3D models and publishing

1. 2019 SUMMER SCHOOL TURIN
CITIES, CULTURAL HERITAGE and DIGITAL HUMANITIES
‘Virtual Heritage: Techniques to Improve Paper Selection
Scholarly publishing
3D Models: unwanted unknown unloved
Erik Champion, Curtin University, Australia tw: @nzerik
erik.champion@curtin.edu.au
SLIDES at https://www.slideshare.net/nzerik/

2. The Academic World Is Changing
• Pressure to publish even during PhD
• Kickstarter books and self-publishing
• Alternatives to conferences e.g. twitter conferences (#PATC4)
• Criticism of academic journals, cost, access, predatory
journals
• Rise of ORCID, citation engines and h-index*, open access,
institutional repositories
• In our field, the ability to include 3D models (SketchFab + Taylor&
Francis, Elsevier) or new publishing frameworks (Omeka, SCALAR)
*”a scholar with an h-index of 5 had published 5 papers, each of
which has been cited by others at least 5 times”
1962 Sensorama
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/work
s/sensorama/ &
https://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-
reality/history.html

3. SELECTING A JOURNAL
• Select clearly reviewed journals. manuscripts must be peer reviewed to be research articles.
• Focus: technical, conceptual, theoretically based, has articles reviewing each other? How much discussion is
there?
• Indexing: Is the journal indexed in Scopus Web of Science ACM IEEE…? Are there related tools?
• Availability: Is the journal broadly available and online? OA Options? PDF? Or HTML? 3D or VR friendly?
• Reputation: Ask colleagues which journals they respect, read recent articles and judge their importance. Check
the members of the editorial board. Determine impact factor and how selective (acceptance rate)a. Note, these
ratings can be artificially inflated in journals that publish review articles, cited more than research articles. See
www.isinet.com).
• Format: Do you like the appearance: format, typeface, and references style? Clear templates?
• Figures: Resolution quality? Time to Print: (“date submitted” to “date accepted”)?
• Charges: Some journals charge, like JCAA but there are often special issue fee waivers etc..
• Abridged and modified from a UNL website https://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/current/news/twenty-steps-
writing-research-article Twenty Steps to Writing a Research, which reproduces with permission from Beth A.
Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond, Survival Skills and Ethics Program, University of Pittsburgh
1. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_venues&vq=HERITAGE&btnG= OR
https://academic.microsoft.com/
2. https://www.scimagojr.com/
3. https://orcid.org/ https://www.academia.edu/ OR https://www.researchgate.net/

4. JOURNAL OR BOOK
• Compare your article’s research quality to published articles in the same area
• The reputation of a journal is best found by looking at the journals that leaders in your area publish in
• How articles are refereed, if blind or recommended is worth discussing, it can depend on the area.
• How long articles take to publish a factor for all especially in VH. I withdraw articles after 3-6 months.
• Are you writing about area X to audience Y? Will readers X and Y Read this book?
• IS the format acceptable to you? Some publishers don’t give templates, some have strict page limits
or don’t publish appendices or link to updatable webpages.
• Creative work? Suitable for Digital Creativity or Epoisen? Or online pre-print system?
• Fees; are they upfront on costs? DO they disseminate widely? Are costs legitimate? Best practices for
scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5210492/

5. 3D + Journals
• Provide technology to allow authors to add 3D models inside or next to text-based
articles.
• Internet Archaeology, (http://intarch.ac.uk/)
• Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
(http://www.journals.elsevier.com/digital-applications-in-archaeology-and-cultural-
heritage/).
• Current journals with 3D models lack integration with text, have limited
interactivity and immersion
• (e.g. https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals/content-innovation/interactive-u3d-
models).
• If we create dynamic links between 3D models and 2D assets (text and other
media), can we develop evaluation mechanisms to understand how the viewed
and downloaded heritage models and simulations are used and critically reflected
on?
1938
Viewmaster
http://www.view
master.co.uk/ht
m/history.asp

