Shannon O. Wilder
New Media Strategist

Faith Peppers
News Editor

Carol Ness
Art Coordinator
University of Georgia

Background

On September 18, 1998, University of Georgia President Michael Adams cut the ribbon to the new College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Activity Center, an alumni and recruiting facility. The following are the perspectives of Shannon O. Wilder, one of the lead designers of the project, and Faith Peppers, coordinator of the projectÆs writing team. Contributions were also made by Carol Ness, the other lead designer. Together, the aim of these perspectives is to analyze the challenges, drawbacks, and benefits of taking on a large multimedia project in-house for the first time.

Shannon O. Wilder:

The Genesis of An Idea

From the outside of the historic Four Towers Building on the east campus of the University of Georgia, Carol Ness and I could tell that it was an agricultural building. As soon as we stepped through the door, the hundreds of chickens who called the building home just reinforced that idea. Our blueprints showed that the row! ! s of birds were occupying the exact location where the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences planned to put a new multimedia exhibit hall to showcase the past, present, and future of the college.

"Well, I guess that settles it," I shouted over the noise of the chicken house; "we are going to need some really loud speakers for these interactives."

As graphic designers employed by the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Science's Education, Communication, and Technology Unit, Carol and I were in the unique position of heading up a major design project for the Department of Development and Alumni Relations, led by Louise Hill. The Activity Center was the dream of countless alumni of the college to build a facility that would serve not only as a meeting place for alumni events but also as a place for recruiting new students. Within this facility, we were asked to design an interactive exhibit hall that would ap! ! peal to the varied generations that visited the Activity Center.

The project was significant for us in several ways. First, it was a project that we had courted and won from an Atlanta exhibit company. It also allowed us to stretch our creative muscles and bring to the ECT unit a high-profile project that would, by the time the year-long production ended, use and expand the talents of almost every member of the unitÆs creative staff.

In-House vs. Out-Source

The decision to produce such a high-profile project in-house was not an easy one. From a design standpoint, the exhibit hall was a monumental task because of the amount of information and people that had to be coordinated in order to produce the exhibits. The drain on employee resources, the long production schedule that precluded any new work, as well as the unexpected aftermath of the project were just a few of the problems the ECT unit faced throughout the year.

The Activity C! ! enter is an exhibit space containing three interactive kiosks about undergraduate academic majors, the College's history, Hall of Fame members, the Ag Alumni Association, as well as current scientific agricultural research. All of it was designed and produced by members of the ECT staff, the Agricultural Engineering staff, and a representative from University Computing and Networking Services (UCNS), who provided technical support for the development of the interactive programs.

The exhibit company originally contracted to design the exhibit hall already had experience working on a similar project at the University of Georgia. The other end of the Four Towers Building currently houses the UGA Visitor Center which features many static exhibits, as well as an interactive touch-screen program about the university. As with the Visitor Center, the Atlanta exhibit company did not bid to produce the interactive programs for the CAES Activity Center. They would build cas! ! ings for them but were not at that time in the multimedia business. The Visitor Center programs were instead produced on campus by University Communications.

Louise Hill, the director of development and alumni relations, started work with the company as soon as the blueprints for the CAES Activity Center were close to being finalized. However, after seeing an exhibit that Carol and I had designed for an interactive children's museum in Augusta, Georgia, the year before, she invited us to come to a meeting and evaluate the exhibit company's preliminary designs. Initially, evaluation was all she expected from us, but everyone was surprised at how the meeting turned out.

The Atlanta company's concepts were mediocre at best. The designs were solid and reasoned, but the concepts behind them were weak. It was obvious that the brochures and literature that Louise had given the company for reference had been largely ignoredùexcept for the one on horticulture.! ! The exhibit designer seemed interested only in an urban audience's perceptions of agriculture. Reasoning that most people who walked into the exhibit hall would have the same urban perceptions of agriculture rather than knowledge of the wide range of disciplines in the college, the company had designed a trellis wall that would occupy the middle of the room and serve as a frame for the static exhibits. Louise, Carol, and I all balked at the idea that the symbol of a trellis would represent the entire college. It was obvious that the company did not understand the diversity of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences just from reading a few brochures.

