=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1734/fmt-proceedings-2016-paper9
|storemode=property
|title=A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1734/fmt-proceedings-2016-paper9.pdf
|volume=Vol-1734
|authors=Florian Windhager,Paolo Federico,Eva Mayr,Günther Schreder,Michael Smuc
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/fmt/WindhagerFMSS16
}}
==A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1734/fmt-proceedings-2016-paper9.pdf
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces
to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
Florian Windhager Paolo Federico Eva Mayr
Danube University Krems University of Technology Danube University Krems
Krems, Austria Vienna, Austria Krems, Austria
florian.windhager@donau-uni.ac.at federico@ifs.tuwien.ac.at eva.mayr@donau-uni.ac.at
Günther Schreder Michael Smuc
Danube University Krems Danube University Krems
Krems, Austria Krems, Austria
guenther.schreder@donau-uni.ac.at michael.smuc@donau-uni.ac.at
http://www.europeana.eu, http://trove.nla.gov.au/, or
http://dp.la/) have emerged, which aggregate cultural
Abstract heritage objects across institutions, domains, and
countries, and make the web the largest museum ever
After decades of digitization, the web hosts a around. Yet the situation is known to be rather bleak,
large scale museum, consisting of millions of when it comes to actually accessing the collected riches
digital cultural objects. To balance the – not only, but especially for non-expert users, who
drawbacks of parsimonious search-centric often have no idea what to expect in the digital
interfaces, various approaches have been collection. The rampant problems with the widely
developed to enable also visual access to these dominant search box approach to cultural object
collections, and to browse and explore the collections have been thoroughly exposed and
cultural richness of existing archives. This discussed [BOP82, DCW11, THC12, Whi15].
paper reviews information visualization Whitelaw retells the typical search-based visit to online
approaches to digital cultural heritage collections as a bizarre purchase order situation, where
collections, reflects on prominent arrangement the widely dominant information retrieval paradigm
principles and design choices for digital over-successfully reduces data complexity (which in
collection interfaces, and points out options the CH context is often appreciated as its own reward),
for future research. thus throwing the baby out with the bath water. Rather
than throwing the collection doors open and offering
1. Introduction multiple ways of access, visitors have to enter a drab
(search box) lobby, which asks them “yes, what?” –
From things making them smart (like tools, and urges them to come up with demands towards the
achievements, or information artifacts), to things lifting unknown [Whi15].
them up (art and entertainment) – cultures collect In contrast, more generous interfaces open up the
things. To share and preserve them for future digital archives’ walls, tear down the drab lobbies, and
generations, populations draw artful or useful objects offer multiple ways in, where they foster free-roaming,
(like texts, images, material objects, concepts, music, browsing and exploring, and support rich,
or films) together. These cultural heritage (CH) serendipitous discoveries [DCW11]. We build on the
collections (libraries, galleries, museums, archives) multiply proven assumption, that information
contain notable works and objects – as well as visualization (InfoVis) methods and techniques can
associated knowledge and data. strongly support such generous approaches. Yet
With developing media technologies and according to our best knowledge, no systematic
collaborations, large digital meta collections (e.g. collection of InfoVis approaches to CH collections has
been undertaken until now. To close this gap, we
Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted only for
private and academic purposes.
review related work and outline a possible
classification of InfoVis approaches and interfaces for
In: W. Aigner, G. Schmiedl, K. Blumenstein, M. Zeppelzauer (eds.): digital CH collections, which aims to consolidate the
Proceedings of the 9th Forum Media Technology 2016, St. Pölten,
Austria, 24-11-2016, published at http://ceur-ws.org
growing research field and to inform future projects.
74
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
Figure 1: Common cultural object types (left) and common dimensions of object metadata (right).
