Designing a Digital Archive for Indigenous People
Understanding the Double Sensitivity of Design

Following The indigenous population of Sápmi, which includes Norway, Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia are complex to define. A modern definition of who a Sámi person is can be related both to geography (living in a Sámi area) and family (born in a Sámi family or having Sámi relatives) but in this day and age there are many definitions of who a Sámi person. A person can be both Sámi and for example Swedish. Earlier laws stated that a person who makes a living of reindeer herding is a Sámi, but this is not true any longer and now anyone with geographical or family bond can identify as Sámi [48].

According to Merriam Webster, Archive, by definition, means “a place in which public records or historical material (such as documents) are preserved or a repository or collection especially of information.” Archives are used to investigate various historical contexts, such as medical records, colonial studies and public records [4]. Archives are therefore important institutions that shape our memories [3]. Archives are considered to be a repository of historical sources, and archivists are assumed to be neutral and objective. However, there are a number of researchers that believe that archival documents, institutions and systems do have a tacit narrative that provides meaning to a particular archive [5].

Advances in digital technologies have made drastic changes in the design and development of modern archives. Since the early 2000s more and more archive institutions and newspapers have digitized their resources. Despite this, however, still only a fraction of archival sources has been digitized, and in some countries, such as Sweden and Finland, this is estimated to be only 5 percent. Digital archives are known as platforms that preserve information in a way that can be (re-)discovered, accessed and presented at any time in the future [6]. There are many studies investigating how to develop digital archive platforms for longer and better preservation of the archive materials and their increased use [6] [7]. However, many researchers believe that merely developing a digital platform for preserving archival sources is not enough, and a visual interface for digital archives is necessary to increase the accessibility of such platforms [8]. In a study conducted by Hong et al. it was evident that interface design is an important factor influencing the use of digital archives, and thus the quality of interface design is important in order to promote digital archive usage [9]. Many researchers have evaluated digital and online archives [10] [11], resulting in different guidelines in terms of designing easy access digital archives, such as browsing the archives with minimum mouse clicks, the importance of simple browsing and avoiding downloadable viewers [11]. Digital Archives in relation to indigenous populations can be found in various countries and research suggest that it can be of great importance and complexity to design for [59]. In the field of HCI, various designs of digital archives have been explored, such as the use of autonomous sites in preserving data [2], adopting reflective design [12], interactive systems that foster face to face conversation and story sharing spatial interaction using objects as a way of embodying storytelling [3], and ubiquitous computing and multimedia designs [14]. The design of digital archives and the potential contribution of heritage practice to HCI were explored specifically at a CHI workshop in 2012 [15]. As citizen participation plays a vital role in restoring and preserving cultural heritage, some researchers have explored social platforms that encourage people to act as skilled storytellers by creating personalized stories and sharing them with friends, associates and professionals [16].

Since the first HCI ethical guidelines were written by Wendy Mackay in 1995, much has changed [31]. In 1995, research involving video was new to the field, and Mackay specifically focused on writing about those challenges. Since the mid-1990s, new tools and techniques for conducting research in novel areas have been developed, which is reflected in the way we generate and understand knowledge in HCI.

As new technologies increasingly pervade various aspects of our life, our attitude towards what methods to use and how to construct knowledge shifts. Thus, ethical considerations are becoming a key issue for HCI researchers in different contexts [32-36]. In particular, as new technologies are designed and evaluated for vulnerable and marginalized participants, HCI researchers face ethical dilemmas that are highly contextual and very difficult to plan for in advance [33] [58]. Working in these sensitive contexts creates challenges known as ‘situational ethics’, referring to ethical considerations that emerge while conducting research [37]. However, situational ethics also provide the opportunity to improve ethical review processes by incorporating the new understanding gained from interacting with the context. Therefore, questions such as how HCI research should be conducted and what our common values are as a research community are being addressed by a number of researchers.

Although the majority of these reflections and discussions happen within informal venues, some researchers have published their ethical considerations of different contexts, such as studying animals in HCI [35], and exploring the impacts of town hall-style meetings [32]. Brown etc., have presented five proposals regarding how HCI research should be conducted ethically [36]. In their second proposal, Brown and his team focus on conducting research with vulnerable populations. Their proposal insists that “rather than focus on harm we might instead ask who benefits: Is it just the researchers?”. They suggest that interventions with vulnerable populations must result in greater benefits for those populations than the researchers [36]. Applying this approach led to our design using double sensitivity for a digital archive that is responsive to the sensitivities of the culture and translates them into design sensitivities. In section 4 we further discuss the full meaning of cultural and design sensitivities. Focusing on these sensitivities from the outset resulted in a platform design that was the most beneficial for the Sámi community.

