Earlier this year, following an excellent talk by Rob Dyson of Whizz-Kidz at April's BeGoodBeSocial event, I dusted down an Oxfam presentation I gave in 2006. To celebrate its upcoming fifth birthday I thought I'd stick a blog post up about it - the slides are embedded below.

I was genuinely surprised to review what I'd written so many moons ago. Not surprised in the sense of “goodness me, how much it's all changed” - quite the opposite in fact. Putting aside that MySpace was the platform of choice (those were the days...) the challenges, recommendations and conclusions I articulated differ very little from the stance I'd take today.

Even now I'd maintain that the first year of Oxjam was one of the best and most authentic examples of mobilising people using social tools that I've borne witness to. As my wife is quick to remind me (in case I pretend to take all the credit) in my role of managing digital communications at that time I was completely panicked by what all this ‘engagement’ meant for our brand. But we got over it, took a big deep breath and sucked up the so-called risks, and Oxjam lives on today as a great example of community-based fundraising.

I can't work out if I find it mildly depressing that five years on there still seem to be too few organisations on top of this stuff, or if I should stop being such a grumpy old man and take comfort in the fact that brilliant examples do shine through. Either which way, sometimes it can be useful to check out ancient history before jumping aboard the next big thing.

Last week I presented at the National Gallery of Ireland's 2011 Symposium where I gave my take on the use of digital media by museums. My talk deliberately cast the net wide and questioned some of the assumptions that can dominate how the arts & culture sector makes use of digital tools and technology. It also referenced the recent Let's Get Real report from Culture 24 (see my last blog post).

I gave five examples of what I'm calling beautiful small things - projects that I believe exemplify good practice in digital media for different reasons, and where I think there's a strong emphasis on adding value for the audience. I chose a game, an online collection, a mobile app, a mobile website and a social media example. I promised to post the URLs of these, so here they are alongside a little bit more context.

• High Tea: this web-based game from the Wellcome Collection is a brilliant example of developing an excellent product, with clear objectives, and reaching out to a target audience via the channels they were already using. There's a fantastic and fulsome evaluation available on the Museum Games site.
• Google Art Project: A contentious choice (and Google can hardly be described as small) but my reason for inclusion is that it's *not* trying to be a database of all the world's art; instead the focus is on a small number of subjects from a select few institutions, and is about giving the audience a great experience and allowing art to be explored in a uniquely digital way.
• Just Add Art: A lovely little iPhone app from Bonnefantenmuseum in The Netherlands with a simple interface that allows you to experience, create and share art in a fun and engaging way. Superb.
• 26 Treasures Scotland: Not-quite-launched but shaping up nicely, National Museums Scotland's use of QR Codes to access original audio content showcases the flexible use of simple and widely-available technology. You too can build an audio tour on a miniscule budget...
• The 80s Are Back: The Powerhouse Museum is no stranger to receiving accolades for its digital work, but the use of social media to accompany their The 80s Are Back exhibition stands out because it was so well targeted, encouraged genuine sharing of experiences, and was responsive when elements didn't resonate with the audience. Lots of examples of using social media to 'engage' simply miss the point, this gets it spot on.

I'll be giving the talk again at the Scottish Museum Federation's Digitally Speaking event this coming Friday.

Yesterday saw the formal launch of Let’s Get Real, Culture24’s action research project on evaluating online success in the culture sector, which I’ve been lucky enough to be involved in over the last year. It’s an open, insightful and easy-to-digest read, full of practical nuggets and relevant challenges, and I’d urge *anyone* involved in the digital field to put some time aside to download and absorb it.

The conference that accompanied the launch at Bristol’s Watershed was a similarly open and stimulating affair, with Google’s Tom Uglow, Storything’s Matt Locke and Culture24’s Jane Finnis providing much to ponder, as well as a bunch of us culture sector digital folk confessing all about projects that hadn’t quite gone to plan.

I summed up some of the highlights at the end of the day, and I thought it’s be useful to capture them here and say why I thought these particular points stood out. Apologies in advance if I’ve paraphrased incorrectly.

Further reading:

• Seb Chan: Let's Get Real report from Culture24 now available
• Chris Unitt: Culture24 report: How to evaluate online success
• Storify post by Katie Smith
• Storify post by B Hunter

I don't really do 'tech tips' posts, mostly because I'm a bit rubbish at techy stuff. After some back-and-forth tweets this morning, however, people said this might be useful...

