Almost everyone has at least one memory of working with a ‘lifer’ or ‘old-timer.’  In some cases these employees have been at the organization since its inception, in other cases they have worked there for their entire career or as long as anyone can remember. The phrase “can remember” is often at the heart of discussions about institutional memory.

The Society of American Archivists’ glossary of archival and records terminology defines institutional memory as:

“The information in records and in individuals’ personal knowledge that provide an understanding of an organization’s or group’s history and culture, especially the stories that explain the reasons behind certain decisions or procedures.”

All too often memories of an organization’s past projects, milestones, and failures are kept only in the minds of employees.  When an employee moves on, retires, or simply ceases to remember, details these memories are lost to the organization.  Without establishing a culture and practices which foster institutional memory the tangible past of an organization can quickly become non-existent.

Why should organizations care about institutional memory?

On the most basic level institutional memory can help prevent the repetition of past mistakes.  Often the biggest gaps in institutional memory occur during a change in administration or management.  For example, a newly hired administrator implements new methods without being aware of what has worked or failed in the past, and he makes the same mistake that was made six months ago.  Institutional memory isn’t designed to stall innovation (though it can be misused that way).  Rather, it can help organizations avoid reinventing the wheel. Having records which highlight past work allow for informed decisions to be made in the present.

Given the rise of short term contracts and people having multiple careers over their working lifespan, institutional memory can be linked to the sustainability of organizations.   Institutional memory (and good records) can be used to compensate for a lack of continuity in staffing.  For example, within universities in colleges the number of adjunct professors is on the rise.  Adjuncts may work at multiple institutions throughout their career and may not feel the need to contribute to the documentary history of institution.   Knowledge, departmental history, and university cultural heritage can easily be lost when an adjunct professor leaves the institution.   Institutional memory and record keeping practices can help avoid this loss of information.

Additionally, Institutional memory can help cultivate institutional culture and pride.  Remembering past triumphs and projects can help employees see the long term impact of their work and the institution at large.  Celebrating anniversaries and other important dates in the organization’s history can further instill pride and a sense of longevity.

How can organizations cultivate institutional memory? 

Most organizations are legally or ethically required to practice some degree of record keeping.  These records have the potential to be not merely paper memories but also resources to cultivate knowledge management within an institution.  The implementation of a record management system can help make these records accessible to employees and assist in the transfer of knowledge between generations.

In addition to mandatory record keeping encouraging a policy of documentation at all levels can help curb institutional forgetting.  When a new procedure, policy, or task is implemented the creation of documentation can help assist later employees learn these tasks.  The use of internal wiki can be used to collect this information, allow changes to be tracked, and make information accessible to all employees.

Creating strategies for outgoing employees to share information with new employees is essential to institutional memory.  Without this passing on of knowledge whenever an employee leaves part of the organization’s memory also leaves.  This may include having a retiring employee train a new employee, having an exit interview process, or creating a documentation plan.

Institutional memory is important to both public and private institutions across many fields of employment.  Human memory is by its very nature fallible.   Reinforcing oral history and employee memories with record creation processes helps retain knowledge, can inspire organizational pride, and can make new ventures easier.

UA archives, Upper Arlington History, Flickr Commons

Earlier this month there was considerable discussion on the ARCAN and the Archives & Archivists listserves about which photo sharing/hosting sites can best serve the needs of archival institutions.  Despite all the chatter there was little consensus on what hosting site was ideal for archival organizations.

Many cultural heritage groups are looking for affordable solutions to making their collections more accessible to the general public.  There are numerous options available but no clear winner has come across as an ideal image hosting site.

The current forerunners of the free or low cost image sharing options include:

Flickr
There are three different account options available to organizations using Flickr; the free account, a professional account, and a Flickr commons account.  All three accounts have the ability to include metadata in photograph tags and include photo descriptions.  Users also have the option of limiting access to photographs or making them available to everyone. Organizations can organize photographs into collections, overlay photographs on maps, and include copyright statements.

Flickr Free Account
-Upload limit of two videos and 300MB worth of photos each calendar month.
-Only small compressed images are available to you and to the public
-Does not store high-resolution originals for you.
-Only the 200 most recent photographs will be displayed.

