TouchTree Weekly Update

On this page

1. Update 1: Project Goals 
2. Update 2: Competitive Analysis
3. Update 3: Decision Tree Iterations: ModTech, Lauren, Charlotte
4. Update 4: Decision Tree Iterations & New Timeline
5. Update 5: TouchTree Website & Evaluation Script
6. Update 6: Midterm Presentation
7. Update 7: Evaluations Underway
8. Update 8: More Evaluations
9. Update 9: Sorting Evaluation Feedback
10. Update 10: Takeaways and Implementation, Final Prototype

Weekly Update 10: 4/27/23

Takeaways and Implementations

This week, Syeda reviewed the feedback from her six evaluations. Her method was grouping together sticky notes of feedback by theme and drawing five key takeaways from those groups. The five key takeaways are:

1. Questions should be simple and direct. Questions shouldn’t be grouped together. Moreover, the questions should use active voice rather than passive voice, nor should they be framed as something being “feasible” or not.
2. Museum practitioners may struggle with deciding which museum objects to have touch objects of. They may need more specific guidance on how to select the right museum object and which core attributes they consider to be the most important in educating visitors. Some attributes to consider are be texture, shape, size, or material.
3. Users won’t always have the answer to a question in the moment. Information regarding collections and copyright tends to be dispersed, resulting in cross-department communication, especially for larger museums. Additionally, if an entry-level employee or intern is using the TouchTree, they may need to connect with their manager to respond to follow-up concerns.
4. Museum practitioners may struggle with going about creating touch objects after they learn what the best option is. For example, there are several types of methods for producing tactile graphics. Likewise, there are different ways of getting started with 3D printing, such as connecting with potential community partners. Each method has its own benefits and drawbacks that museum practitioners may not be immediately familiar with.
5. Having multiple solutions may create more barriers from encouraging practitioners to allow visitors to touch the museum object directly. The primary goal is to encourage museum practitioners to allow visitors to touch the museum object directly. We don’t want to offer too many abstractions from this preferred interaction. One participant recommended that museum practitioners can select museum objects from unidentified locations or if multiple versions already exist.

The direct implementations in response to these takeaways are:

1. Separate all the questions so there’s only one question per page. Additionally, rephrase the questions in active voice and remove any instances of “is it feasible?”
2. Before the first question of the decision tree, list some factors that would make a museum object a good candidate for a touch object.
3. Rephrase “No” links to “No or Unsure.” Selecting “unsure” still follows the “no” branch.
4. Include specific considerations for each solution offered on the decision tree.
5. Only include the following solutions: touch the museum object directly, acquire a reproduction of the museum object, 3D print the museum object, or produce a tactile graphic. These main solutions may include supplementary materials such as reproductions that fit in the visitor’s hands, material samples for texture, or simple models that describe important processes related to the usage or creation of the museum object (if that is core to understanding the museum object).

Final Decision Tree Iteration

After two more passes of the decision tree, Syeda arrived at the following decision tree, which will be updated on the TouchTree website: 4-27-23 Final Decision Tree Iteration

These are PDFs of the two intermediary decision trees leading up to the above final version:

• 4-20-23 Decision Tree Iteration A
• 4-20-23 Decision Tree Iteration B

Weekly Update 9: 4/18/23

Syeda conducted her last evaluation this past Wednesday and proceeded to sort through the recordings and transcripts to consolidate and sort feedback. Some areas of feedback include:

• Readability of decision tree questions
• Usability of TouchTree website
• Effectiveness of dictionary page
• Effectiveness and feasibility of proposed outcomes 
• Reliability of decision tree (assessed via participants’ final outcomes for the control artifact)

This upcoming Wednesday, Syeda and Lauren will review the feedback together and develop a game plan for what needs to be updated, both the decision tree and the TouchTree website.

Weekly Update 8: 4/11/23: More Evaluations

This week, Syeda continued to conduct her evaluations. She completed one this past Wednesday and two more on Monday. The final evaluation will take place this upcoming Wednesday.

Next Steps

• Transcribe interviews
• Categorize notes and feedback
• Develop a strategy for refining the TouchTree – both the decision tree logic and the website

Weekly Update 7: 4/4/23: Evaluations Underway

This week, Syeda began conducting her evaluations. She conducted one with a non-museum practitioner on Sunday and another with her first museum practitioner participant on Monday. The hour-long evaluations are recorded via Zoom.

