General Digital Exhibition Development Workflows

The development process begins with creating a minimum viable product, or “MVP”. This is an early version of the exhibition that includes core functionality but may not have all the planned features.

This is an iterative design approach borrowed from software development that enables us to test the core mechanics early in the development process. Sharing MVPs with collaborators can create valuable feedback before many developer hours are committed to the project.

When planning out the MVP, you’ll need to decide whether to prioritize the exhibition’s content (such as the artwork) or its form (navigation, back-end structure, user interface). This decision often depends on your collaborators’ familiarity with digital projects. When working with curators and artists experienced in digital production, you might focus first on the exhibition’s form, testing user experience and interaction design. With the DETAIL pilot projects, we found that focusing on the key mechanics and establishing the exhibition’s form first created clearer guides for the installation of artwork later. For example, setting up multi-user server communications left us knowing exactly how much time we could dedicate to installation customization.

On the other hand, when collaborators are less familiar with the development process, prioritizing artwork can help build confidence and ensure collaborators approve of the visual direction. Mockups and previous project examples can also be used as illustrations to gain this confidence.

The MVP stage presents unique challenges in securing collaborator approval, as the final vision may not be immediately apparent in early prototypes. Clear communication about the iterative nature of digital development is crucial here. It’s important to set expectations that the exhibition will evolve through multiple iterations, with each version building upon user feedback and testing results.

Ideally, all artworks should be received prior to the start of the development timeline. Developers can then create plans for both the exhibition creation and any custom needs emerging from the individual artworks. However, production timelines often necessitate beginning development with placeholders that match the expected media types of forthcoming artworks.

Managing feedback becomes crucial during artwork integration. Schedule artist feedback sessions early and be intentional about their frequency. Send screenshots if synchronous check-ins aren’t possible but avoid lengthy email chains cutting into development time. While feedback is essential for ensuring accurate artwork representation, too many revision cycles can lead to diminishing returns, potentially detracting from the overall exhibition development. Create clear timelines for feedback implementation and communicate these to all collaborators. It is helpful to have collaborators prioritize revisions with the support of developers, and to have discussions about platform limitations that may be beyond the project’s scope.

Complement observational testing with written feedback, which can be collected through simple Google Forms. For asynchronous testing, consider distributing the exhibition through platforms like Itch.io or secure file-sharing services accompanied by feedback forms. This approach allows for broader testing across different devices and contexts.

Digital exhibition launches differ significantly from traditional gallery openings, requiring careful consideration of both distribution channels and launch events. Distribution strategies should balance accessibility with technical requirements and curatorial vision.

The distribution platform might be identical to the exhibition platform (as with browser-based exhibitions) or require additional steps (like distribution through an app store). Consider: How many times does your audience need to click to access the exhibition? Is it as simple as following a link to get directly to the exhibition? Or do you need to follow a link to download software, install it on your device, and then launch it? Are there security features or account sign-ups required to access the exhibition? These factors should be considered early-on in development—along with the notes in Section 2.2 Access and Planning—as they impact design choices. When planning for the exhibition launch, support material like instructions or live streams may need to be created to increase the exhibition’s outreach potential.

Consider implementing both IRL (in real life) and URL (online) events to mark the exhibition launch. While digital exhibitions lack the physical gathering aspect of traditional openings, livestreamed events and video conferences can create community engagement. If the exhibition includes a physical gallery component, coordinate digital access points to encourage visitors to experience both versions.

Digital exhibition archiving presents unique challenges due to the inherent precarity of software and hardware platforms. Applications built with game engines depend on specific operating system architecture, while browser-based experiences rely on potentially changing web standards. Consider both contractual obligations with artists and collaborators as well as technological limitations when planning archive strategies.

One approach to archiving mirrors performance art documentation, emphasizing the exhibition’s ephemeral nature through comprehensive video and photographic documentation. This method proves particularly valuable when resources for long-term technical maintenance are limited. For more robust archiving, consider emulation solutions—software that can recreate the original operating environment—or hardware preservation for exhibitions with specific device requirements.

Institutions maintaining digital collections should consider preserving both hardware and software environments, potentially keeping systems offline to maintain stability. Include detailed access instructions with archived materials, as future users may be unfamiliar with older technologies. Remember that hardware preservation itself requires ongoing maintenance and eventual replacement strategies. See Section 3.6 for additional notes about institutional archives and necessary resources.

The archiving process should begin during the initial development phase, with clear documentation of technical requirements, dependencies, and implementation details. This documentation will be invaluable for future reference, whether for exhibition remounting or historical preservation. Consider creating multiple forms of documentation, from simple images and video recordings to technical specifications, to executable and working files. This ensures a comprehensive record of the exhibition’s various aspects. Make sure to share the archival versions of the exhibition with artists and collaborators when permitted.