Joy of Text and Digital Labels?

It’s often the case at conferences that I feel like I’m preaching to the converted.  I’m always surrounded by like minded people, who are enthusiastic and ‘get’ digital technology and what it can do to transform experiences.  But then you start to think, what if I’m only really talking to a bubble, a cool exciting bubble, but a bubble nevertheless.  So it was fantastic to be asked to speak at the Museum Association Joy of Text Event.  The audience all had notebooks, not the Mac kind, you know those paper and pen thingies? At most conferences I go to, notepads and pens are non existent. This was a very different crowd.  In fact, it is probably the crowd that we really need to be talking to in order to highlight how and where and why digital tech in museums can and should be used.
Jane and I were there to wax lyrical about the potential of digital labels.  We ended up playing good cop bad cop about digital interactives in gallery spaces.  Using Social Interpretation and QRator as examples.  Jane and I had different ideas about slides, she cringes at mine, and I cringe at hers. So our slides are a bit higgledy piggledy, but we managed to get our point across.  It’s not about the technology, it’s about the experience.  Focus on content, your visitors and the experiences you want them to have.

It was an interesting conference, and I was really pleased to hear that the speakers all agreed that there has been a culture in museums of writing text, for text sake. Text is not always the most appropriate form of Interpretation.  Lucy Harland made a fantastic point right at the beginning of the day, stating that text should earn its place in the social dynamic of a museum gallery space. Museums should think seriously about how they choose to communicate with words and whether this is always the best way to convey meaning.  It’s quite interesting that you can swap out the word ‘museum’ in that sentence an replace it with ‘academics’ and the same thing applies. Choose what to say and say it well. These were the two key messages from the day.  It’s a nice mantra for all public engagement really. Digital or not.

For a nice concise round up of the rest of the day check out Ellie Miles Blog

How do you measure the immeasurable in museums? And will the academic REF teach us anything?

image from The Value of Bibliometrics, March 2011 / Matthew Richardson The Research Excellence Framework: revisiting the RAE

As part of my PhD I’m considering issues to do with intangible impact and how and why this should be measured in museums. Most, if not all, measurements of impact, of pretty much everything, concentrates on the economic dimension. And really why wouldn’t it? Measuring the quantifiable makes sense. But what I’m really interested in is intangible impact. Values that aren’t concrete, tangible or physically discernible. I’m probably quite stupid for looking at things you can’t actually quantify.

In the past museums and impact has been more to do with evaluating services in terms of outcomes, whether that be economic or social value and all really for box ticking to ensure future funding. But how does that filter down to digital technology in museums? Can you measure the subjective experiences of visitors? How do you attempt to address the notion of impact of digital technology in museums? It’s easy to think that what is trying to be identified is an already defined concept. But really, impact evaluation is complex, not helped by the fact that definitions are still being determined and understood.

So how do you measure the immeasurable?

For a while I have been thinking about something my supervisor mentioned in a meeting, about how UCL is trying to work with the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework (REF) and how they are thinking about measuring intangible evidence for impact.

Is it possible to look at the intangible impact of museums and digital technology through the lens of academic research impact?

UCL and every other HE institution are currently addressing how to capture research impacts in anticipation of the forthcoming REF. The REF now includes an impact measurement and has been met with some anxiety and unease,particularly by Humanities academics. There are concerns within the arts and humanities about the ability and the value of metrics as indicators of impact. Mostly because in the humanities, impact is more likely to be intangible than tangible.
So for the purposes of the REF, HEFCE have defined impact as:

an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia.

Impact includes, but is not limited to, an effect on, change or benefit to:
• the activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding
• of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals
• in any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally.

It’s makes really interesting reading, particularly as Case Studies are required and that impact will be assessed in terms of their ‘reach and significance’ regardless of the geographic location in which they occurred. But if I’m honest the REF seems to go back on itself somewhat when it starts to ask for key outputs from the research, and evidence about the quality of the research. So despite trying to address intangible impact, academics have to resort to physical countable outputs.

Is this something museum and impact researchers should be doing, producing case studies about the intangible benefit and then trying to quantify it with additional references?