6. WRITING THE ARTICLE
• Write simply, clearly and concisely with common words, define uncommon ones
and define acronyms at the beginning
• Follow instructions (and conventions) regarding structure
• Subheadings to guide readers
• Provide overviews before details
• Avoid long paragraphs or very long sentences
• Avoid the use of passive voice (well, consider it)
• Write in first person (“i,” “we”)or at least make clear the Point of View..
• GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH WRITING Ethics in writing slide 43
https://www.slideshare.net/kmahmood2/how-to-write-a-journal-article-73216063
http://cccupsychology.com/blog/20
17/08/17/virtual-reality-a-brief-
history-current-trends-and-future-
directions/ivansutherland-sword-
of-damocles/

7. SPECIFIC ISSUES
• Authenticity (not fabrication)
• Contribution and clear stage of progress listed
• Accuracy, completeness listed
• Provided complete data (counter views)
• Appropriate statistical procedures (e.g. Likert)
• Originality (Not republishing same findings) + Credit
• Citing sources of information and ideas and words
• Observing copyright and permissions
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest etc
• GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH WRITING Ethics in writing slide 44
https://www.slideshare.net/kmahmood2/how-to-write-a-journal-article-73216063
1899: First underwater portrait photo by Louis
Boutan, using flash photography #WorldOceansDay

8. WHAT REVIEWERS WANT
• Is the title focused, relevant and informative?
• Does the abstract capture the essential elements of the paper--does it spark reader interest?
• Does the paper have a clear key message..clearly contribute something relevant and new to the field?
• Is the paper firmly grounded in the relevant theory or methodology?
• Is the issue sufficiently well-explained for the target audience?
• Is there good use of evidence that demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the literature available on the
topic (even if it contradicts you)?
• Is the paper well-structured and well-written? Is the paper referenced appropriately to the journal's style? Do all
aspects of presentation conform to the journal's house-style?
• Turning a chapter into an article http://www.anu.edu.au/students/learning-development/research-
writing/journal-article-writing/turning-a-chapter-into-an

9. WRITING REFERENCES
• https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2017/05/09/how-write-effective-journal-article-and-get-it-published-essay
• https://www.proof-reading-service.com/en/blog/write-journal-article/
• http://www.anu.edu.au/students/learning-development/research-writing/journal-article-writing esp
http://www.anu.edu.au/students/learning-development/research-writing/journal-article-writing/targeting-a-journal
targeting a journal
• Some lists of relevant journals:
• https://erikchampion.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/are-there-open-access-virtual-heritagedigital-archaeology-journals/ (add
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/sdh/index and https://journal.caa-international.org/)
• http://www.openaccessarchaeology.org/journal-search.html#.VpY6B1Lgq4o
• http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2010/12/open-access-journal-virtual-archaeology.html
• https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/sdh/index

10. UNESCO Chair: Cultural Heritage & Visualisation
1.Create a Cultural Heritage and Visualisation network to use & advise on 3D models of World
Heritage Sites & show how 3D models can be employed in teaching & research
2.Build capacity through community workshops, learning materials including distributing the
teaching resources digitally at no cost for the end user, training of research students and post-
doctorate scholars and visiting fellows;
3.Recommend long-term archive guidelines and ways of linking 3D models to scholarly publications
and related scholarly resources and infrastructures;
4.Disseminate the results of research activities at conferences and workshops, via online papers,
applications and learning materials; and,
5.Cooperate closely with UNESCO on relevant programmes and activities.

11. 3D???
• #1 Publications in “virtual heritage” heavily reliant on scholarly argument based on 3D models?
• #2 we reviewed virtual heritage proceedings of five major digital heritage conferences that one could
expect to be focused on projects incorporating 3D models. 264 articles in 14 proceedings studied.
• FEW accessible 3D models, usable projects, or ways in which the 3D model could be used and
critiqued in a scholarly argument is concerning.
• Three critical issues:
• we lack accessible, durable and complete infrastructure, which is essential for storage and preservation;
• we still don’t have a shared understanding of how to develop, integrate and demonstrate the research value of
3D heritage models;
• we also lack robust, long-term publication systems that can integrate and maintain both the 3D models and
their relevance and functionality in terms of both community engagement and scholarship.
• We recommend seven practical steps for ensuring that the scholarship going into the development of
3D virtual heritage models, and arising from 3D virtual heritage models, can be fully implemented.
3D Models: unwanted unknown unloved
Session S37: 3D Publishing and Sustainability: Taking Steps Forward, CAA2019
CHAMPION, E. & RAHAMAN, H. 2019. 3D Digital Heritage Models
as Sustainable Scholarly Resources. Sustainability, 11, 1-8.