2 Design Patterns for Interfaces to Digital should not be underestimated as a major factor for the
overall success of any arts and culture mediation
Object Collections initiative.1 We focus on the question how to visualize
If museums, libraries, or archives are the original collection overviews and assemble relevant design
three-dimensional display spaces for cultural object patterns in the following sections, which will provide
collections, their spatial arrangements are generated by the categories for a more systematic recollection of
a minimum of standard layouts: parallel tableaus on InfoVis interfaces further down.
museum floors or in showcases, and linear
arrangements along walls or shelves, ordered mostly 2.1 Close-ups, Previews and Collection Overviews
due to the metadata dimensions of date, style, artist, or
place of origin. Procedures of digitization extend Cultural object collections commonly contain much
cultural collections (complementing physical objects more objects than could be displayed in a parallel
with digital ones) – and put their visual arrangement on close-up perspective on a screen. This challenge is
digital display spaces up for renegotiation. For that commonly taken on by the design of macroscopic
purpose, all available metadata dimensions could be collection overviews – and their connection to vertical
utilized – and furthermore encoded into novel drill down and horizontal browsing options on demand
collection representations. [DCW11, GMPS00].
Figure 1 illustrates the multitude of possible digital As a review of interfaces shows, collection
object types (left), and a selection of prominent overviews are usually following one of three design
metadata dimensions (right), with the latter being options: Whole object collections could be represented
usually formatted due to a given documentation as i) multitudes of miniature previews (thumbnails), or
standard [Bac02]. This two-sided representation also
mirrors the common dual nature of digital ob jects, 1
duplicating an object into a realistic image of the object Well knowing that the remote exploration of cultural
(provided by a spatial layout-preserving scientific collections on screens still “doesn’t compare to being
visualization procedure), and a (semi)structured, multi- there“ [RHQ14], digital interfaces mostly strive to augment
dimensional metadata entry. While the realistic image and enrich traditional in situ-interaction with collections.
This includes the design of approaches i) to provide
allows to study cultural objects in a close up-
macroscopic perspectives on high-volume collections in
perspective, their accessibility in a larger collection is
which patterns and relations become visible, ii) to extend
either provided by a search functionality – or by
visitors’ working memory to grasp large, complex datasets
alternate, more generous approaches to interface often for the first time, iii) to add to richer, contextualized
design, including a wide variety of InfoVis images and observations through linked data dimensions, or iv) to
methods. With interfaces thus taking over the role of reduce collectors’ and curators’ biases and to facilitate
museums or exhibition halls, their design determines more inclusive representations, suited for a broader user
an online collections’ accessibility and impact, and group [Sul13, GMD15].
75
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
as ii) multitudes of abstracted visual marks only (e.g. features traditional ways of (multi)linear aggregations,
dots representing objects), whose arrangement the center right column lists methods for the visual
principles are laid out in section 2.2. As a third option encoding of spatial (i.e. cross-sectional, non-temporal)
(iii), overviews can abstract from displaying separated metadata aspects. Here “spatial” not only refers to
objects, but encode selected object attributes into the geographic aspects of metadata, but also to their
visual variables of various diagrams (cf. 2.2.5), which distributions in algebraic or vector spaces.
opens up the field for the use of a wide spectrum of
InfoVis methods, that can support further collection 2.2 Encoding of Spatial Data Dimensions
exploration too.
From a user and interaction perspective, overviews Following a distinction by Kerracher et al. [KKC14],
feature as natural starting or entry points to a we distinguish methods of encoding spatial data
collection. They provide initial orientation, and dimensions from encoding methods for temporal (i.e.
commonly enable further operations of zooming, longitudinal) data aspects, which we consider to play a
filtering, and browsing to study details and close-ups crucial role for the omnipresent time-orientation of CH
on demand. While these transitions between micro and collection data. Distributed across both sides of this
macro perspectives pose a central challenge for distinction, we refer to the most prominent traditional
interaction design, we turn to prominent arrangements spatial arrangement principle of object collections as
for macroscopic overviews first. As mentioned above, (multi)linear arrangements (2.2.1), which are also
this is where various dimensions of object metadata frequently chosen for digital collection interfaces.
(like place of origin, date of origin, artist, topics, or
styles) come into play. 2.2.1 Lists, Slideshows, Grids and Mosaics
Figure 2 shows prominent arrangement principles Mirroring the sequential arrangements in physical
for collection overviews: While the center left column exhibitions along walls or shelves, vertical lists or
Figure 2: Principles for the visualization of cultural collections, from close-ups (left), to (multi-)linear
aggregations (center left) to spatial (center right) and temporal (right) visual encoding methods.