Regardless, it’s going to be really interesting to see how arts and humanities departments go about quantifying intangible impact. Maybe it’s something to look at in the future. But currently, I’m a bit stumped.

An Unintentional Hiatus

My blog has been on hiatus; in fact quite a lot of my digital life has been in an enforced hibernation. 2012 so far has been utterly rubbish.  Firstly there’s the situation with my gammy clavicle.  I’m slinged up and in pain since the beginning of January.  Doing anything remotely computerised is difficult when you only have one hand for typing, holding, pinch and zooming.  The chorus of politically incorrect terms of endearment that now follow me from my loved ones, friends, and colleagues are numerous and increasing in volume and inappropriateness (mentioning no names… Jane).  That aside, there have also been a series of other unfortunate events that have left me with little time for anything else.

Because of this I am currently living a very slimmed down digital existence.  I still use digital services sporadically day to day, my iPad has become my saviour, allowing me snippets of my digital life (its much easier to use with one hand). Haphazardly checking emails, but not really being able to reply.  Quickly firing up an App to have a sneak peak at interesting links.  Occasional Tweets. But that’s pretty much it.  I thought I would miss Facebook and the iPlayer, but interestingly I don’t at all.  I do miss having the time to peruse my RRS reader, but the ever growing list of interesting things I want to read about is something to look forward to when I have the time.

Now that January has been and gone, and I’m beginning to settle into this digital hiatus.  I do feel guilty for the work that I have had to postpone, delegate and the friends and colleagues emails that remain pending.  I also miss my restraint for holding back the emotional hissy fists, grumbles, feet stomping, and emails sent it haste.  Turns out my usual enthusiastic self, doesn’t cope too well with immense stress. But what I really do miss is this; Blogging.  Over the past two years blogging has become my research space, it is my escape, providing time for me to stop and stare.  So being without it, means I have a brain full of half baked ideas and ponderings that have nowhere to go other than round and round, and then scooting out my ear, never to be seen again.  It has been really frustrating for my PhD research too.  My inability to focus on research ideas is leading any writing I’m doing to be utter tosh.  It is fascinating to think how a series of unfortunate events can change everything.  I always thought I had the ability to focus, no matter what.  Turns out at the moment that isn’t the case at all.   If the things that make me a digital humanist are on hiatus, does this mean I’m losing my research identity? Can I be a digital museumaholic if I can’t reach or have the time to find the gin cupboard?  Is it possible to find a balance between processing real life in the digital life, when real life, doesn’t allow time for the digital?

Which is why I found it really interesting to see Matt Hayler’s ever excellent blog discuss something similar. Matt has had to streamline his digital scholarly life in order to succeed at being an early career teaching fellow and has found a number of digital essentials which he can’t do without.  His blog has been on hibernation mode too.

 

 

Dr who? An imposter! Dealing with imposter syndrome

It was not so long ago when I was happily researching other peoples resarch projects, I began to envision myself sitting quite happily with my academic elbow patches, easily and contently researching the questions that were at the heart of my desire to start and then complete a PhD.  These questions were the ones that had propelled me forward, given me focus, and ignited my passion to combine my two loves, museums and academia.   Not once did I question my ability to answer them.  I was caught up im the excitement of it all. I started my own research. The most terrifying and exhilarating  thing I have ever done.   then the reality hit me.  I realised I had managed to fool myself and everybody else into thinking I was competent.  The panic set in. Soon they will all know the truth that I am actually incredibly stupid and don’t belong here.

I’ve always had self confidence issues, forever shy and I still firmly believe that I’m not intelligent, I just work hard, and a serious of lucky events of being in the right place at the right time has led to be being where I am today.

I often get told about Imposter Syndrome, which is basically characterised by the belief that you have somehow fooled everyone into thinking you are clever, and soon someone is going to find out that you shouldn’t really be here and you are a fraud. I feel like this on a daily basis. Apparently it’s very common in female academics. For about a year I have been bluffing this feeling with bravado. Getting excited by digital museum geekyness and pretending everything is fine. But since I’ve damaged my shoulder I have had a lot of time for procrastination and the fear of being discovered as an academic imposter has returned with a vengeance.