The structure of the evaluation stayed the same. The participant is asked to evaluate two artifacts, one of Syeda’s choosing (or the control variable across all participants), and another of the participant’s choosing. The participant uses the TouchTree twice to evaluate both artifacts, and they are asked to talk about their process out loud as they use the decision tree. Each task is accompanied by a few follow-up questions, and then a final short interview takes place, where the participant reflects on their experience assessing both artifacts.

In addition, Syeda added a dictionary page to the TouchTree website, and key terms within each question links to this page.

Weekly Update 6: 3/28/23: Midterm Presentation

This week, Syeda worked on putting together her midterm presentation video. The presentation includes an overview of the team members, project goals, competitive analysis, status updates, next steps, and questions for the class. 

The midterm presentation is available on the class midterms page. A transcript of the video, presentation slides, and a link to the TouchTree website are listed on the page as well.

Additionally, Syeda finished scheduling her evaluations with five participants, which will take place in April over Zoom. She is currently in the process of having a 3D print made for her control artifact in the evaluation. 

Weekly Update 5: 3/21/23: TouchTree Website & Evaluation Script

3/7/23 Feedback

The following PDF shows Syeda’s iteration of the decision tree made on 3/11, which incorporates feedback from Patricia; this is the iteration that will be used in the April evaluations: 3-11-23 Decision Tree Iteration

The term “model” was changed to “reproduction of the artifact.” In addition, she echoed the need to use a different platform to communicate the decision tree, since a PDF version of the top-down tree is both inaccessible and difficult to read. After discussing possible solutions, Lauren and Syeda decided to create a separate website that translates the logic of the touch object decision tree.

TouchTree Website

Given how difficult it is to read the decision tree as a PDF and on FigJam, Syeda and Lauren decided to translate the tree’s logic onto a separate WordPress website. Syeda created a page for every question on this tree, where every page links to a “yes” or “no” to advance to the next question. Once the branch is completed, a solution page is offered. 

Next steps would include building out a dictionary page of vocabulary within the decision tree, which are mostly the types of recommended touch objects. Lauren proposed linking each touch object to resources for museums to get started on acquiring the necessary materials for their construction.

Users can start using the TouchTree on the WordPress website.

Evaluation Script

Syeda began writing an evaluation script for formal evaluation with the museum expert participants. The general plan is to run an hour long evaluation over Zoom. Participants will be asked to assess three museum artifacts with the touch object decision tree. As they assess each artifact, they will talk through how they’re making their decisions. Afterwards, they will answer a few questions reflecting on their overall experience with using the TouchTree.

Weekly Update 4: 3/7/23: Decision Tree Iterations & New timeline

Lauren and Syeda met for their weekly meeting on 3/1/23 to review Charlotte’s feedback and experience with touch objects. They reviewed an iteration of the decision tree that built off Charlotte’s feedback. Syeda also designed another version with Lauren’s feedback, which mainly consisted of eliminating repeating questions and further simplifying the longest “no” branch, which provides instruction for what to do when 1) a component of the artifact is raised or 3D and 2) the artifact isn’t safe or available to touch. Lastly, Syeda made another version that simplifies the language of each of the steps in the decision tree.

2/28/23 Decision Tree

The following PDF shows Syeda’s iteration of the decision tree made on 2/28, which incorporates feedback from Charlotte: 2-28-23 Decision Tree Iteration

The following changes were made:

• Included note about touching the artifact directly with or without supervision
• Rephrased “spatial information” as “Is it important for the visitor to understand the spatial relationship between elements of the artifact?”
• Included another question in the flow asking “Can other tactile or sensory experiences (e.g touching water, scent, soundscapes) significantly help the visitor understand the meaning of the artifact?” This is a step above producing a visual description only within the hierarchy of touch objects.
• Readjusted the flow for instances when 1) a part of the component is 3D or raised and 2) the visitor cannot touch the artifact:
• Is it feasible for the museum to produce an artist commissioned replica of the artifact?
• Is a model of the artifact commonly found in everyday places, such as a person’s home?
• Is there an existing model that effectively demonstrates the physical structure of the artifact?
  • Yes –> Is this model able to demonstrate core processes or mechanisms inherit to the artifact?
  • No –> Is it feasible to 3D print a model of the artifact?

