastructure links to data, research, community, XR
  • Encourage creative re-use by end-users

 

Tomorrow’s OZCHi2019 keynote

Conference, HCI, heritage, virtual heritage

http://ozchi2019.visemex.org/wp/

Experiential Tourism and Virtual Heritage: the interaction design challenges.

Material heritage decays, intangible heritage disappears. But virtual heritage (virtual reality serving the aims of digital cultural heritage) has performed abysmally when attempting to preserve either, and whether virtual heritage communicates heritage values effectively, is up for debate.  Former UNESCO World Heritage expert Alonso Addison, warned (Addison, 2008) there is a “vanishing virtual.” And Hal Thwaites declared digital heritage projects disappear faster than the actual heritage sites, artefacts, and practices that they simulate (Thwaites, 2013). Yet there is a huge market opportunity. Australian tourism is predicted to recoup $143 billion this year (Ludlow & Housego, 2019) and nearly 30% of international visitors visit a museum or gallery (Ludlow, 2019).  Can gaming and XR (virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality) provide insight to the past and leverage the cultural tourism market? Or are the interaction design challenges underestimated?

  • Addison, A. C. (2008). The Vanishing Virtual: Safeguarding Heritage’s Endangered Digital Record. In Y. E. Kalay, T. Kvan, & J. Affleck (Eds.), New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. (pp. 27-39). Oxfordshire UK: Routledge.
  • Ludlow, M. (2019). Cultural attractions used to lure tourists. Financial Review, 2019(16 November 2019).
  • Ludlow, M., & Housego, L. (2019). Tourism now employs one in 13 Australians. Financial Review, 2019(16 November 2019).
  • Thwaites, H. (2013). Digital Heritage: What Happens When We Digitize Everything? In E. Ch’ng, V. Gaffney, & H. Chapman (Eds.), Visual Heritage in the Digital Age (pp. 327-348). London: Springer.

CFP: Playable Theory & Critical History in Archaeological Games (CAA 2020)

Announcements, archaeology, augmented reality, cfp, Conference, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, visualisation, ,
Robert Houghton, Juan Hiriart and I are running a session at CAA 2020, 14-17 April, Oxford, on playable theory in archeological games. Come and join us with presentations and demonstrations of your games and game ideas! Extended deadline Thu 14 Nov. Submit proposals here: 2020.caaconference.org/call-for-paper

eTourism, Immersive GLAM and Virtual Heritage

augmented reality, Conference, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, visualisation, , , , , , , , , ,
“Local and international speakers talk about their research and synergies between heritage, tourism and GLAM via digital technology”
Free event at Curtin Friday 8 November 12.30-3.30 https://lnkd.in/g4nYst8

Add to Calendar

[Image care of Ian Brodie, HIDDEN and below supplied by Barbara Bollard]

Galleries Libraries Archives and Museums, meet eTourism and Digital Heritage!!

Speakers:

  1. Mr Alec Coles, OBE FRSA, CEO of Western Australian Museum
  2. Associate Professor Barbara Bollard (AUT NZ), will talk about her research on modelling environments such as 3D Antarctica huts via drone-based photogrammetry (see also ideolog article: up, up and away).
  3. Mr Ian Brodie, award winning photographer and film tourism author, will engage us with his AR projects as part of HIDDEN.
  4. Archaeologist and Senior Research Librarian, Alexandra Angeletaki, (NTNU Trondheim Norway), will talk about her use of immersive VR and related technology projects to bring historical texts and artefacts alive in the Gunnerus Library, Trondheim (founded 1768) via projects like MUBIL.
  5. Dr David McMeekin will explain the Getty Foundation funded Ancient Itineraries-Exploring Digital Art History project.
  6. Professor Ear Zow Digital will discuss exciting new futures between games, VR/ XR, and the GLAM sector.

Dr Christina Lee will MC the event.

New OA Book Chapter

Academic, archaeology, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, visualisation

Champion, Erik. “From Historical Models to Virtual Heritage Simulations”. Chap. 4 In Der Modelle Tugend 2.0 Digitale 3d-Rekonstruktion Als Virtueller Raum Der Architekturhistorischen Forschung Computing in Art and Architecture, edited by Piotr Kuroczyński, Mieke Pfarr-Harfst and Sander Münster, 337-51. Heidelberg, Germany: arthistoricum.net, 2019. https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/arthistoricum/catalog/book/515

eTourism, Immersive GLAM & Virtual Heritage

Conference, Digital Humanities, Presentation, virtual heritage, Virtual Reality, visualisation

Free event at Curtin University Friday 8 November 12.30-3 PM

Register at eventbrite. [Above image care of Alexandra Angeletaki NTNU Trondheim]

Local and international speakers talk about their research and synergies between heritage, tourism and GLAM via digital technology

Speakers:

  1. Mr Alec Coles, OBE FRSA, CEO of Western Australian Museum (tbc)
  2. Associate Professor Barbara Bollard (AUT NZ), will talk about her research on modelling environments such as 3D Antarctica huts via drone-based photogrammetry (see also ideolog article: up, up and away).
  3. Mr Ian Brodie, award winning photographer and film tourism author, will engage us with his AR projects as part of HIDDEN.
  4. Archaeologist and Senior Research Librarian, Alexandra Angeletaki, (NTNU Trondheim Norway), will talk about her use of immersive VR and related technology projects to bring historical texts and artefacts alive in the Gunnerus Library, Trondheim (founded 1768) via projects like MUBIL.
  5. Dr David McMeekin will explain the Getty Foundation funded Ancient Itineraries-Exploring Digital Art History project.
  6. Professor Ear Zow Digital will discuss exciting new futures between games, VR/ XR, and the GLAM sector.

Dr Christina Lee will MC the event.

nb below are photos of the venue (direct drive in from Manning Road, east of Waterford Plaza). Theatre “Exhibition Space” is on the ground floor directly ahead, after entering the door in the photo (to the left of the vertical Visitor Reception sign).

You can’t have virtual places

virtual heritage

I am now, in note form, going to argue against so much of what I have written, and it may not be clear what I am trying to capture, but I guess that is what blogging is for.

Places in themselves don’t exist, we act as if they do, so they have an effect on us as if they virtually are substances, environments, spatial identities etc.

But really the notion of place is so vague and ephemeral and confusing that it is fascinating how we can be affected by the place (rather than directly what it is made from) as if virtually it was a causal power.

Now philosophers, Duns Scotus, Peirce, Bergson, Deleuze, etc, may have different notions of virtuality. So I will have to address that. But be that as it may, what is important here is if place itself is a kind of virtuality, then how can we have virtual places? That would be a virtually virtual collection of phenomena experienced as a phenomenon..

When we say virtual places we conflate 3D digital environments with “virtual place”, with the implication that it is also immersive. So we conflate the technological requirements (digital, 3D, persistent, quasi-interactive) with the experientially immersive (the successful experience of ‘being there’).