Asking around during my first Interpret Europe Conference in Krakow for a definition of good heritage interpretation was beginning to feel like asking the proverbial Buddhist masters, ‘What is Zen?’ The answer was either another question or a zany little story aimed, like a banana skin, at throwing a little leap into my cognitive step. The interpreters I quizzed were not being evasive; they were just trying to explain something which cannot really be pinned down.

Good interpretation seemed to exist only in a moment of time, in the space between minds of the interpreter and visitors introduced to a phenomenon for the first time. You can feel when it is occurring, but you can’t dish out the same gambit somewhere else with another crowd. So what exactly is interpretation?, I asked myself. Calling it a ‘discipline’ made it sound too formulaic, calling it an ‘art’ put too much onus on an originator when the magic really occurs in the minds of the audience. A ‘skill’ or ‘technique’ neglects the crucial emotion and personality of the interpreter. I thought maybe the Guidelines, presented in draft form in Krakow would hold some answers for me.

Actually, Guidelines is not so much an elucidation of interpretation (there we go again), as a guide to creating the right conditions for the magic to take place. It’s a practical checklist for management and staff of heritage sites who are already convinced of interpretation’s virtues and wish to implement them to a high and professional standard in a project.

The Guidelines, now peer-reviewed and in polished form, provide a topographical overview for anyone planning an interpretation project and for revealing any blind spots. The scope is wide-ranging. Meta-considerations, such as purpose and quality-control, are joined by the nuts and bolts of staffing, financial viability, and access, along with a whole gamut of other aspects from storylines, design, service and communication to visitor-engagement and satisfaction follow on. The structure is simple and progresses naturally from establishing a project through to defining it, creating it, designing its content and sustaining it over the longer term. The clear language used in the Guidelines also provides us with a vocabulary of layman’s terms for talking to others about interpretation, so no dog-eared glossary in the appendix required here! And, oh yes – the bullet points are all in the form of bullet questions. But that, as I am now having to learn, is just the way of heritage interpreters.

The Guidelines are available to download on the IE-Homepage, at
www.interpret-europe.net/top/material.html
and also now available in Spanish, thanks to translation by Jorge Morales Miranda.

Angus Forbes is a landscape architect based in Berlin: www.angusforbes.net  He likes to take an interpretation-based approach to his projects. You can get in touch with him at: forbesberlin@yahoo.com

To cite this article:
Angus Forbes (2017) ‘Question-Answers and banana skins’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 1-2017, 10

Available online:
http://www.interpret-europe.net/fileadmin/Documents/publications/Newsletters/ie-newsletter_2017-1_spring.pdf

After Interpret Europe was invited to compile recommendations for how to fill the theme ‘Heritage and Nature’ with life, more than a dozen examples came in. We would like to thank all who contributed. Meanwhile, we received an answer from the Council of Europe and from the European Commission. It says: ‘Congratulations to your entire task force – excellent paper and a good starting point for us’. The paper has now been sent to all EHD coordinators in 50 European countries and can also be found in the Material section on our IE website.

As usual, the European Heritage Days are scheduled for September. Please check whether there are sites in your area that are involved (or encourage other sites to become involved) and use the paper to highlight what heritage interpretation has to offer them. While one advantage of interpretation is to connect natural and cultural heritage, both realms are often separated. This year’s theme of the European Heritage Days is calling for a more holistic approach. It invites cultural heritage sites to approach natural heritage stakeholders and vice versa and interpreters could help to facilitate such processes.

If you have general questions regarding the European Heritage Days, please visit the EHD website and get in touch directly. If you would like to discuss single aspects, join our Spring Event in Prague and meet the EHD Programme Manager, Jelena Močević (Council of Europe), who will be one of our keynote speakers.

To cite this article:
IE Management (2017) ‘Go for the 2017 European Heritage Days’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 1-2017, 8

Available online:
http://www.interpret-europe.net/fileadmin/Documents/publications/Newsletters/ie-newsletter_2017-1_spring.pdf

1. Key trends
2. Significant challenges
3. Important developments

Each topic is discussed within three different horizons in terms of time to adoption or solvability (challenges). The content is enriched with numerous successful examples of technology use in museums.

Topics from the 2016 report:
1. Key Trends Accelerating Technology Adoption in Museums
Long-Term Trends: Driving Ed Tech adoption in museums for five or more years 

• Cross-Institution Collaboration
• New Roles for Museum Professionals

Mid-Term Trends: Driving Ed Tech adoption in museums for three to five years

• Data Analytics for Museum Operations
• Personalisation

Short-Term Trends: Driving Ed Tech adoption in museums for the next one to two years 

• Mobile Content and Delivery
• Participatory Experiences

2. Significant Challenges Impeding Technology Adoption in Museums
Solvable Challenges: Those that we understand and know how to solve

• Developing Effective Digital Strategies
• Improving Digital Literacy of Museum Professionals

Difficult Challenges: Those that we understand but for which solutions are elusive

• Improving Accessibility for Disabled Populations
• Measuring the Impact of New Technologies

Wicked Challenges: Those that are complex to even define, much less address 

• Managing Knowledge Obsolescence
• Privacy Concerns

3. Important Developments in Technology for Museum Education and Interpretation
Time-to-Adoption Horizon: One Year or Less  

• Digital Humanities Technologies
• Makerspaces

Time-to-Adoption Horizon: Two to Three Years

• Location Intelligence
• Virtual Reality 

Time-to-Adoption Horizon: Four to Five Years

• Information Visualisation
• Networked Objects

The NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Museum Edition can be downloaded as PDF via http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2016-museum-edition.  Quotation: Freeman,  A.,  Adams  Becker,  S.,  Cummins,  M.,  McKelroy,  E.,  Giesinger,  C.,  Yuhnke,  B.  (2016) NMC  Horizon  Report: 2016 Museum Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Dr Kaja Antlej is a researcher and designer interested in 3D and other digital technologies in heritage interpretation. She is a Lecturer of Industrial Design at the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. You can get in touch with her through kaja.antlej@deakin.edu.au. 