3/2/23 Decision Tree

The following PDF shows Syeda’s iteration of the decision tree made on 3/2, which incorporates feedback from Lauren: 3-2-23 Decision Tree Iteration

The following changes were made:

• Removed a repeated question: “Are element(s) of the artifact raised on a flat plane?”
• Included reasoning as to why museums should still provide a model of the artifact, even if they’re allowed to touch it (i.e only for instances for when the artifact is too large or too small to hold)
• If the visitor can touch the artifact directly, a new question is asked: “Is the artifact too large or too small for the visitor to touch entirely at the same time?”
  • If the museum answers “yes,” then allow the visitor to touch the artifact and produce a model that the visitor can hold. Account for supervision if necessary.
  • If the museum answers “no,” then simply allow the visitor to touch the artifact. Account for supervision if necessary.
• If the visitor cannot touch the artifact, then the questions and flow were reworked as the following:
  • Is it feasible to commission the artist to create replicas of the artifact?
  • Would a model of the artifact already be found in common places, like the visitor’s home?
  • Is there an existing model that allows the visitor to understand the artifact’s physical structure?
    • Yes –> Are there important scientific or artistic processes to describe in relation to the artifact? Does the model do a job job of representing them?
    • No –> Is it feasible to 3D print a scaleable model of the artifact?
      • Does the spatial relationship between elements of the artifact matter?
      • Can other tactile or sensory experiences (e.g touching water, scent, soundscapes) significantly help the visitor understand the meaning of the artifact?

3/3/23 Decision Tree

The following PDF shows Syeda’s iteration of the decision tree made on 3/3, which incorporates feedback from Lauren: 3-3-23 Decision Tree Iteration

The following changes were made:

• Ran all the questions through the Hemingway App to simplify the language.
• Removed the “2.5D” from “tactile graphic,” so users wouldn’t be confused.
• Changed the language of “tactile and sensory experiences” to just “multisensory experiences”
• Changed the question “Does the spatial relationship between elements of the artifact matter?” to “Is it important for the visitor to understand the layout of the artifact?”

Next Steps

Syeda reached out to Patricia from the Macculloch Hall Historical Museum for additional feedback, similar to the conversation she had with Charlotte from the Intrepid. They’re planning to schedule a call sometime this week.

Additionally, Syeda and Lauren worked out a new timeline for the rest of the semester:

• By midterm
  • One-on-one meetings with museum practitioners to get decision tree ready for formal evaluation
  • Fill out evaluation form template
  • Build narrative of how the iterations have changed thus far
• After midterm
  • Conduct evaluations in April (recruit at least 5 participants)
  • Consolidate findings to create a final iteration of the decision tree

Weekly Update 3: 2/28/23: Decision Tree Iterations: ModTech, Lauren, Charlotte

Feedback from Charlotte at the Intrepid

On Monday 2/27, Syeda visited the Intrepid Museum to learn more about their touch object collection and to evaluate the 2/24 iteration of the touch object decision tree with Charlotte, the museum’s Director of Access Services.

The following PDF shows Syeda’s iteration of the decision tree made on 2/24, after incorporating Lauren’s feedback from 2/22. Please note that the yellow circles represent Charlotte’s feedback: 2/27/23 Charlotte’s Feedback on 2/24 Decision Tree

Some rephrased questions made to the 2/24 iteration of the decision tree were:

• Is the entire artifact or any part of it raised or three-dimensional?
• Regarding safety:
  • Is the artifact inside the museum? AND
  • Can the visitor touch the artifact without potentially damaging it and without hurting themselves?
• Determining whether to produce a 2.5D tactile graphic or visual description:
  • Does the artifact communicate spatial information? OR
  • Does the visitor need more than a visual description to understand the artifact’s core meaning?

Charlotte’s feedback included the following:

• It’s good to start the tree asking about the medium and then assessing how safe it is to engage with directly.
• If it’s okay to touch the artifact directly, we also need to consider if the artifact is something the visitor can touch on their own, or if they can only touch it under supervision. Some things are dangerous for visitors to touch by themselves, but could be safe to touch with a staff member guiding them.
• The question “Does the artifact communicate spatial information on a 2D plane?” is unclear. In this scenario, we’re considering raised content on a flat canvas.
• A 3D print isn’t necessarily better than a purchased model, because a detailed model may already be available to purchase or acquire. 
• 3D printed touch objects may be helpful for:
  • Whenever effective models are very difficult to come by
  • Constructing unique pieces that require mechanical motion
  • There is in-house 3D print support (or finances to support 3D printing)
• Tactile graphics are more complicated and costly to make than acquiring 3D printed touch objects or models. So, tactile graphics should be reserved for entirely flat artifacts or flat artifacts with some raised or 3D components.
• It’d be good to include a separate question for including an additional sensory experience like soundscapes and smell.