The original idea behind the decision to produce this project in-house came out of that one meeting. In ECT, we called it the X-factor. Essentially, it is the one thing that sets apart an internal communications shop from the one on the outside. That one element is that we were a part of what we we! ! re trying to communicate. The exhibit hall in the Activity Center called for an intimate knowledge of the college and its people, what Carol and I referred to over the next year as knowledge of the "spirit of the college." The idea of the "spirit of the college" was basically the heritage, traditions, and present culture of the college and how these elements combine to give the organization an identity. As in-house employees, we on the ECT staff were by default part of that spirit and strove to maintain a vision during the production process that reflected that intangible element in everything from the texture, to the color, to the symbolism used in the exhibit hall.

Method

Maintaining Tunnel Vision

As the planning for the exhibit hall progressed for the design team, which now was made up of a large number of ECT and other university staff, it became clear that workloads were going to be a major problem in the next year. Carol and I were the lead designers and project managers, while writer Faith Peppers coordinated the other writers on the ECT Public Affairs team for script production. ECT videographers Bob Molleur and John Packwood shot and edited film for Quicktime movies produced for the multimedia programs. Andrew Liles, a member of University Computing and Networking Services, provided invaluable support for the multimedia programs, technology acquisition, and digital sound and Quicktime video compression. All the while, Pat Harrell headed a team in Ag Engineering for kiosk construction.

As work on the exhibit hall overwhelmed all other efforts in the unit, it was also apparent that not everyone in the college apprec! ! iated the importance of the project and the drain on ECT staff time. To other ECT clients, it was as if the unit had lost half its staff. The graphics team in ECT particularly suffered with two out of the three designers in Athens assigned to full-time work on the Activity Center. It was very difficult to explain to clients that projects that used to be routine were impossible to get finished because suddenly the unit did not have the staff to produce them.

All the other team members, as well, were theoretically full-time on the Activity Center, but everyone was still taking on new jobs out of obligation or some feelings of responsibility. Plates were full, but all of the team members were still looking for ways to cram more onto them. This phenomenon was amazing, especially considering that the team was made up of experienced professionals, supposedly aware of what kind of workloads they could handle. However, suddenly, with the advent of a long-term project! ! and the accompanying deadlines spaced out over a year's time, schedules were difficult to manage. About six months into the production schedule, it became clear that everyone was juggling overloaded schedules. ECT unit members who normally had no trouble meeting deadlines were falling short and feeling a sting to their professional pride.

It was not just a problem for clients and for those staff members involved in the project either. The closer the team got to the September 18, 1998, opening, the more grumbling was heard from other ECT staff members not involved with the project. They were suffering as well with overloaded schedules as projects were shifted to their desks, but they were reaping none of the rewards of a high profile project.

Our unit leader, Barry Jones, was supportive of the Activity Center project from the beginning but also recognized that closing the doors to other clients was not possible and very dangerous to the unitÆs future.! ! Once the year ended, the ECT staff could not afford to repair relationships with our other clients who had been neglected in the past year. It was truly a problem, and with six months left to go, it was not getting any better.

Communicating with the Client

In addition, Carol and I were struggling with bigger problems than the workload. As experienced designers in the college, we were familiar with working with clients and communicating with them about projects. This project, however, took on an entirely new dynamic and one that was entirely the result of producing a large multimedia project in-house.

The problem was largely a matter of protocol. If the project had been out-sourced, such as with the original Atlanta company, there would have been a strict schedule of contact between the client and the company that was dictated by the original contractual obligations. However, when all the project members work inside of the organization, l! ! egal contracts do not exist between clients and professionals, although the ECT staff learned that maybe they should.

As the team worked toward critical mass, the amount of contact with Louise Hill's office became a problem for the designers and writers. With so many meetings and issues that Louise understandably wanted to sign off on, Carol and I were having trouble getting any design work done, and Faith Peppers was having trouble keeping the other writers on schedule. Louise needed drawings to take to potential donors, and we tried to be accommodating despite the extra time commitment. On the other side, the Alumni and Development office was increasingly frustrated with the pace of the production. The distinction between project manager and client was becoming blurred as the client wanted to have more control over the creative process. As time went on, the relationship between the two offices was becoming strained.