Flickr Professional Account
-Annual fee of $24.95 US dollars.
-Unlimited photo and video uploads, unlimited storage and bandwith
-The ability to show high definition video
-Flickr stores all high-resolution originals you upload, which you can later download at anytime while you have your Pro account.
-Compiles basic user statistics

Flickr Commons
-An initiative started in 2008 by Flickr and the Library of Congress that was designed specifically to increase accessibility to publicly held collections.
-Registration process is required as you must be a cultural heritage or public organization. Currently the registration process includes a waiting period for approval.
-There is a wide range of community for support for tech problems and description.
-All material uploaded MUST have no known copyright restrictions
-Additional details on institutions results from posting material on Flickr Commons can be seen here.

Picasa Web Albums
-Includes 1 GB of free storage for photos and videos. Photos up to 800 x 800 pixels in size and videos up to 15 minutes won’t count towards your free storage.  Once you’ve reached your limit photographs will automatically be re-sized to not count toward your limit.
-Additional storage can be purchased for an annual fee (20GB for $5, 80GB for $20, 200GB for $50, etc).
-Account is automatically linked to other Google applications such as Google+ and analytics.
-Metadata and description details can easily be attached, including person and geographical tags.
-Access to photos can be restricted and you can attach copyright descriptions.
-Photographs can be sorted into collections using the photo album feature.
-Includes an easy to use export feature that will export your data and photographs.

Wikimedia Commons
-Focuses on public domain and freely licensed material that can be used for educational purposes.  This means that material bust be  free reuse or the creation of derivative works for any purpose (including commercial).
-Integrated with Wikipedia
-Files are uploaded using a template information form which includes fields for description, date, source, author, and permission information.
-Uses open file formats only.  File size limits is 100MB
-You can set up galleries and contribute to other relevant galleries and categories.
-Includes geocoding functionality
-There is a bit of a learning curve for formatting descriptions if you have never used wiki’ before, but there is a tremendous amount of documentation and community support in the Wikimedia community if you have problems.

So, what does all this mean? I don’t think there is a clear winner.  It boils down to the quantity and type of information you want to put online.  For example, Flickr Commons has a great reputation as it hosts only cultural heritage institutions but only information that has no copyright restrictions can be posted, which might not be ideal for an institution with a lot of more recent photographs.

Organizations should consider their intended audiences, the copyright status of their material, the file size and quality of their material, the cost, the need for cloud backups, and how much time a staff person can dedicate to updating an account.

What experience have you had using an image hosting site? What digital platforms have you found successful in disseminating content to a broad audience?

Northern Plains Moccasins, 1890-1915. McCord Museum, M18421.1

When someone talks about undertaking serious historical research what comes to mind? Perhaps you conjure up an image of a dusty archives room and leaning towers of paper.  Census data, photographs, journals, correspondence, business records, and many other traditional archival materials may come to mind as potential sources.

Did the phrase historical research make you think of artifacts? No? Not surprising, artifacts are often overlooked when seeking primary sources and at times are written off as museum fodder.  However, a bounty of information can be gained from examining artifacts and material culture as primary sources.

“Artifacts are tangible incarnations of social relationships embodying the attitudes and behaviours of the past.” -Mary C. Beaudry, Lauren Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski, Artifacts and Active Voices<

The examination of artifacts can reveal information about creators, technology of the period, social practices, cultural norms, customs, and other valuable historical data.  These glimpses into the past can be useful for providing context to museum professionals, archaeologists, social historians, and as educational tools for students.

For example, a pair of beaded moccasins, like the ones pictured above can provide information about the culture that created them, the time period, hunting methods, and First Nation-Settler relations.

• The type of glass and brass beads used in these moccasins helps date the item.  Prior to European contact First Nation decorative work was done primarily with porcupine and bird quills, making the presence of beads significant.
• The style and colours used in the bead work are typical of beading done by Northern Plains First Nations.
• The tanned and smoked buffalo hide used highlights one of the many animals the creators hunted during the period and gives an example of the tanning process favoured by that particular First Nation.
• Similarly, with specialized analysis the sinew used for stitches could also reveal information about the type of animals that were hunted in the area.  The sinew can also be used for dating the artifact.