12. Issues: Scholastic & User-based
1. Where deployed? Community, schools GLAM (Galleries Libraries Archives and Museums)?
2. Issues: cross-platform configurability, and pedagogical impact?
3. Requires: Inspection, contextualization, modification of 3D model?
4. Difficult to find. cannot download or edit; unusual, unwieldy or obsolete formats.
5. Standalone 3D meshes; no metadata or info on how data was acquired.
6. Can the models be shared (and edited?)
7. Accuracy of scanning or modelling process?
8. How to find scholarly documents, field reports, photographs & site plans that allowed the
designers to extract enough information for their models?

13. Arguments against / for Virtual Heritage
1. Much to be undertaken in VH, not just technology. Field lacks
clear aims agreed upon by relevant research communities,
scholarship hindered by lack of relevant, accessible & useful
data.
2. Scholarship requires suitable infrastructure to support such
research data.
3. VH)I) still in infancy - individual projects rather than a
framework (software & hardware)-why have attempts failed?
Requires survey of past failures.
4. VH fails as an infrastructure if it does not engage and provide
feedback to communities of users to meaningfully engage with
both modeled content, research questions and research
findings.
5. Infrastructure = usage AND equipment: why fund equipment
for preservation, maintenance and scholarly research of cultural
heritage if not effectively used?

14. Virtual heritage is…?#1
• ..a fusion of virtual reality technology with cultural heritage content [Add08]
[Rou00].
• … the use of computer-based interactive technologies to record, preserve, or
recreate artifacts, sites and actors of historic, artistic, religious, and cultural
significance and to deliver the results openly to a global audience in such a
way as to provide formative educational experiences through electronic
manipulations of time and space. Stone and Ojika [SO08]
• NB intangible heritage, ‘practices, representations, expressions, knowledge,
skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces
associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases,
individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage’ [UNESCO 2003].

15. BUTComputer Visualisation
• The London Charter [Den09] defined computer-based visualization as
‘[t]he process of representing information visually with the aid of
computer technologies.’
• implies visualization is only visual, that all is required is to represent
(in a visual format) content to an end user.
• Does not explain the cultural significance of the object or process
simulated, and reasons for why it should be preserved and
communicated.

16. Virtual Heritage is..#2
Me [2008]:
‘the attempt to convey not just the appearance but also the meaning
and significance of cultural artefacts and the associated social agency
that designed and used them, through the use of interactive and
immersive digital media.’
NB I distinguish between digital & virtual heritage.

17. GLAM Problems
• GLAM industries display a fraction of
collections.
• Museums lack the space to display many of
their collection.
• PLUS issue of how heritage collections are
maintained, disseminated, improved upon &
expanded.
• Despite promising technology where are
simulations that convey the contextual ways in
which the sites were used by past and distant
cultures?
http://www.museocinema.it/en

18. VH promises
• VH definitions emphasized the criterion of preservation, BUT
published examples appear focused on solving issues of
acquisition, accuracy & communication.
• VH showcase new uses & potential of technology for cultural
heritage, but funding models and composition of project teams
lack evaluation and preservation strategies.
• VH= some success showing how digital technology can provide
insight into past cultures but, as DH, has been unsuccessful?
CHAMPION, E. 2015. Defining Cultural Agents for Virtual Heritage
Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments-Special Issue on “Immersive and Living Virtual
Heritage: Agents and Enhanced Environments", 24, 179–186.
CHAMPION, E. 2016. Entertaining the similarities and distinctions
between serious games and virtual heritage projects.
Entertainment Computing, 14, 67-74.

19. VH to help scholarly review of projects
1. Provide a systematic way to show changes over time
2. Allow viewing on different formats for varying input mechanisms and
learning mediums
3. Allow counterfactual exploration, log user responses.
4. Track user preferences.
5. Share insights and personal feedback from distributed audiences.
6. Helps content creators assess impact, usability and usefulness
automatically, & allow for benchmarking.