No matter how many times I hear the words imposter syndrome; it doesn’t seem to fit how I feel.  Why? Because it sounds like something other actually intelligent people suffer from.  Whereas I really am quite stupid (I am blonde after all) and it is fluke that I’m attempting to complete a PhD, and work with incredibly clever people. It’s only because I get excited by everything that I managed to bluff my way through so far.

This post is an attempt to understand why I feel like this.  To be honest I don’t know if it has helped. But according to all the Imposter Syndrome posts I’ve read they point to sharing how you feel and discovering other people who feel exactly the same.  So I ask you this, am I an imposter? And more to the point are you?

Podcastic: The Global Lab (featuring me!)

I’ve been gibbering on about digital humanities, museums and digital technology on the brilliant Global Lab podcast.  You can donwload it via RSS, iTunes or download the .mp3.  You can almost hear my over enthusiastic hand gestures!  I even managed to nearly knock over the microphone, but thankfully that has been edited out.  So if you want to hear what I sound like, rather than read me, there you go. I mostly spoke about the QRator project which is a collaboration between CASA and UCLDH.

The Global Lab podcast is about cities, spatial analysis, global connectivity and the impact of technology on society produced by two brilliant chaps from CASA; Steve and Martin.  Its very good listening for train journy’s and to whip out anecdotes in dinner party conversations. Check it out

Defining a Museum. Should you bother?

As part of my PhD literature review on museums and technology I am attempting to define some terminology.

Take Museum for example.  How do you define it?

The most widely used definition is that by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) who define a museum as:

 “a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”

ICOM state that this definition has evolved continuously in relation to changes in society, even opting to try and overhaul it in the early 2000’s but realistically it hasn’t fundamentally changed since it was first adopted in 1974.

I have two main gripes about the ICOM definition. Firstly the words permanent institution. What is that in this day and age? It automatically suggests a physical presence, and doesn’t take into consideration the fluidity of museums, or any mention of a digital presence.  Does a museum have to have to be a real building in order for it to be a museum?  The Nationaal Historisch Museum of the Netherlands doesn’t have a building  therefore it cannot be a museum? I think not. Also Jasper Visser has a great post on what a museum is, or can be.

The second main gripe is of including the activity of acquisition. Many museums due to the political nightmare of funding cuts no longer have an active acquisition policy.  Does this mean that they are no longer viable museums?

You can also define museums by size, shape, collection, funding, management the list is endless. But as definitions are supposed to state what a word means, rather than describe an institution or activity how do you go about stating what a museum is, when the answer is so diverse? Is there such a thing as a generic museum?

So after pondering this definition for a while, I did what any self respecting Digital Humanist would do and asked Twitter : How do you define a museum?

