Go to National Library of Australia Home PageNational Library of Australia Online

SEARCH:

Presentation by Stephen Schwalger, Australasian Interactive Multimedia Association, at the 2nd National Preservation Office Conference: Multimedia Preservation - Capturing the Rainbow, in Brisbane, 28-30 November 1995.

The big questions that I would like to address today are: are libraries and archives dead? Are museums dead? Are books dead? Are other traditional forms of media dying or are they merely being restructured for delivery through a different presentation medium?

Before I try to answer these questions, I would like to talk a little bit about what stage multimedia is at in Australia, the status of multimedia in the rest of the world, and to make some comments on some possible future directions.

Multimedia is a term that is now being overused. People in the multimedia business are really in the field of Interactive Digital Communications (IDC). This field is much broader than purely multimedia and covers the areas of convergence and reusage and distribution of content, telecommunications infrastructure, art and culture. Once we begin to replace multimedia with IDC we see the broader picture which should be addressed in this forum.

A quick look back: I would like to start by focusing on the art of communication and the introduction of technology in a historical sense.

In the dawn of time our ancestors started to communicate with gestures and grunts. I'm not sure which came first; whether it was grunts or gestures but it was a start. Later they began to use paintings and language. Personally, I think rock painting is probably one of the best archive performers in the world. It has been around for tens of thousands of years and is still much admired. If you asked Kodak whether a gold CD was going to last that long, they probably could not answer you; the plastic may survive but will the content and anyway what would you use it on ?

The introduction or development of spoken language was of course a huge step forward but as it does not include a physical medium for delivery I will not dwell on this. The advent of being able to communicate through writing on different forms of media, such as clay palettes, wax-type palettes, papyrus etc. was the next leap and this really changed the world. You could then physically pass on information to someone else who could take an accurate copy away to another location and store or redistribute it again. Although the art of writing or communication using written texts became more prevalent it was still very limited because of the limited number of people who could either read or write and few cared anyway because it was very expensive and time consuming to produce a single copy at a time.

The big revolution for the masses came along with the invention of the printing press (Gutenburg) which really changed the situation and the opportunities for the broader community. High volume production at a low (relative to hand production) cost dramatically changed the traditional supply and demand equation. Over the next 400 years the costs kept coming down and supply was offset by an increase in the literacy rate which created today's demand.

Since then we have had Alexander Graham Bell's invention, the telephone, which was originally going to be used, I am told, for distributing music. Nobody believed at the time that people would use it to talk to each other. Radio, films and TV followed quickly. Finally came the computer and then the Internet, the tools that we are addressing today. Over the last 100 years we have seen more change in the diversity of communications technologies and methodologies than in the whole history of man.

Most of these technologies or communications, if you like, started off with a very similar process of development. The original tribe (substitute country, or company) that invented a language or new communications technology had a very powerful tool. The language of each of these developments was difficult to learn. It wasn't something you were born with; you had to learn it and this was a long process. All new languages and communications technologies had to be learnt and still do.

Some of the old communication techniques were interactive. Speaking, listening, gestures and talking are very interactive. Some of them, like TV and radio broadcast, were more passive and are really one-way media. If you were going to communicate, you had to learn the skills that were involved. In the early days, you also had limited access to these media. They were controlled by a few and, of course, the controllers wanted to maintain the models that kept them in control and therefore in power.

The Internet arrives:

One of the key differences between the pattern of development of the Internet and other media's is based on the fact that there is not one small group in control and parallel development is being carried out by millions of users. Interestingly, the user is also able to be a contributor. Creators are also publishers and individuals are linked to millions of other individuals across the world at one time. It is estimated that there are over five million computer hosts hooked into the Internet around the world. That is not five million computer users: that is five million hosts. Each of these hosts may have any number of users: one, two, 50, 100, 500 or 6000 people linked to them. Surveys confirm that there are already between 30-60 million users of the Internet.