In hindsight, Carol and I feel t! ! hat the accessibility of the ECT staff members was the main problem. There were no boundaries to the clientÆs relationship with the ECT staff. The Alumni and Development Office did not know what sorts of issues they should or should not have input on because we on the production team failed to set sufficient boundaries from the beginning.

Eventually, though, after much negotiation, the team came to an understanding with Louise HillÆs office regarding communication. It turned out that LouiseÆs unease stemmed from information overload. She wanted to know the essentials but not all the conceptual details. We were giving her too much information that was out of her realm of experience as a director of development and alumni relations, and she and her staff simply did not know how to process it.

Starting the last five months of the project, we met with Louise every two weeks and discussed a set agenda that usually dealt with budget or content accuracy iss! ! ues. This new tactic gave the team much more autonomy to complete the project and allowed Louise to follow the project while narrowing her own responsibilities.

Faith Peppers:

Writing for a New Medium

When the task of writing scripts for the interactive modules was turned over to the writing team, we were charged with giving the exhibits a distinctive voice. We met almost weekly with the designers, Shannon Wilder and Carol Ness, in order to get a feel for the exhibits. Understanding the mood they were trying to create helped us find the right voice for the exhibits. By learning the themes and motifs that they were incorporating visually, we were able to develop themes in the scripts that would be woven throughout the text of the exhibits.

Writing for this multimedia project, however, proved to be a much greater challenge than any of us had envisioned. The initial attitude was we were professional writers, for heavenÆs sake. Of course,! ! we could do this. On the writing staff, we had one research publications editor, one news editor, and one information specialist. Not one of us, though, had ever written for a project of this type and scope, and we did not foresee the challenges that lay before us.

Based on what we learned about the design of the project from Shannon and Carol, we outlined the segments of the text and scripts and divided the work evenly. The primary writing assignments included the screen introductions for each module and narrative scripts to accompany video and text screens.

I was selected as the coordinator for the written parts of the project. It was my responsibility to write one-third of the scripts, collect the contributions of each of the other writers, edit the text, and forward the completed work to Shannon and Carol, the lead designers. Shannon and Carol would then give the scripts to a freelance editor for final editing.

The writers, as a team,! ! faced several challenges. Mid-project, one of the writers assigned to the project left the university for another position. Another writer had to take his place. While I first feared that this change would slow our momentum, I discovered that it actually brought new energy to the project at a critical time.

However, these were among the least of our challenges in comparison to working in such a different medium and for such different goals from those to which we were accustomed. As I began to work on my assignments, I quickly discovered that writing for a multimedia project is different from any other type of writing that I had done. Therefore, I knew I needed to learn more about this particular mode of writing. In my research, I found Timothy GarrandÆs Writing for Multimedia to be an invaluable resource.* It helped walk me through the process of organizing the information so that it flowed effectively for this medium. The greatest challenge for me was remem! ! bering that each screen had to be a separate segment, independent of all other segments. I had to remember that viewers may not take the time to view each screen; therefore, I could not refer to information found on other screens. Other writers on the project reported also having difficulty explaining complicated scientific facts, discoveries, and processes in the matter of two short paragraphs or thirty seconds of script time. As all good reporters do, we were all used to giving background, explanation, and future implications.

One vital error in our planning proved to be not allowing time for all the scripts to be read and re-edited. Many last-minute changes were required just before the professional voice talent were to record the scripts. It was just another function of a multimedia project that we, a group of basically print writers, had not considered.

Another challenge was finding time to fit a project of this magnitude into our routine work sch! ! edules. Even without such a project, most of us keep full plates, and this giant addition forced some very difficult juggling of our time and responsibilities. The opening of the Activity Center came just days after a major college showcase that had also required major time commitments from our writing team. Outsourcing the final editing work was crucial. Fortunately, we knew the freelance editor we hired, and he was already more or less familiar with much of the project, though he had not worked on it. He was able to view the project with a fresh eye and give it a very dynamic twist, also providing consistency of style and voice to the writing of these different writers. He was also instrumental in helping make last-minute scripting changes.