76
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
horizontal slideshows arrange object collections in an charts [IF:SCE], ring charts [IF:DDBV], scatter plots
unilinear sequence of previews on computer screens [Man09, ABO12, IF:CG], and many more.
[IF:HTA]. As multilinear arrangements, grids and These different diagrams again could be integrated
mosaics arrange previews in multiple rows, to raise the into multiple coordinated views by CH collection
item-screen-ratio (Fig. 2, center left). In contrast to dashboards [UTA10]. As an interesting crossover
physical hangings, the guiding aspect for (multi)linear approach, diagrams could also be synthesized from
arrangements can often be freely chosen amongst object previews, allowing for seamless micro-macro
existing metadata dimensions, so that either date of transitions [IF:PVWF].
origin, alphabetical sequence, or even user metrics
(like item popularity) determine the visible sequence of 2.3 Encoding of Temporal Data Dimensions
objects on screens [IF:GCI]. Furthermore, grids and
mosaics can be dynamized, so that tiles represent While maps, networks, set and other diagrams provide
object categories or subcollections and change their specific insights into spatial data aspects and
content over time, to enable also passive contemplation distributions, they initially offer static images for
without clicking and scrolling [Whi15, para 39]. Going aggregated data only. Yet with temporal aspects (like
beyond (multi)linear arrangements, several InfoVis date of origin) playing a crucial role in the domain of
methods support the visual encoding and exploration CH data, most interfaces have to encode temporal
of spatial (non-temporal) data aspects for whole information too.
collections.
2.3.1 (Linked) Timelines
2.2.2 Geographic Maps
One prominent option is to represent time linearly,
As place of origin counts among the most frequently which is done with linear timelines as singular views,
documented data dimensions of cultural objects and or with linked timelines, usually implemented as
artifacts, geographic maps often serve as a coordinated temporal view in addition to spatial
visualization method to show the spatial distribution of
representations [Kra16, IF:DGB, IF:HTA, IF:MOTW,
artifacts’ origins [BGSvdB14, IF:DGB, TO:GBDE,
TO:PAL, TO:VS]. IF:NL, IF:PAN, TO:VS].
2.2.3 Network Diagrams 2.3.2 Animation
As for relational data (e.g. influences, references, inter- Further options for encoding temporal data aspects
artifact relations) network diagrams allow users to build on the abovementioned spatial visualizations and
explore the proximities and distances of artifacts or add temporal information in a hybrid, spatiotemporal
cultural actors in relational or topological spaces way. Among these, animation is frequently used,
[HSC08, IF:DDBV, IF:ECB, IF:IA, IF:HG, IF:EDG, mapping time to time [IF:DGB, IF:PAN].
TO:PAL].
2.3.3 Superimposition
2.2.4 Set Diagrams
Superimposition approaches merge multiple temporal
Given different thematic or stylistic classifications of layers or snapshots into one visualization, with
cultural artifacts, set diagrams or treemaps offer temporal data aspects often being distinguished by
insights into categorically and often also hierarchically different colors [BGSvdB14], or visualization of
structured object metadata constellations [XEJJ14, movement trajectories [TO:NL].
UPM12, IF:PAN].
2.3.4 Space-Time Cube
2.2.4 Other Diagrams
Space-time cube representations build on 2D planes of
When overviews abstract from single objects and focus encoded spatial data dimensions (like maps or
on data distributions in different metadata dimensions, networks), and map time to an additional spatial
a wide variety of further InfoVis diagrams can provide dimension, i.e. the orthogonal z-axis. Cultural object
overview on selected collection aspects, including area collections thus arrange as characteristically shaped 3D
77
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
point clouds, according to various spatio-temporal [Dru13]. Due to the relevance of this design principle,