To cite this article:
Antlej, K. (2016) ‘New Media Consortium horizon report: 2016 museum edition’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 2-2016, 19

Available online:
http://www.interpret-europe.net/fileadmin/Documents/publications/Newsletters/ie-newsletter_2016-2_summer.pdf

The majority of respondents found that the definitions used in the charter were clear. Some felt that ‘interpretation’ and ‘presentation’ overlapped. While some reasserted Tilden and his definition of interpretation, others felt that the charter was not progressive enough in its understanding of heritage and communities/community values. 
The majority of respondents felt that the individual objectives of the charter where either ‘relevant’ or ‘very relevant’ to their professional practice. The objective emerging as least relevant was to develop technical and professional guidelines. The most relevant objective appeared to be to ‘facilitate understanding and appreciation of cultural heritage sites’, which 94% of respondents found either ‘relevant’ or ‘very relevant’. The objective to ‘communicate the meaning of cultural heritage sites’ appeared the second most relevant. 
The following chart shows the responses of the 96 respondents who indicated which of the Charter’s objectives would benefit from further clarification and guidance. None of the objectives were marked by more than a third of respondents, indicating broad satisfaction with the clarity of the objectives as they are. 
The majority of respondents also found that the principles of the Charter were relevant. The least relevant principle appeared to be ‘Concern for Inclusiveness’. This was followed by ‘Preservation of Authenticity’. The most relevant principle appeared to be ‘Access and Understanding’. 
The following chart shows the responses of the 49 respondents who indicated which of the Charter’s principles would benefit from further clarification and guidance. This response rate is too low to make analysis of percentages useful. 
Respondents were asked to specify any elements they felt were currently missing from the Charter. Only technology (use of/role), authority, and reconstruction were mentioned twice. All other responses related to unique concepts.  
Respondents were asked to rank what should be ICIP’s priorities for the next three years. ‘Raising awareness of the Charter’ emerged as the first priority, followed by ‘develop operational guidelines’. The third priority was ‘Strengthening ties with other professional heritage organisations worldwide’. 
The survey has informed ICIP’s strategy, which will now be implemented over the next two years. Beside the above priorities, the committee will also work on guidelines for inclusiveness and authenticity, as well as technology. Thank you to all IE members who participated in the survey. 

Nicole Deufel is Vice President for Policy for ICOMOS ICIP. She holds a PhD in Heritage Studies and is currently a heritage consultant in the UK. You can contact her at nicole@nicoledeufel.com. Sue Hodges is President of ICIP and Managing Director of SHP (Sue Hodges Productions Pty Ltd). You can get in touch with him at sue@shp.net.au.

To cite this article:
Deufel, N., Hodges, S. (2016) ‘Results from the recent ICIP survey on the Ename Charter’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 2-2016, 17

Available online:
http://www.interpret-europe.net/fileadmin/Documents/publications/Newsletters/ie-newsletter_2016-2_summer.pdf

Know your audience
Although Scotland attracts many dedicated wildlife watchers, the majority of visitors watching wildlife are not experts. So it is really important not to overestimate existing knowledge about wildlife. We might need to tell visitors things which are obvious to experienced wildlife watchers. This is not ‘dumbing down’ our interpretation – just making it friendly and helpful. 

So where is it?
Wildlife can be elusive; we cannot guarantee that visitors will see it. We realised that often the experience we offer is one of looking for wildlife rather than watching wildlife. This makes good interpretation even more important. Interestingly, visitors to the Scottish Beaver Trail and the Kylerhea Otter Hide told us they enjoyed their visits, even though they didn’t see the wildlife. At the Beaver Trail site, we interpreted what visitors would definitely see – the work of the busy beavers. At Kylerhea, the interpretation helps visitors to know where to look, and what to look for. Good quality images have worked well for the many international visitors – there is no need to read English to understand what to look for.

Enjoy the journey
The process of discovering more about an animal’s habitat and habits can actually be more engaging and enjoyable than just seeing some very obvious wildlife. So try to avoid a ‘success or failure’ approach to wildlife watching, and instead nurture this sense of discovery and an appreciation of the uncertainty involved. If you can do this, your visitors (and staff) may well have a more relaxing and pleasant time.

The full guidelines are available to download at:
www.snh.gov.uk/policy-and-guidance/heritage-interpretation/good-practice-guidelines – or just Google ‘wildlife interpretation guidelines’.

Paul Hibberd is the Interpretation Officer for Forestry Commission Scotland, with a particular interest in wildlife watching. This article is based on a talk given to the Association for Heritage Interpretation 2015 conference in the UK. Contact him on paul.hibberd@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

To cite this article:
Hibberd, P. (2016) ‘Nothing to see here: new guidance for interpreting wildlife’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 1-2016, 10

Available online:
http://www.interpret-europe.net/fileadmin/Documents/publications/Newsletters/ie-newsletter_2016-1_spring.pdf