Through the examination of a variety of artifacts relating to a specific time period, geographical region, or cultural group it is possible to glean information about cultural, technical, and social trends.   Artifacts also transcend literacy and language barriers.  This transcendence makes them ideal resources for research surrounding oral based societies and societies where little written history is available.

Artifacts that are more commonly used for historical research include: craft-work, regalia, medals and awards, coinage, tools, ceramics, and household items.   Artifacts with known provenance are typically the most useful.  However, almost any type of artifact can be used in historical research — researchers have used items as seemingly insignificant as building materials, quilts, and bits of coloured glass to make observations about a cultural group.

In addition to potential sources for research artifacts can be great educational tools.  No, I’m not suggesting that museums should let a group of rowdy children handle pottery from the early 1900s.  However, having an artifact show and tell session done by a museum professional can help students understand the value of material culture and provide more intrigue than pictures of artifacts.  Replicas and material designated as part of an education collection can also provide a tactile dimension to history lessons.

That old handcrafted broach, a relative’s Orange Lodge regalia, quilts your great grandmother made, and all kinds of items that may be stored away in your attic or basement could have the potential to provide a window into the past.  Not everything has archival or historical value, however a wide range of artifacts definitely deserve a place in our approaches to historical understanding.

Last week the remote Northern Ontario community of Peawanuck First Nation welcomed home Charlie Hunter.  Charlie passed away in 1974 while attending St. Anne’s Residential School in Fort Albany.  He died while saving a fellow student who had fallen through ice near the school.  Following his death Charlie Hunter was buried in Moosoonee without the consent of his family.

The Hunter family has struggled for years to bring Charlie home. Earlier this year the Hunter family, the National Residential Schools Society, Keewaytinook Okimakanak, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the Toronto Star began a campaign to raise money to bring Charlie to Peawanuck.

Two weeks after a story about Charlie appeared in the Toronto Star enough funds were raised to repatriate Charlie’s body.  These articles which contributed to funds being gathered for return can be seen here and here.  The efforts of the bring Charlie home campaign came to fruition on Friday August 19th, 2011 when over 100 mourners gathered in Peawanuck to see Charlie laid to rest in his home community. News coverage documenting Charlie’s return home can be seen here and here.

The repatriation of Charlie is a unique story, but the details leading up to Charlie returning home are surprisingly common place. Many children who passed away at residential school were buried at the school they were attending.  Additionally, a countless number of children disappeared while at residential school. Missing and incomplete records make it difficult to estimate how many children died or disappeared during their time at residential school.  Similarly, mass and unmarked graves which are found at a number of residential school cemeteries make it impossible to identify the remains of students buried while at school.

The repatriation of Charlie highlights the ongoing struggle of all Canadians – First Nation, Métis, Inuit, and non-indigenous people – to deal with the legacy of the Canadian residential school system.  Charlie is one of the very few residential schools students who have been returned home.

So far, the Canadian government and organizations which ran the residential schools have put little effort into assisting families in their efforts to locate burial sites, missing children, and unmarked graves.  The government sanctioned Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) supports the Missing Children and Unmarked Grave Working Group’s Recommendations and has a file on missing children. However, the TRC has stated that given their limited mandate and the overwhelming number of missing children the TRC is not going to be able to say how many children died in the schools, or where they are all buried.  It is probable that we may never know the names or numbers of all those lost as a result of the residential school system.

The efforts of the Hunter family to bring Charlie home were covered by CBC, CTV, and various print media outlets.  The return of Charlie Hunter to Peawanuck has the potential to raise awareness of the impact of residential schools and inspire reconciliation and respectful repatriation.  But, only time will tell if that potential will be effectively harnessed or ignored by the Canadian public and government.

Acting as the host institution for a conference or workshops can be both a blessing and a curse.  Host organizations often experience increased interaction with participants and gain publicity in their local community.  Hosting a conference or workshop takes considerable effort and planning and can place strain on regular staff and use up time and monetary resources.

Despite planning hurdles, many heritage organizations still see value in hosting workshops and have dedicated themselves to hosting annual events. Larger conferences often require substantially more planning and resources than a small workshop, but even a single day workshop can benefit from careful advance planning.