The Internet is not owned by one company or person but I suppose it is still controlled by one tribe: the 'Techno literate'. This is almost an anarchic way of communicating, and it is something that is quite different from previous forms of communication.

The who and how of communication using the Internet is also different from previous communication methodologies. It is not merely one-to-one as in conversation, writing a letter or having a telephone conversation: it's not a predefined schedule of broadcast or publications-the from one-to-many model; but it's a combination of one-to-one and one-to-many, many-to-one and many-to-many. In short, it's a new combination of possibilities.

The Internet even uses a different way of physically sending material/communications. With a telephone, you dial a particular number and you are directly connected with a particular person. With the Internet, you put a message into your computer with an address on it, you dial up your Internet connection service provider and the message is sent to your server. The message is then broken down into bite size packets and these packets travel around, sometimes by a very circuitous route, until they get to the end user's address where all the packets are reunited to recreate the message.

This is a fundamental change in philosophy of delivery. It may not be the right philosophy to use because, of course, it has got difficulties with protection and security, but it is a fundamental change. So we now have a change in both the methodology of the communication and in the delivery technique.

Problems today:

How many of you have been on the Net? Almost everybody. How many of you found it absolutely user friendly? Great. How many of you enjoyed the sign up deal with the user or supplier that you got? How many of you have been silly enough to sit there and wait for a quarter screen video to come down over the line? There are always a couple.

The Internet is not yet a perfect solution for delivering our multimedia content or archived material. At the moment you can sell the Internet as a great strategy, a great idea. As a business model or communications model, however, it has some limitations. The primary limitations are speed of access, volume of information delivery, security and privacy and some say the lack of compelling content. It is also a very difficult place to navigate around if you are looking for one particular piece of information. I use the analogy of a beach: it is all right if you want sand, but if you are looking for one particular piece of sand, it could be a very long day. These are all primarily technology issues and will be solved or addressed in a relatively short time frame.

What it does deliver though is access to a global marketplace, millions of people and by the turn of the century this could be up to a billion people. In short it offers you direct contact with people who may or may not want to use your products and services. For people in the information industry such as libraries, cultural institutions and museums this is an amazing opportunity or a serious threat.

Why Is Multimedia a battleground?:

Why is this new technology different from the others and why does it have such potential? The answer is that it is the byproduct of convergence. We are seeing the integration of a number of very powerful and successful industries which has become known as convergence: information technology (software and computer systems), entertainment and publishing and services (film, TV, music, books, education, etc.) and telecommunications. This convergence process has created a power struggle that is being played at in board rooms and on the global stage. There are some extremely powerful organisations and industry sectors around the world who believe that their historical dominance of the traditional medium or technology will make them the leaders in the new technologies of the future. It is becoming a war. In some cases there are amalgamations of companies, such as the Disney marriage with CNN, Fox and Telstra; in fact there are daily marriages and divorces between companies who are desperate to dominate the new markets. All of them are positioning themselves for control of the new way we deliver data and communicate. For industry observers it looks more and more like an episode of 'Melrose place' as you are never too sure about who will be in bed with whom next.

A good example of the challenges of convergence and its impact can be seen in the area of legal contracts. If you do a deal with a book publisher in a multimedia business, the contract will look decidedly like a book publishing contract. If, however, you go to LA and do a multimedia contract or you want to make a product with a film company, all of a sudden the contract will look decidedly like a film contract. If, however, you work with a software company, it will look like a software contract. The stakes are high and the winners are playing for keeps.

There is also a small group of independent-type people who are trying to say, 'We'd like to see a change in the model'. We are a new tribe and we are the ones who have pioneered these technologies and we intend to develop our own models for the future.

No one has yet been declared the winner in this tussle for control of the future, but the battle is becoming more and more intense and the casualties are mounting.