layouts [Kra05, WMS*16]. the following collection primarily takes approaches
and interfaces into account which have been
2.4 Multi-Method Interfaces implementing a multi-method approach.
As the assembly of approaches and interfaces in table 1
shows, multiple spatial encoding methods have already 3 Assembling Information Visualization
been implemented in the CH data domain – often also
as multi-method interfaces to enable the combination
Approaches to Digital CH Collections
of different exploratory views on the data. The same Table 1 provides an overview of prominent InfoVis
holds true for different temporal encoding methods: It approaches to digital CH collections. Interfaces are
is well known that different temporal encoding classified and specified according to four main
methods show different strengths and weaknesses. Due categories. While the first two categories make the
to this reason, advanced InfoVis interfaces increasingly chosen spatial and temporal encoding methods visible
combine multiple temporal and spatial encoding (cf. 2.2 und 2.3), the third column specifies the focus
techniques, to compensate their drawbacks and add up of interest, which predominantly is either a certain type
of cultural objects, or a focus on cultural actors (FCA),
their complementary benefits [KKC14]. This equals
or a focus on cultural topics or styles. The fourth
the provision of multiple access points and overviews column points out whether the approach is of
[THC12], which form complementary composites, conceptual and prototypical nature, or whether it
revealing different “parallax” views of a collection provides an open, web-based interface [IF:XYZ] or a
Table 1: Information visualization approaches and interfaces to digital cultural object collections, ordered
according to their chosen method of spatial encoding, temporal encoding, entity focus, and type of project.
78
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
tool [TO:XYZ], with which external DH collection indispensable as a medium for knowledge
data could be visually explored [cf. Pos16]. communication. Despite restricted budgets of local
collectors and institutions, efforts for digitization and
3.1 Interpretation dissemination will continue, as will the development of
While looking at single approaches helps to specify web-based interfaces.
their implemented combination of methods, parsing of From an InfoVis perspective, we consider the field
columns helps to explore the prominence of encoding of CH data, users and tasks, to be a specifically
methods or object types. With regard to the overall productive one, revolving around grand design
distribution, well-established InfoVis techniques can challenges. While CH data is often characterized by
be identified, as well as structural holes, which might massively heterogeneous and time-oriented data
deserve closer attention by future interface design and complexity, its audiences approach it with
research. Exemplarily, the distribution of temporal heterogeneous, underspecified tasks [MFM*16].
encoding methods shows a dominant use of (linked) Besides the consideration of well-known principles of
timelines, which again are known to evoke split graphical excellence, such casual users require also
attention effects [AS05]. To reduce cognitive, load more aesthetics-oriented, entertaining approaches. In
more spatio-temporally integrated encoding techniques contrast to principles of parsimonious design and
like space time-cube representations could be tested. complexity minimization, the preservation of aesthetic
complexity and diversity matter in the CH domain, and
non-conclusive explorations provide their own reward.
3.2 Limitations
Therefore, the value of methods supporting horizontal
Aiming for the consolidation of the research field and browsing, multiple access points and serendipitous
for orientation of future approaches, we are still aware insight creation is ranging high. This makes CH data a
of two obvious limitations. As the interaction with challenging research field, expanding and enriching the
‘cultural object collections’ is investigated in multiple scope of consolidated playing fields for InfoVis
academic domains, the current review is far from research far beyond expert-oriented professional
exhaustive. Yet by highlighting and comparing recent applications.
works and developments, we hope to lay ground for a
Furthermore, we expect new options for interface
more systematic and critical discussion – as well as for
their future enrichment and refinement. design to emerge from the expansion and pervasion of
Furthermore, we consider the chosen categories linked data in the CH realm [KAR15, IF:CS], as well
of classification to be relevant from an InfoVis as the utilization of user data, which will open up new
methods perspective, but are aware of possible other ways to weigh, highlight, recommend, and tailor
foci of attention. As such we exemplarily consider interfaces for general audiences and specific user
interaction and navigation techniques to provide groups alike.
productive categories or further analysis, as well as a From a systematic point of view – which might be
wide variety of ‘humanistic’ user experience and most relevant because of its didactic implications – we
design principles [Dru13, DCW12, Whi15], which hope for a continued discussion and consolidation
could help to shape the focus on relevant DH interface process to accompany the outlined developments. We
functions and features with even more precision. consider such macroscopic reflections not only to be
relevant for integrating the state of the art on academic
4. Conclusions and Outlook grounds (informing new directions and approaches),
but also for introducing visitors to the workings of
We presented a review of InfoVis approaches and
their new online museums and archives. In contrast to
interfaces to digital CH collections, and arranged
traditional encounters with culture collections, their
existing work by the means of a categorical
experiences and learnings will also depend on their
framework, which we submit for critical examination
ability to comprehend and master the powerful (re-)
and collective refinement.