Things to consider when planning a workshop or conference:
1) Do not undervalue the importance of a conference coordinator.  If you do not hire or designate a specific person to act as a coordinator, event planning has the potential to disintegrate into something resembling chaos.  Without a coordinator there is no one in charge of overseeing the efforts of everyone.  This inevitably causes confusion as to who is doing what and what tasks need to be completed.

Additionally, not having a coordinator has the potential of adding strain to your core staff who will have to spend additional time working on the event  in addition to their regular duties.  For example, the education programmer at your museum might be a great event planner, but unless she is relieved of  other duties she cannot be expected to plan an entire conference and still run the education department.

2) Talk to others who have organized an event in your field.  If there is a great conference you’ve attended in the past year, try seeing if the organizers of that conference are willing to discuss their planning experience.

3) Set up an advance registration for the conference or workshop.  Early registration allows you to get a sense of the numbers for your event.  These numbers will be importance when booking space, ordering food, and planning workshop size.  Encourage registration through promotion of the event, early bird pricing, and by sending reminders out about registration closing dates.

4) Be realistic about your budget and the cost of things.  Space and food are typically the two largest expenses at a conference.  Organizations need to be realistic about how many meals they can include in the conference and how many attendees they can accommodate.   Creating a vendors list that can be used in the future will help alleviate future pricing frustrations. Setting a reasonable registration fee to off set your costs, while still allowing a range of participants to attend is an important budgetary consideration.

5) Volunteers are fantastic but require planning and dedicated resources.  Volunteers can assist in set up, take down, site tours, registration, information kiosks, etc.  However, volunteers are not merely free labour – they require training, instruction, and supervision.  A mandatory volunteer training session prior to the conference helps prepare volunteers and helps simplify training.

6) Agenda planning is time consuming but essential.  If you are using a call for papers this should be done months in advance.  If you are running workshops featuring community members, be sure to approach potential facilitators early.   Keynote speaker selections should take into consideration topic, availability, reputation of speaker, and cost.

You will also need to decide the format of sessions.  Plenary sessions and small working groups require different types of spaces.  Deciding on speakers, facilitators, and session types early will help you select appropriate space and time allocations.

7) Gathering feedback is important, particularly if you plan on holding another event in the future.  Preparing a follow up survey can help gain insight into how the conference went.  Gathering feedback from your staff is also important, as they may have insights into the organizing experience.

Starting by hosting a small day workshop is a great way to build planning capacity within your organization and can aid staff in developing skills which can be used to plan a larger workshop or conference.

Listening to Our Past explores the rich cultural heritage of the people of Nunavut.  The website was created by Nunavut Arctic College and l’Association des francophones du Nunavut.  The site aims to present history recorded though oral traditions and oral histories told by Nunavut elders.  The site is tri-lingual and material is available in English, French, and Inuktitut.

Navigation Map

When first visiting the site users are presented with snippets of Nunavut history in pictorial and audio form.  The main method of navigating the site is through a pictorial mind map.  Each image  highlights a particular topic in the history of Nunavut.  Topics include child rearing practices, dream interpretation, traveling and surviving our land, and other themes which focus on the cultural and spiritual traditions of the Inuit people. The use of an imaged based menu contributes to the site’s simplified navigation and has the potential to show a glimpse into a topic in a way that a text based title cannot.

Upon selecting which thematic section of the site, the user is brought to a page which provides them multiple ways to explore the selected topic. These methods of exploration include short summaries, a complete transcript, quotations, pictorially, video, animation, and audio clips.  All of these methods emphasize the importance of oral tradition over the written word.

The audio clips of elders speaking about their past is particularly powerful and was the method which I found to be the most representative of the oral histories that the website aims to present.  However, the site is lacking the ability for users to navigate within a audio clip. The audio clips begin automatically and users cannot fast-forward or rewind the audio clip.  This is particularly frustrating if you didn’t hear a portion clearly or if you would like to replay a particularly interesting segment.