Interactive Multimedia is different from the past:

One of the key deciders in this battle for supremacy is a little thing called 'interactivity'. It is this component that truly differentiates the new medium from the old and defines its future development. Unfortunately, most people who are new to the business believe interactivity is about navigating your mouse around the screen, clicking on buttons and thereby changing the screen. This is not interactivity-all that this has done is take me to the next screen, which is really like turning the page of a book or fast forwarding the video. Interactivity is different from this simplistic approach. An example of interactivity is when you are in a 3-D environment and you are faced with a puzzle to solve before you can move on, or when you are placed in a position where you are forced to use your mental ability to interact with the program. Multimedia is a different medium and it requires a different writing format and philosophy. Multimedia is not simply putting together video, sound and live action. It can be as simple as this but one of the best way of delivering that type of information is by film. When you add interactivity and user controls (navigation) it is a new genre, a new product and a new and different experience; it is what we call 'interactive multimedia'. This is the difference between using the medium for the storage and retrieval of data and the creation of a new experience that enhances your understanding or enjoyment of the content.

The Roles of Libraries and Museums in this new world

The cultural institutions, particularly libraries and museums, have a key role to play in the use and distribution of these new technologies. They not only have the historically key role of storing, cataloguing and distributing (through access) information to the broad community. More importantly, they may well be in the best position to add vital contextual and knowledge-based relevance to this information.

There are a number of threats and opportunities for cultural institutions and libraries in particular. The institutions can either take their traditional model of operation and say, 'This is what we've always done. We will just continue to do what we did before but now we'll also use all these new compression algorithms'. In short, they will simply store information on a piece of plastic, catalogue it and let people access that information at a library or on a system. This approach forces institutions to address their physical role and recreate that in a digital medium.

A more effective strategy may be to reassess what their real role is. The question for them is: what is your core business? From my perspective, the core business of libraries and museums is the cultural value-added services that are delivered. This changes the focus of operation from more than just a physical storage and presentation facility to an integrated value-added service provider. I see a major opportunity for libraries and museums to reinvent themselves using these new technologies.

Let me give you a simple example of the opportunities that are now presenting themselves in Australia. Over the next five or six years there is absolutely no possibility that rural Australia will get home access to broad band fibre optic networks. It has nothing to do with whether Telstra or the carriers want to do it or whether the Government forces them to do it. It is a physical and financial impossibility for distance and cost reasons. However, getting a fibre optic cable to a library, museum or cultural centre in many of these rural areas is quite possible.

For most of these communities the access at libraries and cultural centres will be the primary access point for people who wish to use the new broadband services, in short they will become the main community links to the global network. Libraries and museums will see a growth in their physical usage if this happens and will require people within their organisations to be at the cutting edge of understanding how to access information, where the valuable sites are, what will be the future uses of these technologies. In fact this is a reinvention of the types of early services that were provided by libraries. They may also play a key role in educating new users and searching for information that is of relevance to individuals and the community in general.

Libraries may well start being service providers who correlate and search for information available on the Internet. They may also develop information storage and retrieval systems that are used by the corporate sector. The opportunities are very large in this area.

There is going to be so much information on the Internet very soon that finding out whether it is relevant and factual is also going to be extremely important. Libraries and cultural institutions may well become leaders in data validation.

The digitisation and cataloguing of unique factual material is going to be a core role of libraries and museums-the word 'unique' being the key to success in this area. I say this because none of you, I believe, can afford to digitise all of our collections. Who needs 10 collections of the same work? The new process is not like storing physical items: you are storing a digital copy only and that can be distributed to as many people as need it or are legally allowed to use it.

This brings up a major area of contention and competition for all institutions. How are we going to actually get over the politics of saying, 'Well, we've got a copy and this book (or film or photo etc.), it is as good as yours-we want to digitise ours and you of course, want to digitise yours'? If libraries and cultural institutions are going to survive and prosper they will have to act collaboratively or they will not be able to compete. The waste of resources will quickly bury non collaborative institutions. These types of issues are going to be real hurdles for libraries and cultural institutions. To prosper you must consider the technology to be merely a tool which will be of benefit if it is used wisely. Libraries and other institutions should use these tools to deliver what are their real core services.

