SlideRoomBlog

Via Jessica Hagy

Long suffering administrators have a tendency to post too many instructions when announcing the application process. This results from desperately trying to answer all possible questions ahead of time. However, this strategy of just posting tons of information backfires. It results in confusion and applicants not reading any of the information. So what’s the solution?

We believe relevant instructions need be delivered at the pertinent moment, rather than all at once. SlideRoom was designed around this philosophy. While a brief overview of requirements is good to list on your main website announcing the process, you can leave the details for later. Here are some of the stages we have designed for:

• Welcome Page: Announce what your institution stands for and general instructions. Video Tutorial is also included.
• Program Choices: Announces program titles, deadlines and requirements. 2-3 sentence descriptions help applicants choose the correct program.
• Application Forms: Instructions for completing supplementary materials are displayed on that step (not before). This may include an application form, resume, etc.
• Add Media: Portfolio requirements are displayed when the applicant is actually choosing work to upload.
• Confirmation: Additional instructions can be displayed at the end of the process.

By timing the display of instructions for the appropiate moment, the need to display everything all at once has been replaced. This will make the whole process seem simpler to applicants and increase their likely hood of beginning the process. And having a beautifully designed structure will also be helpful in helping them complete the process without problems.

Many schools have two different online systems for the various parts of their application process (some for good reason). But it sure is nice to have everything go through one place: easier for applicants and for administration. Parsons Paris has consolidated both application forms and media for admissions into their SlideRoom portal. Notice (above) how they are taking advantage of custom application forms. They have separate steps for Personal Info, Education, Statement, Adding Media and Payment. SlideRoom’s merchant services are even handling international payment currency conversions.

Having all the information in one system (including media) is going to really create efficiencies for administrators. See everything first hand at http://parsonsparis.slideroom.com

For the second year in a row, UT Austin’s Department of Art + Art History runs portfolio submission and review completely online (no exceptions). Many schools try to be accommodating by also allowing for items to be physically mailed in, but this really hurts the review process and administrative efficiency. Because UT Austin has established themselves as a thought-leader in this realm, I would like to highlight them here. They have done a marvelous job of streamlining the whole process for applicants and reviewers. In particular, they have done a good job at separating information from instruction, and displaying each at the appropriate time in the process (rather than all at once).

Their process starts with a very complete informational overview for applicants on their admissions website. Then, they use very brief instruction on their SlideRoom portal. This maintains a very smart division between information and instruction. When applicants are trying to first get oriented, their website provides all the information necessary. And just as important, when their undergraduate applicants arrive at their SlideRoom portal, they switch to giving very concrete instruction.

Shane Sullivan is the man coordinating their undergraduate admissions. And most of the compliments above can be attributed to him personally as well. He states:

The system is very easy to work with from both sides…I tested it out in student mode and administrative mode on my end and found it very easy to use and to train faculty on (yes, the faculty did learn how to use it) … As for mode of submission, SlideRoom is the only form of submission we now accept for undergraduate and graduate portfolio-driven admissions and for studio-based faculty searches. This has saved us HOURS of processing time in that we are not having to sort and open mail, log mail, keep track of SASE returns, AND most importantly to me, no more paper cuts and my office doesn’t look like Kodak exploded in my office.

– Shane Sullivan, MFA
Senior Program Coordinator
Undergraduate Programs, Recruitment, Admissions

On our last trip to CAA, we learned about SVA’s exciting new MFA program for Interaction Design:

In the past two decades, there has been a revolutionary change in the way people interact with digital technologies in their everyday lives. The lines that separated digital from physical products and services have blurred, giving designers new responsibilities to shape experiences.

Historically, Interaction Design was left to engineers who studied Computer Science (or something like that). But as media has become a larger part of our lives, primarily through the web, artists have become increasingly needed in shaping this experience. As art schools have not traditionally prepared artists with this skill set, they have been left to figure this out on there own. (Ironically, most of my “art” friends have day jobs in technology). Thank you SVA for being a leader in this field!

Please note: SVA is not using SlideRoom for admissions (yet), but we still want to promote them because we believe in what they are doing. We believe “media” to be more than tool, but increasingly an inextricable part of our lives.

SlideRoom staff will be spending time with their families from December 22 – 26.  We will be available again, returning phone calls (with cheer), on December 29.  While we are not available by phone during this time, applicants will continue to receive friendly technical support via email (except for Christmas day).

So we leave you with this beautiful photograph by Wilson Alwyn Bentley, who was the first person to capture images of snowflakes (1885). He figured out how to catch a snowflake on blackboard and quickly get them under microscope equipped camera.  It is from his 5000 images that we got the idea of no two snowflakes being alike.  We hope you have a wonderful holiday season!

I have just posted an interview with Jay Sullivan on the ARTSblog in two parts, here and here. At the very end of the interview, I asked him about a hot topic within Public Art recently, artist fees.  His response was very enlightening because he pointed out how there is a much larger conversation to be had about how society values the time of artists.  Here is the Q/A below:

CJ: On the email List-Serve there has been a controversial debate about charging artists application fees as a way of diffusing administrative costs.  What is your position on this?

That is a tough one.  In general, I don’t think a fee would be a deterrent, but it places a larger premium on the projects being serious opportunities that are worth serious thought.

However, there is a much larger issue here. In many cases the artist is developing an idea for free, donating that time and getting no economic benefit from it. I can’t donate my time as an artist and write it off my taxes. Now, in serious competitions, artists are paid for their time to produce a model or proposal.  But I am thinking about how we value (economically) the time of artists.  Currently, an artist’s time has no economic value until something tangible is produced and sold.  But I think if a serious artist is working on project or proposal, and there is not money to pay them, they should be able to write their time off, just like a lawyer can. The ability to do this would be a public validation of the process, and expression that artists are valued and supported. So, there are other solutions for all this.

Last Sunday’s issue of the NY Times Magazine devoted an entire issue to electronic screen culture.  In particular, Kevin Kelly wrote an essay titled “Becoming Screen Literate,” in which he describes a new way to think about visual content:

“As moving images become easier to create, easier to store, easier to annotate and easier to combine into complex narratives, they also become easier to be remanipulated by the audience. This gives images a liquidity similar to words … They invite the same satisfying participation in both creation and consumption that the world of text does.”

This is not a proposal, it is a fact. Online media is freely circulated, re-used, etc … and most people expect this. However, many in the art world are still fighting to protect content from Google searches, bloggers and every other form of online practice.  Not only is this a loosing battle, but it is resisting a win-win situation.

The Brooklyn Museum is a practical example of how an institution can intelligently respond to this open/free culture.  Whether it be displaying their collections on their website, hosting community bloggers, video forums or sharing photos on Flickr … they have made their thinking and their content available.  This is the most effective form of advertising and it mutually deepens the experience for everyone involved.

If you have already adjusted to this mindset, you are probably bored with this topic. Still, many believe we need to guard content to “protect” artists and institutions that have worked so hard to create it.  I’m not sure what we are protecting people from, but if you have a strong opinion either way, please share.