A set of rubrics developed by the GLAMi Co-Chairs and Category Chairs guide GLAMi pool jurors in assessing projects in the first round of the GLAMi competition. The rubrics are designed to help jurors recognize excellence, innovation, and adherence to best practice in a way that allows projects disparate in budget and resources, platform, audience, language, and purpose to be judged in the same category. The rubrics will be revised and updated annually to reflect feedback from the community as well as new developments in tools and technology and, as of March 24, 2023, are undergoing some revision by the GLAMi team. For GLAMi 2023, the rubrics will also be expanded to reflect a new category structure, including the addition of Linear Media and Writing categories; the combination of Resources for General Audiences and Families and Resources for Scholars and Researchers into an Online Resources category; and the expansion (and renaming) of the Internal Tools and Professional Practices category.
Design
This category looks at projects that are creative, strategic, aesthetically strong, demonstrate good usability, accessibility, and are socially, economically, environmentally, and museologically considerate. This category also spans project types – web, mobile, in-gallery, kiosk, immersive, tangible/natural/digital interfaces, blended environments, A/V/M/XR, linear media (audio/video), etc.
Consider how the project makes you feel, what the mood is, what its identity is, determine what you think its objective is and how it accomplishes that objective. Also consider the following facets – they are not necessarily going to provoke yes/no answers. Simply consider how the project does the following.
Architecture/Information Architecture
- Does the project have a logical model and flow of system design. Is it structured and well organized? Does it promote good usability?
- Is the navigation easily understandable and takes you where you expect to go? Is your orientation within the project easy to understand – do you know where you are, where you can navigate to, and how to easily get there?
Presentation Layout and/or Interface Design
- Is the interface and/or layout of the project clear and consistent?
- Are there obvious information and visual hierarchies? Can a user easily pan and scan the content?
- Is there strong semantic hierarchies within the project (if/as applicable depending on the nature of the project)?
Function Design
- Does functionality operate smoothly and as intended?
- Are tasks and workflows sensical, efficient, and allow users to complete intended tasks easily and efficiently?
Colour and Contrast
- Do colour combinations ensure clear fore and background distinctions?
- Are colours used creatively and functionally? Do they contribute to an aesthetically strong identity while also ensuring good usability and accessibility?
Typography
- With the typefaces are glyphs distinguishable from one another (ie. lower case “L”, uppercase “i”, and number “1” are distinguishable)? Are they set at an appropriate size (for in-situ are they an appropriate size for expected distance of viewing)?
- Is the use of type deliberate and consistent and does it contribute to clear readability? (Or are there so many typefaces, fonts, & styles that it’s a mess?)
- Is the kerning, leading, and tracking appropriate and help to pace and space the project’s presentation?
Media and Composition
- Is media – sound, image, text – used deliberately? Is it produced in a manner that best supports the project (editing) and makes for an aesthetically pleasing and functionally appropriate composition?
- Is the project well spaced and paced?
Ethics and Values
- Does this project contribute to the field, the organization, and/or the stated goals in a responsible manner?
- Should this project exist and if so, were the responsible organizations’ resources well used in its design and production?
- Is the project considerate of the social, political, environmental, and economic realities of the past year?
Inclusive Design and Accessibility
- Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
- Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
- Image: alt text/description
- Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
- Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
- Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?
Interactive and Immersive
These projects connect with audiences that want to DO something. The category includes in-gallery and online interactives, multimedia installations, VR/AR, and mobile applications. It’s a broad category in which projects fall on a spectrum of experiential to didactic and may fulfill divergent purposes, satisfying multiple needs, at a variety of scales and effort. We are interested in finding projects that go beyond basic expectations and are some of the best at what they do, even if they do it in different ways.
These projects are the ones that will leave a lasting and satisfying impression with our visitors.
Delight and Inspiration
- Does it spark joy (or an alternate emotion appropriate to the tone of the experience)?
- Are you thinking about it days later in your head?
- Will you tell other people about it?
- Will you use it as a reference example?
Well Crafted
- Did you know what to do?
- Was the intent of the experience clear?
- Are there little things that show attention to detail?
- Does it feel well thought out with few rough edges to the experience?
- Does it feel like a labor of love?
Experience and Story
- Is it interesting and compelling?
- Do you forget where you are while spending time with it?
- Do you want to spend more time with the experience or content?
Suitability and Appropriateness
- Does it feel like an optimal approach for the intended experience?