I think museums and galleries are also under threat. But this threat once again should be seen as an opportunity. Have any of you seen Virtual Reality yet? At the moment it is fairly games-oriented. The model behind the ability to deliver a virtual environment will have a great impact upon museums, art galleries and other cultural institutions. How many of you are in the process of making a museum CD-ROM? There are probably four or five here. World-wide, there is a huge number of museums and art galleries making multimedia CD-ROMs of their particular materials. I would suggest to you that nine out of 10 of them will be a virtual walk around their gallery, have limited appeal and probably cost a fortune to make.

This approach is not really using the technology, or more importantly, not using it strategically to enhance our current services. If you extrapolate the use of these technologies a bit further and say, 'In five years I will be able to use a full virtual environment', one could also say, 'If we want to show people the Rome gardens, let's recreate Rome at 200 BC'. If you recreate these types of environments and use the interactive environment as a metaphor to deliver compelling experiences then your products may well be successful. You could also look at using this technology to display some of the materials that are stored away in your institutions-particularly those items that are too expensive to mount through physical displays. Currently, people are just saying, 'Well, I already have a museum; people like our museum so let's recreate it on CD-ROM or the Internet'. If everyone continues to do this then there is going to be a glut of boring museum and art gallery CD-ROMs or WWW sites.

A more creative and contextual approach-using intellectual resources (people) to value add to what has been done in the past-may be the best model for cultural institutions.

One could bring together a whole range of Australian paintings from various galleries and other sources to create a retrospective of a particular artist or a particular period of time. One could add a range of other cultural issues that were relevant at that time and influenced the artist to obtain a product that had added value.

It is these types of strategies that institutions should adopt and explore. To take the easy option at this early stage may be a very expensive process with no guarantee of return.

In the meantime I would be looking at the unique material I owned, deciding whether I should be digitising it, what I should be doing with it and how I was going to catalogue it. These are the solvable issues for the short-term. The longer term issues of how to deliver it effectively will be solved by the time you have developed an effective strategy. Experiment in a small way with various activities and research what other groups are doing around the world. One issue must be paramount and that is 'Why am I doing this and how does it fit with my long term strategic objectives?'. The second question would be, 'Who can I collaborate with?' and the third would be 'what will happen if we do not get involved with this new technology?".

Collaboration equals success on the digital frontier. As you are aware, the doctrine of competition is now well and truly entrenched in the Australian ethos. Competition is good for us because it makes us lean and productive. This may well be true for the commercial sector, particularly if everybody starts on a even playing field and profit is your driving mantra. The task you have is not just about profit but is based on a range of objectives such as the dissemination of information to the public and the preservation of cultural material for future generations. These are long-term activities which are much more important than what you're going to get as a short term return on the development of a CD-ROM. This means that society is putting a heavy burden on cultural institutions. I would hope that you'll be looking at the long-term solutions which give access to as many people as possible and in a usable form. To achieve this requires a long-term collaborative strategy that will require input, advice and expertise from a wide range of people throughout the community.

To develop these strategies and programs in isolation may well be foolhardy and prohibitively expensive.

Conclusion

Are libraries, museums and cultural institutions dead? The answer is 'no'. They do however face huge challenges to their current operations which may require them to undertake an analysis of what they do and how they can use new technologies to do this better in the future. In fact, I think this is a great period of opportunity for cultural institutions, if they can capitalise on their intellectual property and content through developing new ways of engaging their constituents. The solution for the future may well be based on how effective they are at becoming successful 'interactive digital communicators'.

In closing, we must continue to build on Australia's unique creativity, history, language, art and expression as we move into the digital millennium of the 21st Century. If we do not, then we may well be run over by a superhighway with a foreign accent and a cultural viewpoint that is not of our choosing. As custodians of Australia's stored identity you have a vital role to play in creating the digital Australia of the future.


Return to 1995 NPO Conference
Last updated 27 February 1998