When you're tracking traffic between social networks and your own website with Google Analytics, a problem arises when you use a URL shortening service like bit.ly or ow.ly. Basically, traffic gets bunched together in the 'direct' traffic segment because Google Analytics interprets shortened links in the same way as typing a URL directly into a browser. Therefore if you are happily tweeting or messaging your fans about the wonderful and joyous content on your website and using a shortened link (e.g. bit.ly/wonderfuljoyous) you lose any way of correlating the number of visits and tracking onward user journeys.

A way around this is to use Google's simple URL builder tool, which although designed for tracking marketing campaigns with multiple variables, is a useful way of separating stuff out like so:

1. Go to the URL builder: http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?answer=55578
2. Paste in the full URL you want to track, and then fill in the source, medium and name boxes. You can just use 'twitter' or 'facebook' if you want to track at a very high level, or you can get more specific if need be. Click 'Generate URL' and you'll end up with something like this: http://www.mywebsite.com/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
3. Shorten the new URL in bit.ly (or whatever else you use)
4. Launch onto an unsuspecting world

Within Google Analytics you should now be able to see anything coming in when you look at Traffic Sources (the above example would come under twitter/twitter as per no.16 in the pic below).

There may be much easier ways to get around the particular problem, please feel free to feedback if so.

Happy analysis :)

At last week's #BeGoodBeSocial event, held at the Big Lottery Fund offices on Glasgow's sunny Clydeside, we ran a little experiment with QR codes. Back in February, following a feverish bout of emailing between the members of the #BeGoodBeSocial sounding board (of which I am honoured to be a member), we decided to trial 'something with mobile' and rather than use one of the presentation slots, opted for some fringe activity instead.

Fellow sounding board members Alex Robertson and Martin Keane had both been at recent events where QR codes were demonstrated and created a talking point. From my own perspective of working with mobile in museums, I was very keen to see what happened when you integrated them at a social occasion. And lo the QoRner was born...

Despite being around for donkey's years, QR (quick response) codes have suddenly, almost inexplicably, become a hot property this year. Big brands - John Lewis, Debenhams, Sky - are using them in marketing materials, and funny little black and white patchwork squares are suddenly ubiquitous in newspapers, posters and products. All this fuss is nice of course but it can be distraction from the real story: the rise of the mobile web. QR codes are specifically designed to trigger action on mobile devices, yet there are numerous examples of them bouncing people to websites that don't even vaguely cater for the mobile user. For anyone reading this and thinking 'I really want to use QR codes in my marketing materials', I implore you first to consider 'I really must get a plan sorted out for mobile'. Terence Eden lists a number of comic/tragic misuses in his comprehensive postings on the subject.

With this in mind, we concentrated our efforts on pushing people to mobile-friendly sites/experiences coupled with some fun and interesting ways of locating QR codes:

• On the windows of the main conference room, overlooking the river Clyde: the codes took you to different historical content about Glasgow's shipbuilding heritage
• In the toilets: the codes took you to hilarious posts on urinal etiquette and what to do if the loo roll ran out
• On a person: we made Holly Smith wear a t-shirt that linked to more information about her - she very graciously accepted this challenge
• On balloons: we had a gathering point, later christened the QoRner, where we dangled some balloons with tags

See some of my dreadful shots below, or check out Rich Dyson's for a far more professional experience.

So what did we learn? Some unscientific analysis
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the links to social content fared best - foursquare check-ins, twitter updates and the link on Holly all reached double figures - no doubt a mix of prominent placement and, this being a largely digital crowd, people's tendencies to express themselves at events. Martin's overview information (which he's summarised and enhanced on his own blog) was also popular - again this was in a very obvious spot and was the closest we had to a set of instructions. The rest of the QR codes didn't do so well, and I would partly put this down to where they were located in terms of the general flow of people and the sort of event it was: no matter how intriguing or provocative our graphics were, people were there to network and be social rather than consume content.

My biggest observation, however, was that people simply didn't know what they were or if they did were unsure how to make use of them (how does this work? do I need an app? did I need to download something before I came?). Pointing your phone's camera at a barcode is clearly far from a mainstream activity, and I would urge a note of caution if you're expecting to yield high returns by using them on your materials. I'd be interested to know if different demographics behave in significantly different ways, but decent data on their uptake is very hard to come by.

In summary: it was great to get the chance to experiment, there was a lot of Blue Peter style fun in preparing the materials, it definitely created a talking point, but ultimately it felt like quite a niche pursuit. If you were there I'd love to hear your feedback, please drop a note in the comments if you've got any points to share.

