Presentation accompanying the paper presented at the 2016 Museums & the Web Conference. http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/collections-cubed-into-the-third-dimension/

1. Collections Cubed
Intothe Third DimensionRichard J. Urban – SchoolofInformation – Florida State University

2. #collections3D

3. Digitize
Allthe
things

4. Digitize
Allthe
things*» but only in 2 dimensions

5. Costandavailabilityof3D 1
1
(Hess, 2015)

6. SurveyMethod
» Qualtrics survey
» Distributed to community listservs and
social media
» Museum-L, MCN-L, AAM Media &
Technology, iDigBio, Museums & the
Web, SPNCH, etc.
» Primarily focused on North America
(but received a few responses from
UK)

7. OrganizationType (n=48)

8. Limitations
» Small number of respondents
» Significant survey fatigue (of more
than 100 starts only 48 useful
responses, 13 completed surveys)
» few art or historical museums

9. Organization Size
(Staff n=38) (Budget n=36)

10. Motivations
» Research documentation
» Conservation concerns
» Public access to collections
» Education & Outreach activities

11. Focus ofdigitization efforts
(bynumber ofobjects)

12. 3D Digitization Method (n=28)

13. Software Used (n=28)

14. File Formats (n=28)

15. Brieflydescribeyour 3D
digitizationworkflow:
It'sComplicated

16. Access (n=20)
» Ad-hoc access via researcher requests
» some use of existing content systems
(ContentDM, WordPress, etc.)
» Lack of support of OpenGL
» curiously no mentions of Thingiverse or
other 3D social sites

17. Metadata(n=14)
<mine />

18. IntellectualProperty
(n=16)

19. Accessto 3D Printers
(n=15)

20. evaluation
» Most respondents don't have a solid
evaluation plan in place.
» some web analytics tracking use of
materials
» no formal educational evaluation
» some pilot studies working with
educators

21. Challenges
» Institutional support
» Unknown value proposition
» Most projects relying on soft grant
money
» Staffing
» Hard to find people with 3D expertice
or experience

22. Challenges
» Rapidly evolving technical environments
» No long-term digital preservation
» Hardware/software changing quickly
» Lack of best-practice guidelines
» Evaluation?
» How are 3D collections being used?
» How can evaluation help grow support/
value?

23. RichardJ. Urban
SchoolofInformation
FloridaState University
rurban@fsu.edu - @musebrarian

24. Photogrammetry

25. Laser Scanning

26. ComputerAidedDesign(CAD) 2
2
http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/IndArch3D

27. Structured Light

28. ComputedTomography(CT)

29. ContactScanning

30. ReflectanceTransformation
Imaging(RTI)

31. File Formats