chrisspeed @clairey_ross not by it’s architecture! Thu Oct 20 16:54:15 +0000 2011
chrisspeed @clairey_ross well I would read Thrift’s Non-Representational space and approach it that way. But that’s the hard way! Thu Oct 20 16:56:32 +0000 2011
NickPoole1 @clairey_ross ICOM Definition of a museum is available at http://t.co/XtB2fsk5. Wld love to know if it works! Thu Oct 20 16:56:32 +0000 2011
kostis43 I prefer definitions that answer to the question what a museum ‘does’; not what a museum ‘is’ @clairey_ross @chrisspeed Thu Oct 20 17:00:01 +0000 2011
chrisspeed @clairey_ross @kostis43 Giaccardi likes the idea that museums offering a ‘pause’. In time, space, society, culture. Thu Oct 20 17:03:40 +0000 2011
kostis43 @clairey_ross @chrisspeed Not necessarily activities; that’s too specific. Objectives sound good; practices can also be part of the mix Thu Oct 20 17:15:08 +0000 2011
robmyers @clairey_ross: it’s a big building with lots of old things in it #thismaynotbeaparticularlyrigorousdefinition Thu Oct 20 17:20:19 +0000 2011
kostis43 Ultimately definitions are on the eye of the beholder, so by definition every definition is context-specific;not helpful agree @clairey_ross Thu Oct 20 17:21:03 +0000 2011
kostis43 @clairey_ross or indeed with the PhD! Well if you have a whole chapter on it, then that’s good; see also Luebbe and Huyssen Thu Oct 20 17:24:15 +0000 2011
chrisspeed @clairey_ross it’s a big question! Would keep me thinking for ages! Thu Oct 20 17:29:37 +0000 2011
mdoness RT @clairey_ross: I’m currently writing a PhD chapter on defining ‘a museum’ its making my head hurt.  how do you define a museum?>broadly Thu Oct 20 17:32:28 +0000 2011
mdoness @clairey_ross  good luck with the chapter :_) Thu Oct 20 17:40:07 +0000 2011
jenniwaugh RT @mdoness @clairey_ross: currently writing a PhD chapter on defining ‘a museum’.  how do you define a museum?> with love & awe Thu Oct 20 17:42:06 +0000 2011
mdoness @jenniwaugh @clairey_ross now I like that one…. brings in a different level..why be just rational..its all about emotions! Thu Oct 20 17:46:49 +0000 2011
jenniwaugh Ha ha! You’re welcome! Good luck @clairey_ross have you seen this darling little definition http://t.co/7sEqMayr? Thu Oct 20 17:48:53 +0000 2011
NickPoole1 @clairey_ross It’s interesting though – bearing in mind *huge* diversity of the sector internationally, does it not provide a common ground? Thu Oct 20 19:38:33 +0000 2011
poisonchallis @clairey_ross go back the Greeks, the home of the muses. Thu Oct 20 20:21:45 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross A museum is a public cultural institution. It therefore intends to serve the public. #museumdefinition #definingamuseumcoffee Fri Oct 21 07:31:33 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross it is not a private collection, not a commercial enterprise. The collections are scientific (Lapaire, 1983) #museumdefinition Fri Oct 21 07:33:04 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross Museums use economic resources and produce "outputs" like education, the preservation of objects and entertainment. #museum Fri Oct 21 07:34:11 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross one can characterise the museum according to the catchment area – a national, regional or a local one.  #museumdefinition Fri Oct 21 07:36:15 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross sip of coffee in between 🙂 Fri Oct 21 07:36:30 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross Lewis, Brian N. (1980): The museum as an educational facility. In: Museums Journal, vol. 80, pp. 151 – 155 Fri Oct 21 07:40:00 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross my study was mainly about open-air museums. Hope this was a little bit of help. #museumdefinition. ICOM is a good source! Fri Oct 21 07:43:48 +0000 2011
sociablephysics @clairey_ross "big building with stuff in" #youreWelcome #wheresMyPhd Fri Oct 21 08:10:49 +0000 2011
digitalurban @clairey_ross building with old stuff and hopefully a cafe. Fri Oct 21 08:43:13 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross maybe you have to write our museum definition. A good one that everybody will quote… I think museums have changed so much!!! Fri Oct 21 08:51:34 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @kostis43 @chrisspeed not all museums have activities, not all museums have even gone digital – or participate with web 2.0 Fri Oct 21 08:52:42 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @NickPoole1 in Germany especially many museums do not have a very good website or digital collections. Fri Oct 21 08:53:35 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @NickPoole1 nothing is very permanent these days. A museum has a place in most cases, is attached to a location. Fri Oct 21 08:54:32 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @sociablephysics museums are not always big building. They should be nice/have interestingness but that is not always the case Fri Oct 21 08:55:58 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @digitalurban museums offer culture, stuff people want to see & experience; the visitor online and offline decides where to go Fri Oct 21 08:56:55 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @NickPoole1 virtual exhibits & digital elements are new to museums, not necessary but this will happen everywhere now Fri Oct 21 08:59:09 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross permanent in the sense that the info and exhibits will be there always and add-ons. I do not like the word permanent really Fri Oct 21 09:00:52 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross older exhibits are in the archives #museumexhibits Fri Oct 21 09:01:24 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @NickPoole1 all good museums will eventually make use of digital elements. What do you think? Fri Oct 21 09:02:30 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross @NickPoole1 Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Lima)  has no physical location. Is this a museum? I’d say yes. Museum in dig. age! Fri Oct 21 09:03:50 +0000 2011
dhgermany @clairey_ross will think about aspects for a good museum exhibition during the day! #museumdefinition Fri Oct 21 09:04:25 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross the museum definitions seem all a bit antiquated maybe. A new one is needed! #museumdefinition Fri Oct 21 11:09:23 +0000 2011
nettys1 @clairey_ross @dhgermany you do not need the digital element to call it a museum. That’s extra – a place to discover treasures. Fri Oct 21 11:13:07 +0000 2011