The ability to navigate within the individual oral histories is accommodated to a greater level within the textual transcripts of the interviews.  The textual representations of the oral histories are presented as a separate portion of the website and as pdfs.  The text based portion of the site breaks down the oral history themes into smaller sub-topics.  For example, the Perspectives on Traditional Health section is divided into the following sub-sections:

• The Sick Body: Diagnostics and Treatments (North Baffin)
• Physical Disorders and Mental States: Cultural Representations and Answers in North Baffin
• Anniasiutigijauvaktuviniit, Material Means Used for Healing and Birth
• Mamisaijjusituqait: Advice and Healing Practices
• The Power of Thought, Emotions and Words
• Piruqtuit: Regional

This textual representation of the oral histories is easier to navigate if you are looking for information on a specific topic.  It is also useful if you do not have the time to devote to listening to the complete audio recordings.  This portion of the site has a more academic feel and is organized in a way that is more common to research based sites.   However, this component of the site does not have the same level of interactivity and feeling of exploration that the pictorial navigation map does.

Listening to Our Past provides an abundance of great content in a variety of mediums.  There is room for improvement in terms of navigation within individual selections of content.  The site would be more cohesive if an effort was put into combining traditional methods of presenting information with interactive tools.  Despite this lack of cohesion, Listening to Our Past, successfully presents previously unavailable material about the heritage of Nunavut’s Inuit peoples in an accessible and forward thinking way.

Canadian Music Centre, Doors Open Toronto, 2010

This year marks the tenth anniversary of Doors Open Ontario.  Doors Open is a program that celebrates heritage and culture by inviting the general public to visit buildings that are normally closed to the public.  Doors Open also includes a number of sites which normally charge an entrance fee, these sites typically waive this fee for the duration of the doors open event.  Buildings featured in Doors Open activities may be architecturally unique, have significant local heritage, be privately owned heritage homes, or be culturally relevant institutions.

The Ontario Doors Open program was established by the Ontario Heritage Trust in 2002 and was the first province wide initiative of its kind in Canada. The Doors Open idea began in France in 1984 with La Journée Portes Ouvertes.  In Europe the Doors Open program has evolved into European Heritage Days, which is celebrated each September.  Currently, over 50 European countries participate in European Heritage Days.  The Days aim to promote heritage, culture, and diversity while exposing heritage and cultural sites to the general public. Since the first  Doors Open event in 1984 communities of all sizes throughout Europe, Australia, and North America have held their own Doors Open events.

The Doors Open Ontario season runs from May to October and includes events in large cities and small towns.  This year more than 50 communities across Ontario are holding Doors Open events.  This year the communities of Deseronto-Napanee, Grimsby, Highlands East, Kapuskasing, Middlesex, Merrickville, and Pickering are participating for their first time in Doors Open.   The first Doors Open Ontario event of this season in was held this past weekend in Guelph.  Next weekend, May 7th and May 8th, sees the Doors Open season emerging in full swing with events in Hamilton, Chatham-Kent, and Whitby.

In addition to Doors Open this year marks the fifth anniversary of Trails Open Ontario.  Trails Open is based on Doors Open and was also established by the Ontario Heritage Trust.  The trails open initiative aims to encourage exploration and appreciation of Ontario’s natural heritage.   Many Trails Open events include guided hikes, tours, cycling, and other outdoor activities.

So why should you care about Doors Open or Trails Open? Doors Open helps promote awareness of local heritage and has the potential to engage people within their community.  A number of the heritage buildings featured in Doors Open are endangered, in need of repair, or subject to the will of private owners.  All of these factors have the potential to contribute to the destruction or transformation of a building.  Doors Open provides a chance for the general public to see these buildings before they are lost and perhaps to engage them in the preservation of their local built heritage.

Doors Open exposes people to the stories behind buildings in their community.  The best Doors Open sites are staffed by knowledgeable volunteers and guides.  I have often be surprised by Doors Open acting as a venue for the personal histories and community memories associated with a building.  Many of the volunteers at Doors Open sites have a personal connection to the building they are volunteering at and are more than willing to share their insights and stories with those who are genuinely interested.

Similarly, Trails Open helps raise awareness of the 88,000 km of trails in Ontario.  Many of these tails are the only way to access picturesque parts of Ontario’s landscape and Trails Open provides a user friendly introduction to these trails.  Ontario’s natural heritage is often over looked, taken for granted, and encroached upon.  Trails Open provides a means of beginning to educate people of the importance of preserving natural heritage.  Overall, Trails Open and Doors Open are great ways to learn more about local heritage, explore natural and built heritage, and to become more involved within your community.