20. VH Vanishing Faster Than The Content
“In the very near future some critical issues will need to be addressed;
increased accessibility to (and sharing of) heritage data, consistent interface
design for widespread public use and re-presentations of work, the
formalization of a digital heritage database, establishment of a global
infrastructure, institutionalized, archival standards for digital heritage and
most importantly the on-going curation, of work forward in time as the
technology evolves so that our current digital, heritage projects will not be
lost to future generations. We cannot afford to have our digital heritage
disappearing faster than the real heritage or the sites it seeks to ‘preserve’
otherwise all of our technological advances, creative interpretations,
visualizations and efforts will have been in vain.”-Hal Thwaites, past VSMM
President

21. Challenges of access affect everyone-the ‘vanishing
virtual’
Disappearing Virtual Heritage-Becoming
Archaeological p33, Ruth Tringham University of
California Berkeley, USA, Michael Ashley CODA
“While searching in 2014 in Erik Champion’s Playing
with the Past (2011) for web-based virtual cultural
environments that could act as models for a game, …
we found that at least half of his examples have
disappeared by now, … according to the Library of
Congress, the average lifespan of a webpage is only
100 days. Many of the disappeared, like Okapi Island,
can be seen as tempting fragments displayed through
video documentation on YouTube or Vimeo (e.g. Leavy
n.d.)."
https://www.ruthtringham.com/OLD/Ruth_Tringh
am/Okapi_Island_education.html

22. Beyond Time and
Space..GONE!
Long story short, according to Mure
Dickie writing in the October 10,
2008 Financial Times: "A virtual
Forbidden City offering the kind of
immersive and interactive online
experience pioneered by multiplayer
role-playing games such as Second
Life."
http://www.geek.com/news/expore-
the-virtual-forbidden-city-courtesy-
of-ibm-593731/ OR
http://www.beyondspaceandtime.or
g/

23. 3D: a KEY scholarly resource?
Di Benedetto et al 2014)
• teaching VH via inspection, contextualization + modification of
3D=problematic
• hard to find, download or edit; unwieldy + obsolete formats,
standalone meshes, no metadata or info on how data acquired or
how sharable, accuracy of scanning or modelling, paradata?
• problem #1 VH dev, #2 lacks aims, #3 infrastructure.
• VH IS NOT DH if it cannot preserve its own models; so leverage
digital real-time reconfiguration to suit learner, device & task at
hand; personalisation; increased sense of agency; auto tracking +
evaluation; filtered feedback.
• scholarly ecosystem: media assets & communities (scholars,
shareholders and public) active participants in development.

24. New media (NM), DH & VH
New media constantly changing but can suggest new perceptions and
behaviour for end users.
DH: preserve heritage content  implicit conflict.
VH =latest tech, but cannot bridge both new media & digital heritage.
ARE VH PROJECTS VERIFIED FOR FUTURE ROBUSTNESS & USAGE?
…the purpose of new heritage is to ‘examine the user experience that
digital media can provide for the understanding and experiencing of
tangible and intangible cultural heritage’.
SO REQUIRES COMPONENTS NOT PRODUCTS

25. Models versus Simulations
• Models are seen as simple 3D objects
• Simulations are seen as imitations
• But some simulations also reveal
process and they can be used to
predict the future (weather
simulations) or test theories (a wind
tunnel).
• Could we do the same with heritage
simulations?
• Slide on left shows dynamic changes of
sunlight affecting visibility of statue in
Palenque Mexico-a Mayan temple
(Quest 3D, Dylan Nagel).
Dylan Nagel

26. 3D Models can
1. Zoom in, zoom out, rotate, and walk around.
2. Certain points in text can link to camera
views.
3. Can remove or add parts of the model.
4. Can change from wireframe to textured view.
5. Can take screenshots.
6. Can incorporate annotations.
7. Can pose and change field of view.
8. Can measure between parts of the online
model.
9. Can handle large file sizes.
10. Has many import and export options.
11. Can work with timelines, so that the model
can show changes over time.
I SUGGEST
• Engage the audience
• Be formative (allowing the audience to create
test and share hypotheses), can be recycled and
reconfigured, and are amenable to
preservation.
• Require a shared, secure, feature-rich format.
• 140 file formats+ for 3D models almost all have
major issues in either access, reliability,
longevity or range of features.