It’s interesting how many people went for the ‘building’ as attempt to define and others plumped for the ICOM definition. I like how ingrained responses become from what we have been taught previously. I quite like thinking of museums as big grand buildings containing secrets and knowledge and excitement. But is that what a definition should be, a nostalgic memory of building that stole my imagination as a child (and continues to do), should it really be defined as such, when there are so many more modern developments to consider? Then there are the more personal responses, considering emotions and feelings. But what was really interesting is that no one on Twitter really came up with a definitive decision on what a definition of a museum should be. Let alone taking into consideration the more digital elements or the participatory ones. I do think we need a new definition, but as of yet I’m not quite sure what that might be.

Really we have the power to define and redefine the meaning of a museum willy nilly, to suit our purposes. Is it really right to have a generic ‘official’ definition at all? In reality, shouldn’t we let the public who use/visit/experience museums to do the defining?

DH wobbles and Venn Diagrams

Following on from InterFace 2011 Lightning talks there were numerous examples of Venn Diagrams of where PhD students were positioning their research, true to the nature of the conference their positioning was mostly in between technology and humanities disciplines. During the conference there was also a lot of discussion about who exactly was in the DH crowd, and what that meant.  I still consider myself to be relatively new to the DH field, only really discovering it when I started work at UCLDH two years ago.  To be honest I’ve never really felt like I’ve fitted into any academic discipline.  My background in archaeology never seemed quite right.  Don’t get me wrong I really enjoyed it, and learnt an awful lot, but it just didn’t seem to fit with me.  So I moved on to Public archaeology, yes that was a bit more like it, but still it wasn’t quite right.  Then I discovered museum e-learning and museums and the web, and after a couple of years in the real museum world, digital elements became really important to me.

Then I arrived with a bump in DH.  It was really interesting to hear some of the comments at InterFace, from people who had never heard of Digital Humanities nor had any clue what/who/how TEI or XML is.    This made me happy, that was the exact position I was in two years ago.  I had a lot of learn, and still as of last week I thought Emacs was some sort of Emu, “Cool, a giant DH bird”. Thankfully to the lovely people at UCLDH and the wider DH community my work and more importantly, my slightly weird personality, seems to fit. User studies and Digital Museum content and visitor experience are up and coming in the DH field and I have never felt more at home.

It was great to see some many museum based research topics coming out of InterFace, and some really interesting questions being addressed, about digital objects, collections management and social media use. However, some of the bigger DH conferences do seem to neglect my area somewhat.  I was a bit lost from some of the sessions at DHSI, which appeared to me to be heavily text and linguistics based, and the same again at DH2011, not enough people and objects for my liking. This is where my confidence of being a DHer wobbles slightly.  I know historically DH has come out of text and linguistics, and I have no problem with that, it’s just not my cup of tea.  The bigger DH conferences are spreading out there themes to include archives, libraries, geospatial, classics and imagery but there still seems to be a hop, skip and jump away from where I position my research.

When I wobble as to whether or not I’m meant to be a DHer I always take solace in a blog post Melissa wrote last year about Digital Humanities as a career being a complete Hack:

I look around the folks who are part of the team at the UCL Centre for Digital Humanities, and we are a motley crew – and all the better for it. The Eng Lit PhD- turned publisher- turned usability expert. The trained and practicing Librarian – turned academic information seeking specialist. The archaeologist- turned museums and the web expert – turned usability expert. The computer-scientist turned-medical physicist – turned manuscript expert. The computer scientist-archaeologist. Me? I’m the art historian-english literature- turned computer science – turned engineering science –turned information science digital classicist (I think).