The touch object collection at the Intrepid provided many important insights to incorporate as well:

• It’s good to have multiple touch object options, because a single touch object might not address all needs. For example, a purchased hard model of a space shuttle is good for demonstrating the single artifact, while a soft plushy model with detachable rockets is helpful for explaining the process of how space shuttles leave Earth. In both cases, models are more helpful and feasible to museums than 3D printing. 
• When it comes to explaining a process, which is more common in science museums, having a lo-fi model is still helpful. For example, the Intrepid has hard models of aircrafts, as well as simple battery-powered fans with soft propellers to explain how the propellers move. This lo-fi model is also safer to touch than real propellers.
• If the artifact is safe to touch but too big or too small to effectively discern, models should still be made available.

2/24/23 Decision Tree Iteration

After compiling feedback notes from ModTech, Syeda created another iteration of the touch object decision tree for Lauren to review during their weekly meeting.

The following PDF shows Syeda’s iteration of the decision tree made on 2/21, after incorporating ModTech’s feedback. Please note that the green circles are Lauren’s feedback made on 2/22: 2/22/23 Lauren’s Feedback for 2/21 Decision Tree

The changes suggested by ModTech that were incorporated included the following:

• The first question was changed from asking about safety to asking “Is any part of the artifact 3D or protruding from a canvas?”
• The subsequent yes/no branches repeat the same questions regarding safety:
  • Is the artifact inside the museum?
  • Can the visitor touch the artifact without ruining it and without hurting themselves?
• To better capture the nuance of the artifact’s main idea, a question was rephrased as “Could the visitor understand the artifact’s core interpretation and context from description alone?”
• All the blue sticky notes denoting solutions include a visual description as a requirement.

Some key notes to remember are:

• If the user says “no” to “Is any part of the artifact 3D or protruding from a canvas?”, then the entire artifact is assumed to be completely flat, such as a photograph.
• If the user says “no” to “Are there multiple complex-shaped 3D elements within a mostly flat canvas?”, then the entire artifact is assumed to be 3D with no mixed dimensionality, such as a sculpture.

Lauren’s feedback includes the following:

• “Is any part of the artifact 3D or protruding from a canvas?” – the language needs to be simpler.
  • If the user answers “no” to the first question, then we don’t need to ask if the artifact is inside the museum and safe to touch, because touching a flat artifact wouldn’t be helpful anyway. The branch could then skip directly to making a tactile graphic or producing a visual description.
• “Could the visitor understand the artifact’s core interpretations and context from description alone?” – the language needs to be simpler.

2/21/23 Feedback from ModTech

During class on Tuesday 2/21, Syeda had the opportunity to meet with ModTech, the student group dedicated to creating touch objects for the Grey Museum at NYU. They reviewed some of the artwork that ModTech chose to focus on for their first round of touch object designs. Additionally, Syeda tested her latest iteration of the touch object decision tree created on 2/20.

The following PDF shows the iteration of the touch object decision tree used to test with ModTech; please note that the orange circles are specific notes from ModTech: 2/23/23 ModTech Feedback Decision Tree

ModTech’s feedback included the following:

• “Is the artifact available or safe to touch?” – the term “safe” is unclear or ambiguous.
• In theory, if we first ask if the artifact is available or safe, the subsequent yes/no branches can each ask what the medium of the artifact is (2D versus 3D). However, this would create a lot of redundancy in the branches, so the first question may need to ask medium first.
• “Is the artifact 3D?” – the term 3D is unclear; does the entire artifact need to be 3D to qualify, or any part of it at the very least? Additionally, 3D is an unclear characteristic for artifacts with mixed flat and raised elements. More broadly, how do we deal with objects with 2D and 3D elements?
• A question that came up was in what cases would it be appropriate to include an additional sensory experience, such as a soundscape or scent? ModTech says it depends on the context of the artifact, provided by the museum practitioner. The sensory engagement would have to be important towards understanding the main idea of the artifact. 
  • Relatedly, it may not be necessary to include an additional sensory experience if a 3D touch object is chosen. 
• Another question that came up was whether or not it’d be worth having a 2.5D tactile graphic for a 3D artifact. ModTech said that it would ultimately depend on how complex the artifact is, but they don’t anticipate needing to create a tactile graphic for a completely 3D artifact, such as a sculpture.
• “Could the visitor understand core interpretations from description alone?” – one member suggested adding to this question, if the artifact could benefit from a visual description AND tactile graphic.
• It should be clear that a visual description ought to be provided under all circumstances.

Weekly Update 2: 2/21/23 (Competitive Analysis)

2/20/23 Decision Tree Iteration

Lauren and Syeda met over Zoom to design another iteration of the decision tree. This version is a combination of decisions that returns to Lauren’s original Miro draft, as well as Syeda’s draft from the week prior. 

The following PDF shows the latest iteration of the touch object decision tree; please note that the green circles placed on the bottom corners of some sticky notes are evaluation questions: 2/20/23 Top-Down Decision Tree Iteration.

2/15/23 Meeting

Lauren and Syeda had their second meeting on 2/15/23. They reviewed several materials that Lauren provided to become familiar with touch objects being produced in museums. These materials include:

• “Understanding Accessible Interpretation Through Touch Object Practices in Museums” by Lauren Race, Saarah D’Souza, Rosanna Flouty, Tom Igoe, and Amy Hurst – a scientific paper that details evaluations of touch objects and their production methods in prominent USA museums and the insights and preferences that blind and low vision (BLV) advocates have of these objects
• A Miro board of Lauren’s previous iteration of the touch object decision tree
• Braille Authority’s tactile graphics decision tree
• Tactile Graphics Organization’s tactile graphics decision tree

Lauren and Syeda discussed some key questions that came out of the paper and decision tree iteration:

Question	Response
Do BLV visitors prefer touching the real artifact with gloves or touching a 3D replica/model without gloves?	People want to touch the real artifact without gloves, if possible. Touching the real artifact takes precedent over a 3D replica. This would be a good question to include in the evaluation.
Are there ethical concerns about commissioning artists to create replicas of artifacts that the original artist cannot give consent to recreating? Or is the artifact considered public domain at some point?	Typically, a museum would commission an artist to create one original artifact. The museum practitioner would then ask the artist to create 2-3 versions, so there are models that BLV visitors can touch. We don’t commission a replica of something that’s super famous or generally renowned, like the Mona Lisa. Old artifacts that are commonly reproducible, such as a candelabra, can be reproduced. It would be good to research policies at reproduction warehouses to see what they allow or don’t allow. The decision tree should include routes for addressing ethical concerns.
Which types of touch objects should the decision tree recommend?	From top to bottom preferences, the hierarchy should be: touch the original, commission an artist’s replica, 3D printed models, purchased models, and visual descriptions. If a touch object shouldn’t be produced, then the artifact must always have a visual description. Never make a hand crafted replica. Found materials are fine under very specific circumstances. For example, include found materials if it’s critical to touch it to understand the artifact, which could be the case with costumes and patterns, for example.

2/15/23 Decision Tree Iteration

Syeda designed another iteration of the decision tree that builds from Lauren’s version. The most significant difference is that the starting point of Syeda’s decision tree first asks if the original artifact is 3D or 2D. If the artifact is considered 3D, then the museum practitioner should assess if it’s available in the museum and safe to touch, prior to entering the mini flows that narrow down what type of touch object to produce (if any).

The following PDF shows Syeda’s first iteration of the touch object decision tree: 2/15/23 Touch Object Decision Tree Iteration

Given how thorough this current iteration is, a point that quickly came up was that museum practitioners wouldn’t realistically have time to follow this complicated tree for every single artifact. The decision tree should be easy to read and it should help the practitioner eliminate a type of touch object that clearly isn’t compatible with the core interpretation of the artifact. To tackle these complicated flows, Lauren and Syeda plan to have a separate session to design simpler versions that group together relevant conditional questions, similar to the bullet points in the Tactile Graphics Organization’s decision tree.