(download)

Click here to download:

our-qr-code-experiment-getting-mobile-at-begoodbesocial-a2SD3u8NOEUGo3cUDfKb.zip (4.97 MB)

To much fanfare and a substantial amount of press interest Google Art Project launched today - a website showcasing masterpieces from a variety of world-renowned art museums and galleries. To the casual browser it may look like a selection of pretty screens with some overview information included, but dig a little deeper and there's a whole lot more rich content to be found. At the risk of getting all caught up in the moment, I would argue that while it doesn't quite represent "the beginning of what’s possible for artists and museums online" it does set a standard museums and galleries would do well to take note of. Here's why I think so:

1. It has a simple and attractive user interface
It's the basics, right? But the basics are so often forgotten. We complicate people's lives by the perceived need to fill screens with text and thumbnails and calls to action and related information, or assume too much by putting search at the heart of the experience (search for what? I usually start with 'fish' or 'banana' then get back to whatever I was doing before). The subtle navigation on top of a detailed close-up beckons you to delve deeper on the homepage; the clean, straightforward dropdown menus and easy sliding panels conceal a surprising amount of information; the zooming is flawless and beautiful. Without wanting to sound overly luvvy, it *feels* like the online equivalent of a prestigious art gallery.

2. There's a refreshing absence of user-generated content
How easy would it have been to include a "have your say" element to this? How much pressure was resisted to incorporate rankings and ratings? Upload your favourite artwork! Paint your own Rembrandt! Sometimes in amongst all the noise on the web it's nice to have something that's about presentation and function, rather than an open invitation to pass judgment or scribe your terribly clever/contentious comment. Share tools are part of the package, which makes sense, and the ability to create, tag and save your own artwork collection adds a nice layer of interactivity, but other than that it's a largely quiet and contemplative space. I hope they keep it that way.

3. It plays to the strengths of the medium
Since I arrived in the museum world a couple of years ago I've been banging on about the value-add of digital experiences: how do they differentiate from a physical visit? how can they provide something substantial in their own right? On an incredibly simple but incredibly effective level, zooming functionality does just that. It's nothing new (Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery's excellent Pre-Raphaelite website utilises it heavily, our own Lewis Chessmen can be examined up close) but to be able to see detail like brushstrokes, paint cracks, exposed canvas, and carving - detail that you simply can't get close enough to see - allows the digital exhibit to come into its own. I feel articles like this one by Channel 4's Matthew Cain and this one by the Telegraph's Alastair Sooke miss the point somehow - it's not about replicating real museums, it's about exploring art in a different way.

4. It incorporates virtual tours
I feel odd about writing this as it's a bit like stepping back into the innocent first flush of web design in the 90s. Six months ago I'd probably have raised a suspicious eyebrow about the inclusion of virtual tours ('a throwback to a bygone era' I'd have scoffed) but I've been very much swayed by the recent Arts & Business report into digital audience engagement in arts and culture. Solid market intelligence for this sector is a hard thing to come by, so it's worth paying attention when a well-researched and wide-ranging paper comes around. Over half of respondents indicated they wanted to take a virtual tour when it came to a museum digital visit. Not to join an online cultural community, or have an augmented reality moment with their phone, or take their gallery visit home with them, but take a virtual tour. People want this stuff; I scoff no more.

5. It's all Google
I'm already a member, it uses the standard Google log-in so I can save my own curated collections to my gmail account. It has embedded Google maps and YouTube videos, it makes full use of Street View, it is the essence of an integrated product. And pretty soon its content will be ranking highly when people search for particular works of art, artists and museum information. Assuming the intention is to grow the 1061 current artworks on display, it will become an increasingly popular destination to both occasional browsers and specific searchers. You can have a perspective on whether this is a good or bad thing, but it's an undeniably powerful fact.

And one negative point...
To conclude this bandwagon jumping post I did want to bring up what I consider a fairly major negative point: It's built in Flash. Not that it doesn't do a lovely job, but it means the view on my iPad looks like the image below which seems slightly anti-current trends and open standards. Maybe it was too difficult to create as smooth an experience using alternative tech, maybe it's designed to be a sit-down browsing experience, maybe it's two fingers to Apple, but with so many indicators about a mobile and tablet-driven future it feels a little backwards facing.

When we relaunched the National Museums Scotland website in November, ReadWriteWeb wrote a rather spectacular piece on how forward thinking and downright clever we were (all true of course). It created rather a lot of buzz – 350 retweets from their post alone – and a warm fuzzy glow for the team at having a positive feature appear in such a popular and influential blog.

The full article is here: Scotland Trailblazes the Use of HTML5 in Museums