- Does it make good use of the available resources of the organization?
- Was it effective in what it was trying to do?
- Does it feel consistent?
Risk
- Did the creators take a chance in doing this?
- Is it a stretch for the organization?
- Does this feel like something new?
Inclusive Design and Accessibility
- Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
- Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
- Image: alt text/description
- Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
- Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
- Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?
Internal Tools and Professional Practices
Projects submitted in this category serve staff and the community at large, using hardware, software, and other digital tools to enable more effective, efficient, or far-reaching practices. Examples include business and content systems, infrastructure, databases, and communications systems. We are also hoping to receive examples of outstanding documentation for digital projects, including style guides, digital strategies and policies, data dictionaries, workflow diagrams, and the like.
Reproducibility
- How well does the project/tool describe or include methods for implementation at other institutions?
- Poor: Zero documentation
- Exemplary: Multiple walkthroughs and tutorials in varied contexts
Resources
- Can the time, effort, and technology required to implement the project be scaled for use by organizations (or individuals) of different sizes and resources?
- Poor: Can only be realized by large, well-funded teams
- Exemplary: A small, eager, non-technical staff can reap similar benefits to any other implementer
Dissemination
- To what degree does the project focus on spreading the impact of the tool to a broader community?
- Poor: Tool driven solely by local motivations with no acknowledgement of how they differ from the community at large
- Exemplary: Tool solves a community problem and shows how it can be tailored to fit a spectrum of scenarios
Longevity
- What does it leave behind – what are participants / institutions left with?
- Poor: A silo project requiring long-term provisioning and no sunset plan
- Exemplary: new skills or abilities that are readily conveyed to a changing target audience (staff, patrons, etc.)
Sustainability / Evolution
- How future-proof is the project – to what degree does it depend on a specific funding scheme or technology that might change? Is the lifespan of the project clearly identified? If limited, are provisions for archiving the content and/or adapting the tools indicated?
- Poor: relies solely on short-term grant funding or aging, proprietary technology
- Exemplary: self-sustaining funding relying on open software with a robust community outside of GLAMs.
Value
- How well does the tool convey the value it can bring? How big of a problem is it trying to tackle and is it convincing in its claims of a solution?
- Poor: it solves a small problem that idiosyncratically applies to one institution
- Exemplary: tackles a big problem across a swath of the GLAM landscape
Inclusive Design and Accessibility
- Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
- Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
- Image: alt text/description
- Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
- Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
- Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?
Linear Media
This is a category for audio and video projects that fall outside of an interactive experience. It includes videos/films (of any length), podcasts, audio tours, and other time-based media-driven web experiences, including those for distribution on social media platforms. If tours or websites built on or for time-based media are submitted in this category, the content, rather than the interface, will be reviewed.
These best of these projects are the ones that will leave a lasting and satisfying impression with visitors.
Delight and Inspiration
- Does it excite your interest?
- Would you use it as an example in your own work?
- Would you want to watch it again and/or tell other people about it?
- Does it feel necessary?
Production
- Does the production quality and style support the content?
- Do sound and image support the story?
- Does the editing approach tell the story the best it can be told?
- Is it provided in an appropriate form (length, web series, podcast, tour, etc.)?
Storytelling
- Is it an interesting and compelling portrayal of the content?
- Does it provide a new perspective that will stick with you?
- Do you forget where you are while watching it?
Risk
- Did the creators take a chance in doing this?
- Does the project do something new and different for the GLAMi sector?
Inclusive Design and Accessibility (see: https://www.m4c.space/inclusive-design-glossary/)
- Does it use an appropriate platform for distribution? (e.g. social media, in-gallery, etc.)
- Does the material provide closed/open captions, and/or transcripts?
- Does it also provide ASL or audio description to support access?
- Were there other thoughtful (useful!) affordances (things that help people of different abilities) to support the experience of the content?
Marketing and Promotion
The marketing category represents individual projects or multi-tactic campaigns aimed at meeting a goal to advance audience engagement, build brand awareness, increase visitation, or otherwise as defined. Category entries could span anything from robust, long-term digital marketing campaigns to one-off social media promotions. Other examples include effective communication campaigns via email, social media, mobile apps, and the website; dynamic social media content such as TikToks, Shorts, and Live; digital advertising, sponsored posts and promotions; and leveraging experiences within the exhibit to encourage post-visit engagement (such as photos, surveys, talk-backs, and more)
Judges will review web and digital content for its ability to meet business or engagement initiatives, not for the educational content itself (submit those projects under Online Resources).