I’m at risk here of describing Digital Humanities scholars as the freaks and geeks of the academic world, but this is far from negative. For most of us, getting here has been a series of random connections, introductions, jumps from one career structure to the next. Somewhere along the line, you need to know enough about Humanities to talk the humanities talk. Somewhere along the line, you need to have worked up enough programming chops to use, and utilise, computers as (not “like”) a pro.

So here is my Venn diagram of where I position my PhD research and yes Digital Humanities is at the top.

Virtual Cities Visualisations

At the weekend, Denise (friend and fellow museum digital geek) and I went along to see Sense and the City  at the London Transport Museum.  Ever since I started working with the guys from CASA I have become more and more spellbound by spatial visualisations.  Following on from the workshop at InterFace by Martin Austwick on Processing, I was ready to go and get me some inspiration for playing with my newly taught visulisation programming skill (skills is a strong term, press buttons and hope it works is more accurate). So I was really excited to see a spatial and visually striking exhibition hit the museum.  Sense and the City explores how the future of London was imagined in the past, with obligatory Space 1999 image, and how new technologies are influencing transport, entertainment, communication and news in the present.

It was fascinating to look at architectural drawings and other visions of the future from the past.  It’s strange to think that previously everyone seemed to imagine everything, from computers to cars, would get bigger, not smaller.  Some of the Utopia imagery is really interesting to stand and stare at, such perspective and plenty of flying cars and Helicopters for everyone! I really enjoyed how visually stimulating the exhibition is, with touchscreens in abundance and changes in the lighting in different sections really affects how you interact with the exhibition as a whole.  Although I’m slightly sceptical of the RYNO on display, a weird one wheeled contraption, which looks slow and dangerous, give me my mountain bike any day of the week over that.

One of the most interesting elements of the exhibition is the concepts suggested by the Royal College of Art, who present new ideas on future technology and transport.  I really loved Michael Lum’s ideas for Augmented Wayfinding:  Street signage which dynamically updates content using social media content.  This idea highlights that everyone has a unique understanding of their location and how it will affect their movements around cities. However, currently street signage is static and doesn’t take the individual into consideration. I love any idea that focuses more on the individual than the mass.

The exhibition also showcases quite a lot of CASA’s work on giant screens, which make the visualisations really vibrant.  The only thing I would say is that there is a lack of labelling in this section, I’m lucky I know that’s the Boris Bike map, and boy does it look cool, but if you missed the intro screen you have no idea what it is, and you stare for ages at little blue worms whizzing around.

Boris Bikes redux from Sociable Physics on Vimeo.

Visiting Sense and the City reminded me of the Virtual Cities panel at DH2011. Two projects during the panel session really stood out for me.  The first being Hypercities:

Hypercities is a digital cultural mapping project, built on the idea that every past is a place.  The HyperCities platform is all about exploring, learning about, and interacting with the layered histories of city and global spaces.  It attempts to tell stories through place and time. Poly-line stories, making the memories of a space visible.

Secondly Chris Speed; who is a really engaging speaker, talking about his work with Tales of Things and Walking Through Time.


Walking Through Time is a really interesting project which uses a mobile app for phones with built-in GPS to allow users not only find themselves in the present day Edinbugh, but find themselves in the past.   In essence letting the user to touch the city, layering ‘old time’ over ‘new time mapping’.  Enabling users to scroll through time and navigate places using maps that are hundreds of years old. The slider in the map drops you down into a previous historical map, showing you what parts of Edinburgh aren’t there anymore.  Chris highlighted that Trees transcend many old and new maps. Trees are temporal poles. I like the sound of that, trees are rooted right through the historical and present and probably future layouts of the city. Chris also stated that Google’s maps are full of pockets of time. You know where you are, but you don’t know when you are. This is something I hadn’t really thought about before.  This is something that crept into the Sense and the City exhibition; maps only are a snap shot of a segment of time.   Which is why projects like walking through time and CASA’s New City Landscapes work are really interesting to see how technology can be used to change perceptions of city environments.