arrangement, encoding and interaction techniques,
We expect the field of CH collection visualization
which new interfaces are already providing us with.
to further develop and diversify – not least due to the
fact that the world wide web renders itself ever more
79
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
Acknowledgements Approaches and Strategies of Inclusion in
Digital CH Interfaces, in: C. Busch, J. Sieck
This research has been supported by the Austrian (Eds.), Kultur Und Informatik (XIII) - Cross
Science Fund (FWF), Project No. P28363 Media, Hülsbusch, Berlin, pp. 105–118.
[GMPS00] Greene, S., Marchionini, G., Plaisant, C., &
References Shneiderman, B. (2000). Previews and
overviews in digital libraries: Designing
[ABO12] Algee, L., Bailey, J. Owens, T. (2012). surrogates to support visual information
Viewshare and the Kress Collection: Creating, seeking. Journal of the American Society for
sharing, and rapidly prototyping visual Information Science, 51(4), 380–393.
interfaces to cultural heritage collection data, [HSC08] Hinrichs, U., Schmidt, H., & Carpendale, S.
D-Lib Magazine 18(3). (2008). EMDialog: Bringing information
[Bac02] Baca, M. (2002). A picture is worth a visualization into the museum. IEEE
thousand words: Metadata for art objects and Transactions on Visualization and Computer
their visual surrogates. ALCTS Papers on Graphics, 14(6), 1181–1188.
Library Technical Services and Collections, [KBM16] Kontiza, K, Bikakis, A., Miller, R. (2015).
131-138. Cognitive-based Visualization of Semantically
[BGSvdB14] A. Betti, D. Gerrits, B. Speckmann, & H. Structured Cultural Heritage Data,
Van den Berg. (2014). GlamMap: Visualising Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Library Metadata. Proceedings of VALA. Visualizations and User Interfaces for
Ontologies and Linked Data. URL:
[BOB82] Belkin, N.J., Oddy, R.N. & Brooks, H.M. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1456/
(1982). ASK for information retrieval: Part I.
Background and theory. Journal of [Kra05] Kraak, M. J. (2005). Timelines, temporal
documentation 38(2): 61–71. resolution, temporal zoom and time
geography. In Proceedings of the 22nd
[AS05] Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split- International Cartographic Conference. A
attention principle in multimedia learning. In Coruña Spain.
R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Handbook of multimedia
learning (pp. 135-146). New York: [Kra16] Kräutli, F. (2016). Visualising cultural data:
Cambridge University Press. exploring digital collections through timeline
visualisations. Doctoral dissertation, Royal
[DCW11] Dörk, M., Carpendale, S., Williamson, C. College of Art.
(2011). The information flaneur: A fresh look
at information seeking. In Proceedings of the [KKC14] Kerracher, N. , Kennedy, J., & Chalmers, K.
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in (2014). The design space of temporal graph
Computing Systems (pp. 1215–1224), ACM. visualisation. In Proceedings of the 18th
EuroVis (Vol. Short). Swansea: Eurographics.
[Dru13] Drucker, J. (2013). Performative Materiality
and Theoretical Approaches to [Man09] Manovich, L. (2009). Cultural Analytics:
Interface. Digital Humanities Quarterly 7(1). Visualizaing cultural patterns in the era of
“more media”. Domus.
[DWC15] Düring, M., Wieneke, L., & Croce, V.
(2015). Interactive Networks for Digital [MFM16] Mayr, E., Federico, P., Miksch, S., Schreder,
Cultural Heritage Collections - Scoping the G., Smuc, M., & Windhager, F. (2016).
Future of HistoGraph. In P. Cimiano, et al. Visualization of Cultural Heritage Data for
(Eds.), Engineering the Web in the Big Data Casual Users. Proceedings of the 1st
Era (pp. 613–616). Springer International. Workshop for Visualization for the Digital
Humanities, Baltimore, MD.
[GMD15] Glinka, K. Meier, S., Dörk, M. (2015).