Additionally, Syeda plans to conduct a pilot study with some teams from the Spring 2023 Museum Accessibility course, as some are in the process of designing and evaluating touch objects for their respective museums. After incorporating their early feedback and revising interview questions, she plans to evaluate the decision tree with BLV advocates.

Competitive Analysis

Given the lack of touch object decision trees in literature, Lauren and I believe it’d be difficult to create a proper competitive analysis. Instead, Syeda opted to bullet point the pros and cons of the two prominent tactile graphics decision trees available, as well as the types of touch objects they chose to include in their version of the touch object decision tree. 

	Pros	Cons
Braille Authority’s tactile graphics decision tree	Better consolidation of decisions with multiple questions’ arrows pointing to a single ‘do not produce graphic’ rather than repeating the decision an excessive amount of times Simple flow Asks specific questions one at a time, so it doesn’t feel too overwhelming to read	Only applies to 2.5D tactile graphics, not 3D touch objects Often says ‘do not produce’ graphic, but doesn’t encourage a visual description at the very least At first glance, there seems to be more opportunity to not produce a graphic Unsure why a tactile graphic would require the reader to use visual discrimination or visual perception if the intention is for the graphic to be touch based Grouping together ‘unavailable, too small, too large, or too dangerous’ isn’t very helpful for identifying what type of touch object to create (there are multiple options beyond tactile graphics)
Tactile Graphics’ decision tree	Simple flow Bullet points are grouped appropriately to arrive at a decision The decisions are easily read when output on the right side	Only applies to 2.5D tactile graphics, not 3D touch objects Often says ‘do not produce’ graphic, but doesn’t encourage a visual description at the very least Unclear if ‘yes’ or ‘no’ applies to all bullet points or only a majority of bullet points The final options for ‘which production method will be used’ gloss over all the techniques and treat them equally
Method: touching the original artifact	The best option Visitor gets to interact with real history and feel the original contours of the artifact	This most likely isn’t an option, because artifacts may deteriorate or be harmful for the visitor to touch Visitors may have option to touch the artifact wearing gloves, but it takes away from intention of directly touching and engaging with artifact
Method: touching an artist commissioned replica of the artifact	The second best option No fear of damaging the original artifact  Still feels like the original artifact, especially when commissioned by the original artist	May be expensive  Works more for new works of art being commissioned; can’t create a replica of old works of art that are renowned (e.g Mona Lisa)
Method: produce a 3D printed model of the original artifact	Best option for 3D artifacts if touching the original or replica isn’t possible Capable of scaling a 3D print to fit the visitor’s hands, if the original artifact is too large or too small to touch Can always reprint if the original 3D print design file is properly saved	May be expensive The material of the 3D print would likely all feel the same or very similar, so tactile discernibility is low Works better for objects with hard surfaces, rather than textures that are soft or feathery, for example
Method: product a 2.5D tactile graphic of the original artifact	Best option for flat or 2D artifacts if touching the original or replica isn’t possible Capable of scaling a 2.5D print to fit the visitor’s hands, if the original artifact is too large or too small to touch Can always reprint if the original 2.5D print design file is properly saved	Not very effective for 3D artifacts May not be the best option for specific 2D artifacts, such as paintings with mixed textures
Method: purchase a model of the original artifact	May be cheaper and easier to manage than custom printing Can purchased scaled version if the original artifact is too large or too small to touch Can always repurchase if old model begins deteriorating from repeated use	Doesn’t make sense to offer a purchased model if that artifact is available at home Purchased models tend to be made at the same manufacturing companies, so they may all have the same texture
Method: produce a visual description of the original artifact	Can be done for all artifacts, featured both in person and online Can share information about historical context and core interpretations May be more effective than tactile graphics that rely on visual discrimination or visual perception	Just isn’t the same experience as touching an artifact or its replica Visual descriptions may not effectively convey information about the tactile complexity of the original artifact

Weekly Update 1: 2/14/23 (Goals)

Team Name: TouchTree

The team name for this project is TouchTree. This was inspired by the longer version of the team name that Lauren was previously using: Touch Object Decision Tree. With “TouchTree,” the idea is that the decision flow chart is a tree with multiple branches, with the objective of determining when and which type of touch object to design for any given museum artifact. The two ideas Syeda originally had in mind were TouchTree and RootTouch. She sent both options to Lauren, and the two ultimately decided on TouchTree.