After years in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, I found this project to be one of the most important projects I have ever worked on. It provided the opportunity for our entire staff to be involved! ! in a very high-profile project, to be introduced to a challenging new medium, and to develop an altogether new writing style.

The project also came at a crucial time for our unit and paid many unforeseen dividends. After the recent merger of two communications units within the college, this project gave the writing team a rallying point, a focus on which we could come together and work, and it helped us to develop a sense of camaraderie and teamwork that was needed at this critical time in the unitÆs development.

While the project demanded considerable amounts of my production time for more than eight months, the benefits of the project in my professional development are still surfacing. What I learned in my research for the project and practiced in writing these scripts is helping me in other writing assignments, especially writing projects for our newly-formed Web team.

Perhaps the writing would have been done more efficiently and with fewer ! ! challenges by outside sources; however, the added value this project brought to our writing team in terms of experience, new equipment, and professional development made the challenges and the temporary sacrifice of production on other projects worthwhileùand even invaluable. By helping this exhibit find its voice, we developed much-needed skills and a broader knowledge of our craft.

Results

Shannon O. Wilder

The Nuts and Bolts

One of the greatest benefits of this project was that ECT's position as the in-house shop allowed us almost total control over the design of the exhibit hall. From the moment the unit got the project, Carol Ness and I had a very clear idea of what kind of exhibit area we wanted to create. We and the writers felt that every detail needed to be rooted in some kind of collective perception of not only the college but also agriculture and the environment. We started by doing extensive research into color theory, as well as agricultural history.

CarolÆs and my general practice when starting a new design project has always begun with a trip to do research at the library and to re-visit some favorite pieces of artwork. Another helpful design practice we employ is word association. For this activity, we made a list of words that expressed some essential concepts. In this case, it was words like heritage, earth,! ! roots, harvest, technology, and resources. Then we matched these words with a visual image, whether it was a texture, an object, or a symbol.

While doing these exercises, Carol and I stumbled onto a book about totem poles of the Pacific Northwest. After looking at the totem pole images, our ideas started gelling, and we began generating and refining designs for the kiosks very quickly. The totem pole concept served as a point from which to evolve because of the symbolic nature of totem pole imagery. Every image carved into the wood has some sort of correlation with Native American family history. However, the images have also permeated into the unconscious of most people in the United States. There is an associated meaning or link to an idea or a feeling for most people when they see a carving of an eagle or wolf or any other common Native American symbol. The theory Carol and I were working with was that, despite our digital age, agricultural implements, tex! ! tures, and colors associated with the environment are still viable symbols that generate some kind of innate reaction from a viewer. We were willing to bet that, with the right kind of presentation, the reaction would be a positive one.

For a peaceful, ethereal, as well as industrial look, we used colors like blues, purples, light greens, and textures like aluminum on the two kiosks which explore the present and the future of the college. The kiosk that celebrates the history of the college is housed in aged and tarnished copper. The copper was treated with a chemical called liver of sulphur and has greens, reds, and purple accents in its finish. The hand carved side panels with organic imagery and abstract symbols are juxtaposed against the metal skins of the kiosks and the modern touch-screen and sound systems.

While not in use, the kiosks play music quietly, and many visitors have commented that the hall is like walking through a door to a church o! ! r a peaceful garden that envelops visitors. Walking down the stairs, one immediately sees these colorful and symbolic "totems" and hears the faint sounds of music.

Based on the advice of our technical consultant, Andrew Liles, from University Computing and Networking Services, the team used Apple Media Tool as the authoring software for the multimedia portion of the project. Along with Apple Media Tool for authoring, we wanted computer systems to run the software that were easy, fast, and reliable. We decided on the Apple G3/266 machines, which proved to be a perfect fit. We purchased 17-inch ViewSonic monitors with built-to-order touch-screens using SAW technology installed by a company called National Integration Services. These touch-screens using SAW technology rely on sound waves to determine the point of contact on the screen.

