Literature Review: Generous Interfaces and Rich-Prospect Browsers

The digitisation of cultural heritage by galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) has resulted in vast digital archives that make cultural collections accessible online. Despite this achievement, GLAM websites often experience high bounce rates, with many users leaving without engaging deeply with the content (Hall, 2012; Walsh, 2020). This trend suggests that traditional search-based methods may not fully capture the potential for engaging users with digital cultural heritage (DCH). As a response, two approaches—generous interfaces and rich-prospect browsers (RPBs)—have gained attention for providing more immersive and exploratory experiences with digital collections (Whitelaw, 2012; Windhager, 2019; Vane, 2020).

Generous Interfaces

Generous interfaces, as described by Whitelaw (2012), aim to present a broad view of a collection that encourages users to explore without requiring specific queries. Unlike traditional search tools, generous interfaces prioritise open-ended browsing by showcasing primary content and contextual relationships through rich visual representations. These interfaces may include thematic clusters, curated overviews, and visual metaphors to guide users through a collection in an intuitive, serendipitous manner. For example, Tim Sherratt’s "The Irish in Australia History Wall" uses a visual narrative to engage users with historical content at the National Museum of Australia (Whitelaw, 2015).

Key features of generous interfaces include:

  • Exploratory Navigation: Emphasising fluid browsing and narrative pathways over keyword searches (Whitelaw, 2012).
  • Rich Visual Overviews: Displaying a sample of the collection to give users a sense of its scope and diversity (Coburn, 2016).
  • Thematic Grouping: Organising items around shared themes or relationships to foster contextual understanding (Whitelaw, 2012).
  • Multidimensional Visualisation: Allowing exploration through spatial, temporal, and other dimensions for a comprehensive view (Windhager, 2019).

While generous interfaces can enhance user engagement by increasing the time spent on a website, they do not always lead to a deeper interaction with the content, pointing to a need for further exploration of the features that make these interfaces effective (Speakman, 2018). Notable examples include the British Library’s "Explore the British Library" project, which uses generous interfaces to make large-scale collections more navigable.

Rich-Prospect Browsers

Rich-prospect browsing builds on the principle of "overview first, zoom and filter, then details on demand" (Shneiderman, 1996). The approach seeks to present every item in a collection meaningfully from the outset, allowing users to manipulate the representation to explore the collection intuitively (Ruecker, 2011). Unlike generous interfaces, RPBs offer more structured exploration options through faceted filtering, integrated search and browsing, and detailed metadata presentation (Morse, 2019).

Key features of rich-prospect browsers include:

  • Integrated Search and Browse: Facilitating both structured searches and exploratory browsing (Morse, 2019).
  • Faceted Filtering: Enabling users to narrow down results based on multiple criteria, such as time period or subject (Morse, 2019).
  • Scalability: Providing overview and detail views that scale effectively for large collections (Windhager, 2019).

Projects like "Old Maps Online" and "Re-envisioning the Canterbury Tales" demonstrate the flexibility of RPBs in providing structured, meaningful access to cultural heritage. These interfaces support tasks such as hypothesis formation and pattern recognition, which are crucial for researchers.

Comparing Generous Interfaces and Rich-Prospect Browsers

Both generous interfaces and RPBs share the goal of enhancing user engagement with digital collections but achieve this through different approaches. Generous interfaces focus on open-ended exploration and discovery, often appealing to casual users or the general public, while RPBs provide more structured pathways for in-depth exploration, catering to researchers and advanced users.

The two approaches can complement each other in cultural heritage settings by offering diverse ways for users to interact with collections. For example, an initial generous interface can guide users to an RPB for a more detailed exploration. Together, these methods underscore the importance of iterative design processes and user feedback in creating accessible and engaging cultural heritage experiences (Whitelaw, 2012; Morse, 2019).

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Despite their potential, generous interfaces and RPBs face challenges related to complexity and accessibility. Ensuring that these interfaces are easy to navigate while also providing a comprehensive view of large collections remains a key issue. Additionally, balancing the depth of metadata with user-friendly visualisation techniques is essential for enhancing the user experience. The field continues to evolve with advancements in AI-driven metadata generation, which may further enhance both approaches by improving content recommendations and visual retrieval systems (Lopatovska, 2015).

References

  • Bates, M. J. (2002). "Toward an integrated model of information seeking and searching." The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3(1), 1-15.
  • Coburn, A. (2016). "Collections Dive: An interface for serendipitous exploration of cultural heritage archives." In Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Conference.
  • Hall, S. (2012). "High bounce rates and digital engagement: Understanding user behaviour on GLAM websites." Journal of Digital Cultural Heritage, 4(2), 105-118.
  • Lopatovska, I. (2015). "Emotional retrieval: The role of affect in the archiving process." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(8), 1673-1686.
  • Morse, T. (2019). "Rich-prospect browsers: An overview of applications in digital cultural heritage." Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(2), 321-336.
  • Ruecker, S. (2011). "The next generation of rich-prospect browsers." In Digital Humanities 2011 Conference Abstracts.
  • Shneiderman, B. (1996). "The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations." In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 336-343.
  • Speakman, J. (2018). "The limits of generous interfaces: A case study in user engagement." Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 14.
  • Vane, S. (2020). "Rethinking access to digital cultural heritage: Generous interfaces and user-centred design." Archives and Records, 41(3), 187-204.
  • Walsh, D. (2020). "Exploring user engagement with digital cultural heritage through interface design." Museums and the Web Conference.
  • Whitelaw, M. (2012). "Towards generous interfaces for archival collections." Journal of Digital Humanities, 1(1).
  • Whitelaw, M. (2015). "Generous interfaces for digital cultural collections." Digital Humanities Quarterly, 9(1).
  • Windhager, F. (2019). "Visualizing cultural heritage collections for research and public access: A survey of interface techniques." Journal of Computer Graphics & Applications, 39(3), 44-59.