Krista McCracken is an archivist at Algoma University’s Residential School Centre.

WhatWasThere and Historypin are websites which emphasize history’s connection to geography. Last August, Teresa Iacobelli wrote a great post on Historypin, its predecessors, and location based history. WhatWasThere is a similar site that has been gaining popularity in recent weeks.

Both sites are based on the idea of attaching historical photographs of buildings, landscape, and landmarks to present day maps. Both sites perform essentially the same function and provide a similar level of user interaction. The layout, interface, functionality, and photos uploaded to each site varies.

Historypin is in partnership with Google and has over 37,300 images pinned. A disclaimer makes it very clear that Google is not directly responsible for Historypin development. But, Historypin’s partnership with Google does mean that if you already have a Google account you can immediately login to the site and begin adding content. Also, when logging in for the first time you have the option of importing any photos you have saved using Picasa.

Users can explore Historypin in a couple of ways.  Content can be accessed by looking at the existing pins on the map and clicking photos or areas that interest them.  There is also a search function that allows users to search by location, date, or photo content.  When looking at existing content users also have the option of adding their own comments or sharing a personal story about the photo or location.  The story function has often been utilized to additional information location of photograph.  However, it has the potential to provide a space for users to link personal histories and memories to a photograph.

Historypin also includes a feature that allows users to dispute the location or date attached to  photographs.  This feature is a fill-able form which can be completed by users.  It is nice that users have the ability help correct information. But, since it’s not clear what type of policy or turnaround rate the site has on dealing with these factual disputes, the form seems a bit like a black hole.

In general Historypin provides a basic interface, a decent search function, and allows users to interact with content through comments and stories.  Upon switching from the Historypin site to WhatWasThere the most obvious difference is the interface of the two sites, things generally look nicer on the WhatWasThere site.  

Despite using Google maps to display content, WhatWasThere is not integrated with Google and to upload content to the site new users have to create an account.  Thankfully, account creation is simple and takes under a minute.  Similar to Historypin, there are multiple ways to access content on WhatWasThere.  You can  access content by roaming around the map.  I found this feature on WhatWasThere a bit frustrating at times, as often you were unable to see what photos were available for a particular location until you had zoomed in a considerable amount.

There is a standard search feature.  However, unlike Historypin it is not possible to narrow your search by photograph type or date.  The search by location feature works well.  But, for cities with over 500 photos attached to them, it would be nice to be able to narrow search results.  Additionally, there are standardized metadata fields for photographs in WhatWasThere.  These fields include: date taken, title, description, tags, and source.  These fields often include a lot of great information, but are not searchable.  Increasing the search capability on the site would greatly improve users ability to access information.

WhatWasThere has gone one step further with Google maps integration than Historypin.  WhatWasThere has integrated Google Street View with its photographs.  This is a great visually as it allows users to see a mash-up of historical photographs with present day buildings.  Historypin does allow users to explore using Street View.  But, the use of Street View is fairly clunky and the images aren’t actually blended into the existing landscape as they are on WhatWasThere.

Overall, both sites have their advantages.  Historypin boasts superior search functionally, the potential to host location based personal stories, and user interaction through comments.  Conversely, WhatWasThere has an increased use of Google Street View, standardized metadata fields, and is visually superior.  Ideally it would be nice to see a site that combined the best components of Historypin and WhatWasThere.  Until that time, users might be best to try out both sites and see which one fits their interest needs and style of website use.

Krista McCracken is an archivist at Algoma University’s Residential School Centre.

Heritage organizations are continuously working to establish a digital presence and integrate digital tools into their collection management practices.  However, budgetary limitations are increasingly frequent in the heritage field and heritage organizations are forced to balance the benefits of using technology and the cost associated with digital tools.  High software costs can make it impossible for institutions to afford proprietary software and often result in limited technology choices.

The most commonly used and most expensive software in heritage organizations  related to photo manipulation, exhibit design, and collection management.  There are many open source alternatives for photo software and exhibit design.  However, complex collection management software which doesn’t require a programming background is currently somewhat rare in the open source world.  Despite this, open source software can be a huge benefit for an organization with a limited technology budget.