Content and Relevance
- Was the tone, style, and platform appropriate for the target audience(s)?
- Does the project represent a thoughtful understanding of that audience?
- Was it relevant and considerate of the broader social and political climate at the time?
Creativity
- Did this project stand out for its concept, design, wording, or tone?
- Did the creators try something risky and new?
- Considering any constraints on the organization, was the project resourceful, groundbreaking, and/or transformative (e.g., time or resource constraints)?
Audience Engagement
- Did audiences respond to this project?
- Did the project serve as a starting point for further participation?
Brand Alignment & Advancement
- Did this project advance the organization’s mission and/or strategic goals?
- Did it enhance the organization’s brand?
Effectiveness
- How successful was the project in relation to its original objectives?
- Did it help the organization reach new audiences?
Inclusive Design and Accessibility
- Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
- Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
- Image: alt text/description
- Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
- Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
- Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?
Online Resources
This category features online resources for specialists or non-specialists of all ages. For researchers and scholars, these resources include sites featuring searchable museum collections or other databases, aggregated content from multiple sites or repositories, original texts or transcriptions, etc. Examples for non-specialists include exhibition microsites, repositories of lesson plans and other teacher resources, or pre- and post-visit content for children and adults, whether as teachers, families, classes, or independent visitors. Projects supporting temporary exhibitions as well as those developed as enduring resources are welcome: jurors will consider the expected lifespan of a project when assessing some parts of the rubric.
Relevance
- Is it clear who the resource’s intended audience is?
- Is the resource appropriate to its intended lifespan and audience?
- Does it offer tools, content, and features its audience needs or wants?
- Does it address an under-represented area of content or scholarship?
Effectiveness and Experience
- Does it enable its intended audience to reach its goals in fun or useful ways?
- Does it advance the organization’s mission, goals, and relationship with that audience?
- Does it advance museum technology practice or a scholarly ecosystem by supporting new types of experience or research?
- Is its text well-written and appropriate for its audience, with clearly cited sources?
- Is its value proportional to the resources expended in creating it?
Design
- Does its design welcome and support visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?
- Is its design appropriate to its goals and intended audience?
- Is it clearly organized and easy to understand, navigate, and use on a variety of devices?
- Are the amount and nature of its content easily perceived from its home page or initial landing pages?
Two more areas are being phased in as comment-only for this 2023 cycle:
Sustainability and Interoperability (for comment, no scoring yet in 2023)
Sustainability and interoperability are critical to many online resources but may not be applicable to all entries in this category. To the degree appropriate, please comment on matters such as these: Do the resource’s technical design and implementation consider its overall longevity of access? Does it offer permanent reference URIs to granular information it presents? Does it use metadata standards to help its data be transferable and mappable to other resources and systems, and to be prospectively usable there? Does it support real-time interoperability, for example via Linked Open Data or an Application Programming Interface (API)? Does it enable persistent offline access to user-selected content by offering downloads in an appropriate and usable format (e.g., PDF or CSV)?
Inclusive Design and Accessibility (for comment, no scoring yet in 2023)
Does the resource seem to be WCAG 2.1 AA compliant, based on WCAG or W3C validator spot-checks? For example, do images have ALT text/descriptions, and do audio or video have captioning, American Sign Language, transcripts, adjustable volume, or audio description of video? Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?
Writing
The rubric for this new category, which recognizes writing on digital practice in cultural institutions, will be published shortly. Written content, in English, published online, in print, or via email newsletter or listserv, will be eligible. Authors may enter individual posts or chapters, or collections of content, or both.
Special Jury Prizes 2023
The Special Jury will consider projects—including any submitted in the seven main categories—for special awards that recognize innovative and effective solutions to real-time concerns facing museums and their audiences, as well as experimental work that may advance the field’s use of emerging technologies. Though the Special Jury is encouraged to make awards to any worthy project that fits these criteria, each year we will also choose an area of focus that is particularly timely. In 2021, the Special Jury recognized projects grappling with social justice issues and with outreach by organizations to audiences affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2023, we hope to consider projects that found ways to improve working conditions for culture workers and that have done exemplary work in universal design and accessibility. Although all projects submitted in any category will be considered by the jurors for Special Jury recognition, we encourage you to nominate your own or others’ projects in the category and to highlight goals or accomplishments of the work that could merit Special Jury attention.