Main Point of Contact

Syeda will be the main point of contact for scheduling meetings and managing emails. Syeda and Lauren plan to meet weekly, and the two have an asynchronous channel to communicate updates outside of that meeting time.

Team Member Responsibilities

Syeda will be the lead for the team project. Some of her core responsibilities will include:

• Researching about types of museum touch objects and decision trees
• Connecting with museum practitioners to interact with touch objects in person
• Iterating on versions of the touch object decision tree
• Reaching out to museum practitioners and BLV advocates to conduct evaluations of the touch object decision tree
• Leading at least one user evaluation session
• Collaborating on final presentation of the touch object decision tree

Syeda will keep Lauren updated on her weekly progress, and Lauren will provide input and guidance along the way.

Regular Meetings 

Lauren and Syeda will meet regularly on Wednesdays at 1:00pm – 1:40pm via Zoom.

Project Description

This project is a continuation of the research led by Lauren Race on touch objects in museums. Touch objects refer to tactile representations of museum artifacts that visitors may touch directly. The goal of this project is to design a decision tree so that museum practitioners have a standardized flow for 1) when to create a touch object and 2) what type of touch object to create for any given museum artifact. In doing so, museum practitioners will be able to allocate the right amount of time and resources to create touch objects that blind and low vision visitors will find engaging, with the goal of improving their museum experience.

Tools and Expertise

Syeda has a good baseline understanding of designing experiments and writing scientific papers, having majored in psychology two years ago in undergrad. She is also currently studying user experience and product design with her masters degree program at NYU, so she is familiar with the iterative design process. Additionally, she took the Developing Assistive Technology course offered at NYU Tandon in Fall 2022, so she is experienced in designing with community partners. 

Syeda anticipates having to revisit digital fabrication techniques, so she can make informed decisions about changes being made to the touch object decision tree. She also lacks hands-on engagement with touch objects, so she plans to visit some museums in New York City to gain exposure (so long as her visit doesn’t take away resources from BLV visitors, who are the primary users of these touch objects). Lastly, she will heavily rely on input from museum practitioners and BLV advocates as she iterates on the touch object decision tree, as they have much more expertise on the practicality and user needs of touch objects.

Project Timeline*

Due Date	Assignment
2/9	First meeting, establishing project details and goals
2/15	Solidify hypothesis
2/22	Competitive research, work on revising/adding to decision tree
3/1	Draft of introduction and methods, work on revising/adding to decision tree
3/8	Develop interview questions for evaluation, finalize current iteration of decision tree
3/15	[Spring break] Interview Cheryl for evaluation, summarize findings
3/22	Iterate on decision tree, find additional interviewees (museum practitioners and BLV advocates), revise interview questions if needed
3/23 – 4/5	Conduct evaluation interviews, summarize findings
3/28	Midterm presentation video due
4/12	Draft of results and discussion, incorporate adjustments to decision tree
4/18	Write up conclusion and revise full paper, finalize adjustments to decision tree, draft of final visualization of touch object decision tree
4/25	First draft of final video presentation due, final visualization of touch object decision tree
5/2	Final video presentation due & final website due

*The timeline is subject to change as the semester progresses

First Meeting Updates

Lauren and Syeda had their first meeting on Thursday, 2/9/23. During this meeting:

• Syeda discussed her goals for the semester, which included:
  • Interacting with touch objects more
  • Building experience evaluating designs with real people
  • Gathering insight into how museum practitioners can help folks interact with moving images
• Lauren provided some reading materials, including a paper she and Amy co-wrote, “Understanding Accessible Interpretation Through Touch Object Practices in Museums”
• Syeda and Lauren discussed the idea of structuring a paper to explain the evaluation method for assessing the touch object decision tree’s efficacy

Syeda and Lauren are still considering a method for presenting the final iteration of the touch object decision tree. The current draft lives on Miro, which isn’t accessible at this time.

Next Steps

• Formulate a hypothesis for the decision tree evaluation process
• Schedule a visit to the Intrepid Museum to interact with their touch object collection – currently scheduled for 2/27/23
• Re-read “Understanding Accessible Interpretation Through Touch Object Practices in Museums” by Lauren Race, Saarah D’Souza, Rosanna Flouty, Tom Igoe, and Amy Hurst
• Review the current draft of the touch object decision tree