27. How will we find 3D models?
• We require metadata in the 3D models so we can
1. find and classify them
2. an ontology of model components so we can find and label individual parts
3. a storage and retrieval system for the 3D models
4. link the models with external assets (other media assets as well as
publications and papers).
• Metadata for VH: arguably as much or more about education as for
preservation.
• VH: based on care, accuracy, sensitivity, effective and inspirational
pedagogical features; ideally VH collaborative, evaluation-orientated.

28. Cultural Portals
3D model portals for cultural heritage
institutes such as the don’t clearly allow
downloadable usage or explain carefully
cultural protocols that need to be
associated with the ways in which 3D
models can be used (http://3d.si.edu/).
Portals can
1. assemble disparate information
conveniently in more useful
standardized format
2. Attract more visitors.
3. Provide web-traffic statistics.
4. Shareholders retain original assets
inside as a greater whole. Smithsonian

29. End users
• If there is no public involvement,
understanding and appreciation, the
virtual heritage project has failed despite
any technical brilliance or infrastructure
support
• Infrastructure not used is equipment.
• Archives essential but must be used.
• Garnett & Edmond: ‘Building an API is not
enough!’ (i.e. engage the community)
• Success of virtual heritage projects is
dependent on community involvement,
includes scholars, students, wider public,
also the original shareholders and owners
of the cultural content simulated.
Visiting academic Demetrius Lacet taught his community how to make web-based 360 panoramas
with a video of a narrator of the local Brazilian church, result: graffiti in church dramatically abates.
Curtin HIVE, 2016.

30. Indigenous rights and access
• Indigenous shareholders and experts in the
development of guides and protocols & the
sensitive development of digital heritage
knowledge
• Exploring digitally filtered ways of creating
accessible layers and levels of cultural
knowledge
• On-demand 3D model formats-level of access
determines accuracy and resolution of the
generated model to suit copyright & ownership
requirements of owners/creators providing pre-
determined level of public knowledge
• Tailoring digital ontologies, indigenous record
collection metadata & folksonomies to specific
aspects of heritage simulations
• Developing new forms of copyright permissions
relevant to the cultural significance and
guardianship of the heritage objects depicted.
‘In game’ footage: Sims 4 machinima -3rd
Person-Susannah Emery Honours project-with
Michele Wilson. Designed to show local
teenagers a way to make cultural games
informed by talks with their family and elders
Australia: Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian
Indigenous Studies (GERAIS) & UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

31. Include Aims AND Objectives
• Data accuracy: the level of accuracy and type of data capture method should be documented and associated
with the model, as well as the geographical location
• Format limitations: any known limitations or required conditions due to the digital format or way in which the
data was created, should also be associated with the model
• Provenance: the record of ownership and scholarship and community input should be recorded and accessible
(the source and the ownership rights)
• Community protocols: social, cultural and institutional protocols that guide who accesses the sourced cultural
heritage and how that should affect the transmission, distribution and dissemination of the digitally simulated
model
• Authenticity: the known, extrapolated, omitted, simplified and imagined areas and components of the model
should be identified in some form of thematic (and preferably standardized) schema
• Cultural presence: models should aim towards explaining the cultural significance of the original site, and give an
impression of the situated cultural value of the place as experienced by the original inhabitants.
• Evaluation Data: these aims should be clearly explained and any evaluation data of participants should be linked
to (or otherwise associated with) the models
• Purpose: the generic ways in which original creators and shareholders intended the models to be edited or
otherwise modified could be described in accompanying text.

32. Community standard?
• CARARE a metadata schema inspired in part from CIDOC-CRM, comparable
to Addison’s proposed metadata [Addison 2008].
• Includes a separate Global Information element to hold additional
information (record info, appellation, rights, temporal & spatial info, actors,
contacts, addresses and a publication statement).
• PLUS: part of the metadata should record the significant cultural heritage
features noted above, & the reasons why that heritage environment or
artefact deserves to be preserved, simulated & communicated.
• We need wizards to access & add metadata to heritage collections.
• Cultural Heritage Markup Language might bridge the gap between virtual
heritage projects and metadata, but needs examplars;

33. What Shared Infrastructures look like?
• Infrastructure at its best is invisible.
• We tend to only notice it when it
fails.
• If successful, it is stable and
sustainable, trusted and relied on
by the broad community it serves.
• Trust must run strongly across each
of the following areas:
• running the infrastructure
(governance)
• funding it (sustainability)
• and preserving community ownership
of it (insurance).

