Graphics and Archaeology: Interpreting the Past Snowbird, Utah 20-23 May 2000   Panel: So, What Have We Learned? Presenters: David Arnold Summary: What have we gotten out of it? exposure to differing perspectives/cultures (archaeology/CG/technical) sight of a lot of interesting projects introductions to a lot of people and possible collaborators ideas Was it worth doing? [unanimous yes - of those still left] Where next? a publication from this event? timescales? write up discussions? quality control (e.g. editors)? purely electronic or paper, too? a maintained e-mail list? a SIGGRAPH / Eurographics joint working group? a follow-up event?   people are encouraged to write up their thoughts web-branches off of siggraph.org / eg.org for the archaeologists - paper would be helpful let's evaluate how the draft notes look/feel/function need to come up with a short summary write up of this workshop that can be shared immediately Fujii / Arnold need to come up with this draft propose to have a joint working group there is interest in having a follow-up event   Working Group proposal to EG and SIGGRAPH executives name? personally would wish to include "Heritage" [DA] discussion - concern about relative restrictiveness and ambiguity of "heritage" "heritage" is not common for US "heritage" or "cultural heritage" - important for funds from EU pivotal term working title - "Working Group on Archaeology, Computer Graphics, and Cultural Heritage" if we don't get EU funding, we will perhaps drop cultural heritage Proposal CHARISMATIC - contractual obligation [to have a symposium] other EU Heritage projects propose to meet in Europe in late 2001 with or in parallel to EU Heritage Projects investigating Globe/London and Rome propose Chalmers, Fellner, and Arnold liaise Comments? reasonable timescale? should have a meeting of the working group in parallel to the larger EU events - to retain identity CHARISMATIC Actions proposal for WG to EG and SIGGRAPH (Chalmers/Arnold) write up of this event discussions, report and reports (Fujii/Arnold) individual presentations (all presenters, but optional about how much - when?) assessment of what to do with results (Chalmers and editors) comments on "Campfire" format / mechanism email list and maintenance (Brown/Chalmers/?Hourvitz or InfoMgr/?Fellner) investigate venues for 2001 and report (Arnold/Fellner/Chalmers) Format what worked what didn't work what needs to be improved Email comments soon   Formal vote of thanks to Alan Chalmers and Duncan Brown for this event Also, special thanks to Peter Shirley / University of Utah for A/V support Conclusions / Issues: What have we learned? bringing diverse mix of people in a semi-structured program environment was remarkable typically - in workshop, you should be prepared to participate/present is this the right format? in theory, the presentations / panels was a very good idea in practice, the panels turned into presentations rather than real discussion panels membership in panels before hand would have been good everyone presents? how big of a group could support that? liked the format of a few presentations with high-interaction panels for the rest should panels be technology-free? [real struggles to switch computers to attach to the projector] perhaps we should only use a wipe-board probably more advanced preparation of materials called for presentations should be more heavily themized (coordinated topics brought together) pace and feel was good for what came out of this - maintain what actually happened (more time for interaction) than just tight schedule was the day too long? too short? Alan wanted a more intense interaction - the pace needs to be kept up should we get reports on the panels from the leaders just use John's notes? pacing - with the technology, it wsa difficult to have the discussion in a darkened room

[ Previous ][ Index ]