To present the audio, we wanted more than computer speakers that have a tendency to "bleed" audio fr! ! om one kiosk to another. After a visit to the National Science CenterÆs Fort Discovery in Augusta, Georgia, where sound domes called The Localizer are used extensively, we purchased sound domes for each kiosk. The Localizer is produced by Brown Innovations, and each is custom built based on the specs for each kiosk. Carol and I designed the kiosks from the beginning, knowing that these domes were going to be an additional design element. As a way of maintaining the programs, all of the computers are networked by Ethernet into the campus system so that Carol and I, from our offices, can add or subtract elements from the programs.

As for content, the information in the multimedia programs in the kiosks educates viewers about modern agricultural careers. There are Quicktime movies that highlight individuals working in agriculture who help improve our quality of life as well as the quality of the environment. A module called The Scrapbook of Memories recounts and c! ! elebrates the long history of UGAÆs College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and a module called The Science Zone highlights the progressive scientific research of the College. An interactive piece called The College Tour uses road map imagery that shows teaching, research, Extension, academic majors, and selected agricultural careers. Finally, a module called Weaving the Legacy, one of the major themes of the hall, highlights significant individuals in the Hall of Fame and the Eterna Club who have professionally and financially supported the college. We hired professional narrators, despite their cost, to read the audio portions of the interactives and recorded the audio at a sound studio in Atlanta.

Another popular element of the room is a wall that I designed that displays portraits of the College Hall of Fame members. These are people who have made significant professional contributions to Georgia agriculture. This wall was designed to scale in th! ! e program Freehand and then painted by a professional mural painter, an Athens local named Gwen Edwards. All of the lettering is done by hand and painted directly on the wall. The portraits were scanned from photographs and then printed onto canvas using a Hewlett-Packard large format printer that was specifically purchased for the development of this project. All of the other static panels were also printed on the large format printer.

Conclusions

The Aftermath

September 18, 1998, came and the opening of the exhibit hall was a very successful day for the ECT unit and the Alumni and Development Office. However, the professionals on the Activity Center team who emerged from the challenge of the project were different from what they were when they started. After the initial tiredness wore off, we all went back to our offices and tried to pick up where we had left off, but for Carol and me especially, the transition has been a hard one.

A group of people who work together is a dynamic thing that shifts and changes depending on the people involved. Involvement in the Activity Center made everyone work a different way; we all had to serve the nature of multimedia. The writers had to adapt to a totally new style of writing. Predominantly news writers, they were forced to make a major shift in the way they thought about their craft. The scripts for the multimedia programs had to be informative, interes! ! ting, very clear when directions were involved, and short enough for someone to take them in quickly.

The constraints of the medium caused problems for our video production team as well. The videographers involved were adept at producing documentary length educational productions. However, Quicktime video is not meant to be a long video format because of file size constraints, as well as the attention spans of viewers standing at a kiosk. It was a point of contention throughout the entire production process, and we never did achieve exactly what we wanted out of the Quicktime videos. Most of them still need to be edited further because of their length.

Carol and I, as graphic designers, also had to educate ourselves to issues like user interface design, as well as the structure of interactive modules. We had to learn an authoring system during the year, as we went, in order to produce the interactives.

It is important when an in-house project! ! of this scale ends to re-evaluate the professional skills of a staff. For Carol Ness and me, going back to short-term work has been difficult. We miss the stimulation of the demands this project made on us. I saw on ESPN recently a group of young athletes participating in what they call "extreme sports." The participants take more risks with each performance as they try to get an adrenaline rush that surpasses the last. Some of the athletes claim that this adrenaline rush has become an addiction. Because of the technical and intellectual demands, Carol and I found that working on a large multimedia project can be easily compared to that feeling of adrenaline as we were confronted by new challenges, discovered ways to meet the challenges, and watched our project move closer and closer to completion.

For these reasons, most of our team members are no longer satisfied with working within the same parameters that we were before. We now look for projec! ! ts that will push us and challenge us to top the stimulation and quality of our last productùin other words, projects that have an element of the extreme in them.