Photoshop and the Adobe Creative Suite are frequently used by heritage organizations for photo processing and exhibit design. The complete Creative Suite from Adobe costs upwards of $1000, which is a huge expense to any institution on a finite budget.  An open source alternative for photo manipulation is the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP), a free customizable photo editing program. It has the functionality of a simple ‘paint’ program and all of the advanced photo processing tools which exist in Photoshop. The interface is simple to use, there is a comprehensive user manual, and an active online support community.

Additionally, Inkscape is a free alternative to Adobe Illustrator.  Inkscape is a vector graphic editor and is useful for creating graphics which are going to be used repeatedly.  For example, if your organization has a logo which you put on everything from business cards to oversize posters, Inkscape would allow you to create one image and easily re-size it without skewing the proportions of the logo.  Inkscape has an active development and support community online.  There are also a number of tutorials available to help users execute some of the more common tasks.

There are also various open source tools which can be useful for exhibit design and planning.  Google Sketchup is a 3D modeling tool which can be useful for planning out exhibit space.  The learning curve for Sketchup is on the steeper side. However, once mastered Sketchup allows for the creation of very detailed, to scale models with relative ease. Tim O’Grady’s post from last year highlights some of the more elaborate uses of Sketchup.

Many open source programs have the exact same features as expensive proprietary software and have the additional benefit of having active online support communities.  The extra effort require to learn how to use a new piece of software more than pays for itself in the money saved by using open source.

The desire to make Canadian history more accessible to the general public is nothing new. Accessibility takes many forms: educational programming, the use of photographs to spur interest in a subject, opening archives to the general public, and the use of technology to bring history resources to a wider audience.

Technology is used widely in the heritage field to increase accessibility.  Technology has facilitated the creation of publicly available history databases, an increased digital presence of heritage institutions, and the development of heritage specific digital tools.

There has been a rise in history databases designed for the general public. These databases often contain images and primary sources which were previously restricted to academics.  Increased accessibility of primary sources assists academic research, genealogy, and the work of amateur historians.  Increasingly, digital archival holdings are open to everyone regardless of professional qualifications.

Canadian history resources available online which fit this model of sharing primary source material with everyone include: The Canadiana Discovery Portal, Our Ontario, Artefacts Canada, and Canada’s Historic Places Index.  These sites are aggregate databases and draw on the collections and resources of multiple heritage institutions.  Additionally, their interfaces are based on the search functionality of Google instead of the setup of traditional scholarly databases.  These databases are designed to be user friendly and provide the general public with a simple way to search reputable sources.

Additionally, digital technology has allowed museums and other heritage facilities to increase their online presence.  Virtual exhibits, online collection catalogues, and general information about facilities are common on museum websites.

For example, the Canadian Museum of Civilization (CMC) website contains information on current physical exhibitions, education material, and their collection is searchable. The website also features online exhibits which are completely digital born.  These digital exhibits highlight interesting topics in Canadian history, unique items in the CMC’s collection, and supplement the physical exhibitions of the institution.  Additionally, the virtual exhibits allow people who may not have the opportunity to visit the museum a chance to explore and learn more about the CMC.

What about your local museum or archive? Despite budget constrains many smaller heritage facilities have begun to digitize their collections and are creating their own virtual presence.  This increased virtual presence is often created through use of social media, website revamping, and the creation of digital exhibits.  Our Ontario and Artefacts Canada are free to contribute to and are used by a number of smaller institutions.  There is also a variety of open source software available to heritage institutions wishing to create virtual exhibits or display information online.

The recently released Oral Historian’s Digital Toolbox created by The Centre for Oral History and Digital Storytelling at Concordia University includes applications which could be utilized by heritage institutions.  It contains open source products such as Omeka, Stories Matter, and Audacity which facilitate the manipulation and display of heritage material.  These and other open source options are a great way for small institutions to overcome budget constrains and begin their own digital initiatives.

Overall, the increased availability of history databases, museum websites, and open source options reflect the desire for digital accessibility within the heritage field.

Krista McCracken is a public history consultant currently working as an Archives Technician at the Residential School Centre at Algoma University.