34. Infrastructure More Than Equipment
• There is hard infrastructure (equipment) and soft infrastructure
(people), both are necessary.
• A digital humanities infrastructure wont survive without effective
synergies between equipment & people.
• European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) 2015 practical
guidelines:
• ‘the ERIC status is reserved for state-of-the-art research
infrastructures that will create unique opportunities to carry out
advanced research, attract the best researchers from across the world
and train highly qualified students and engineers’.

35. Scholarly & Community Ecosystem
• Ideally, it would also augment scholarly research of the content, providing
associated tools, interpretative mediums and careful references as well as usage
data that could provide evidence for solid scholarly arguments.
• It would be an ecosystem.
1. All its parts would be interdependent, and it would hopefully be greater than
the sum of its parts.
2. A review community would be summoned to discuss and add to the models via
publications and related links,
3. Future publications could in turn integrate the community feedback into new
research findings, improved critiques, and an enhanced research base.
NB Could be assessed in terms of how it supports new new technology
• Research and grants.
• Community impact.
• Provides evidence for academic esteem and promotions.

36. DH conference papers-where are the models?
Conference 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Total Papers
VSMM 55 65 53 - - - 173
CAA - - 117 73 50 - 240
CIPA 111 - 82 - 112 - 305
EuroMed - 105 - 84 - 95 284
Digital Heritage - - 270 - 211 - 481
TOTAL 166 170 522 157 373 95 1483

37. Total articles referring to 3D models + assets
Conference Total
papers
Mention 3D assets %
VSMM (2015-2017) 173 31 17.9%
CAA (2013-2015) 240 38 15.8%
CIPA (2013, 2015, 2017) 305 79 25.9%
EuroMed (2012, 2014, 2016) 284 61 21.5%
Digital Heritage (2013, 2015) 481 55 11.4%
TOTAL 1483 264 17.8%

38. 3D contents and accessibility
Accessible Content VSMM CAA CIPA EuroMed
Digital
Heritage Total
3D content 0 1 3 1 4 9
Videos 1 2 1 2 6 12
Other (VR models, photos,
images of 3D models etc.) 1 4 6 5 17 33
Assets/extras on non-
accessible websites
3 0 5 3 8 19

39. how do 3D models?
1. leverage commercial games
2. incorporate game balance
3. resolve copyright issues as mods
4. maintain and preserve themselves
5. allow for agency and interactive freedom
6. emphasize priority of learning as primary aim OR are designed for non-game
ends?

41. A 3D Model Manifesto
1. Should be traceable; it should link to previous works and to related scholarly
information.
2. Component-based models so parts directly linked and updated.
3. The model should not require huge files to download, or it should at least
provide users with enough information to decide whether and what to
download.
4. Web models are dynamically or quickly created at runtime.
5. The model engages its intended audience.
6. As part of a scholarly infrastructure, the 3D model format is easy to find and
robust.
7. Metadata records completeness, measurement methodology and accuracy of
models.
8. The model provides degree of access and feedback to wider public, specialized
interest groups & shareholders.

42. Final Suggestions
1. Framework: dynamic and distributed: connects to, converts and uploads in real-time, and
could link to various scholarly material.
• clear and convenient tools and examples that save content creators time and effort.
• 3D models + paradata link dynamically to scholarly publications.
2. Share understanding of best practices and protocols to develop, support and maintain
virtual heritage -preservation and communication (education).
3. Develop criteria to appraise both VH infrastructure and projects which leverage that
infrastructure AND increase quantity and quality of critique and commendation of
appraisal criteria, grants, awards, and media coverage.
4. Develop 3D models as research output (aids academic promotion).
5. Improve evaluation and feedback - usability effectiveness usefulness.