Visualising the »Un-seen«: Towards Critical
80
A Review of Information Visualization Approaches and Interfaces to Digital Cultural Heritage Collections
[Pos16] Posner, M. (2016). The Digital Art Historian’s [IF:DDBV] Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek Visualisiert
Toolkit.URL:http://program.dh.ucla.edu/getty/ URL: http://infovis.fh-potsdam.de/ddb/
index.php/the-digital-art-historians-toolkit/. [IF:DGB] DARIAH-DE Geo-Browser / Europeana4D
[RHQ14] Rogers, K., Hinrichs, U., & Quigley, A. URL: https://geobrowser.de.dariah.eu/
(2014). It doesn’t compare to being there: in- [IF:ECB] eclap-Browser / Social Graph
situ vs. remote exploration of museum URL: http://www.eclap.eu/portal/
collections. The Search Is Over! Exploring [IF:EDG] Edgemaps [FCA]
Cultural Collections with Visualization, URL: http://mariandoerk.de/edgemaps/demo/
London, UK. http://searchisover.org/
[IF:GCI] Google Cultural Institute
[Sul13] Sula, C. A. (2013). Quantifying Culture: Four URL:https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute
Types of Value in Visualisation. In J. Bowen, [IF:HG] histograph
S. Keene, & K. Ng (Eds.), Electronic
URL: http://histograph.cvce.eu/
Visualisation in Arts and Culture (pp. 25–37),
Springer. [IF:HTA] Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The MET
URL:
[THC12] Thudt, A., Hinrichs, U., & Carpendale, S. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/chronology/
(2012). The bohemian bookshelf: supporting
[IF:KB] Kindred Britain [FCA]
serendipitous book discoveries through
information visualization. In Proceedings of URL: http://kindred.stanford.edu/
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in [IF:IA] Inventing Abstraction 1910-1925 [FCA]
Computing Systems (pp. 1461–1470). ACM. URL: www.moma.org/inventingabstraction
[UTA10] Urban, R.J., Twidale, M.B., Adamczyk, [IF:MOTW] Museum of the World
P.D. (2010). Cultural Heritage Information URL: https://britishmuseum.withgoogle.com/
Dashboards.URL:http://www.ideals.illinois.e [IF:PAN] Pantheon [FCA]
du/handle/2142/14936
URL: http://pantheon.media.mit.edu/
[Whi15] Whitelaw, M. (2015). Generous Interfaces for
[IF:PVFW] Past Visions by Frederick William IV.
Digital Cultural Collections, Digital URL: https://uclab.fh-potsdam.de/fw4/
Humanities Quarterly, 9.
[IF:ROL] Republic of Letters [FCA]
[WMS*16] Windhager, F. Mayr, E., Schreder, G.,
URL: http://ink.designhumanities.org/dalembert/
Smuc, M., Federico, P., & Miksch, S. (2016).
Reframing Cultural Heritage Collections in a [IF:SCE] SelfieExploratory | SelfieCity
Visualization Framework of Space-Time URL: http://selfiecity.net/selfiexploratory/
Cubes. In M. Düring et al.(eds.) Proceedings
of the 3rd HistoInformatics Workshop, (pp.
20–24), Krakow. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1632/ CH InfoVis Tools
[XEJJ14] Xu, W., Esteva, M., Jain, S.D., & Jain, V. [TO:GBDE] Geo-Browser Datasheet Editor
(2014). Interactive visualization for curatorial URL: https://geobrowser.de.dariah.eu/edit/
analysis of large digital collection,
[TO:IPS] ImagePlot Suite
Information Visualization 13: 159–183. URL: http://lab.softwarestudies.com/p/software-
for-digital-humanities.html
[TO:NL] Neatline | Omeka
CH InfoVis Web-Interfaces
URL: http://neatline.org/
[IF: CG] Culturegraphy
[TO:PAL] Palladio
URL: http://www.culturegraphy.com/ URL: http://hdlab.stanford.edu/palladio/#/
[IF:CS] CultureSampo [TO:VS] ViewShare
URL: http://www.kulttuurisampo.fi/?lang=en URL: http://viewshare.org/
81