In going through the existing body of published research we were surprised by the lack of studies focused on design for indigenous people, and in particular the lack of studies aimed at documenting work on the design of digital archives for these user groups. In relation to this existing gap in the literature we see our work as a contribution in how it offers some initial results on this particular topic.

Guided by our methodological framework, we carried out a preliminary study, designing and evaluating a web-based digital archive aimed at supporting easy access to materials that reflected Sámi cultural and historical heritage. This prototype shared many features of typical archival web-based digital material. However, because we were aware of the cultural sensitivities, we decided to design features that were mapped to those cultural sensitivities while simultaneously adopting a design-sensitive approach. Below we present this prototype, focusing on three of those features, and then we describe the user study that followed.

4.1.1 Prototype. Our digital archive design shares many features with other online archive websites, including: 1) standard search filters, 2) visual research, 3) login functionality, 4) standard filters to sort the results, and 5) different types of archival material (see figure 1.a). In addition to these standard features there are also certain features that were specifically designed to address the “double sensitivity”. The three main features are: a) a map, b) a community function that includes the collections, user contributions and stories (although parts of this feature, such as the “stories”, were not fully implemented in the prototype, the icon in the top right corner did result in interesting discussions with some of the participants) and c) ethics, which presented a novel way of designing the ethical guidelines of the archive with double sensitivity in mind. In the following section we will discuss these three main features in further detail. Below, we present three of our “designed features that uses double sensitivity”, and the design process for each.

A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated

The Map: During our informal interviews we asked many different questions about their relationship with their Sámi heritage. We also relied on open-ended questions, e.g. “what are the main characteristics of being a Sámi according to you?”, which often resulted in interesting discussions. All of the interviewees mentioned the importance of Sámi land for those belonging to the Sámi culture. In some of the discussions we noticed a desire for a decolonized archive and map. This cultural sensitivity resulted in a feature designed so that geographical borders in the map are options that can be added or removed (see figure 1. b). We provided the border filter as an option for the users in the interests of our broad target group.

The community: We also noticed that many of the Sámi communities were interested in researching their family trees and stories related to their ancestors, and related to the fact that the community is an important entity among the Sámi [23, 44] we created the community aspect. This feature included the possibility of creating a personal profile, uploading archival material, creating personal collections and following other popular collections, commenting on material, and liking comments.

This requirement was very evident from the way the Sámi younger generation use social media such as Pinterest to share their “Duodji” art. Another example was how Sámi participants in the cookery classes were specifically interested in family recipes. The idea of providing a platform for users to make communities within the overall community is a good example of the features we included in our web-based digital archive using “double sensitivity” in mind: understanding the cultural sensitivity of the community and translating that into a design feature. Such a feature is a great compromise for digital archives designed for indigenous cultures. Indigenous cultures are very effective at preserving their heritage orally, as stories that are told face to face, often with no written trace [45]. Depending on the stories, some are for the general public to hear, while others are only for selective audiences. Therefore, trust is an important aspect in these cultures.

Applying “double sensitivity”, we designed the feature so that when you create a profile you can select who you want to share your uploaded material with: just yourself, just those who are following your collections, or with everyone. These features build on the idea that a community can be enriched by private stories told in combination with the material presented in the archive. By being able to add personal material or personal stories it is possible to create an archive that is not only filled with material from governments and other institutions but to have a social archive that is constantly changing and evolving with the help of the individual users.

Overall, we spent more than six months conducting background research into understanding the Sámi culture, reflecting on the “cultural sensitivities” and thinking about how they could be translated into “design sensitives”. In order to obtain further knowledge about the “double sensitivity” related to our archive, including material presenting Sámi cultural heritage, we initiated our design process by holding a variety of events including multiple brainstorming sessions, workshops and weekly meetings and discussions among the design team. During these six months we organized three larger workshops with representatives for the Sami people, the designers and the Sami archives. These sessions were conducted in parallel with our research into the “cultural sensitivities”, so we were able to discuss the design of features that would be in line with those sensitivities. Thus, the opinions of many were taken into consideration, both in relation to the cultural aspects of the archive and the functional design, and the meaning that the features would hold for different groups. Early sketches of the three main features were created in accordance with these “cultural and design sensitivities” that were designed in one of the early brainstorming sessions, are presented in figure 2. Overall, we had to work with iterations that involved interactions with the Sami people, design work, demos, sketches and workshops. We worked back and forth – in order to be sensitive to our users, and in relation to what we designed for this user group.The outcome was our web-based digital design. As seen in figure 1.a, it shares many features with other platforms, such as search functions and timeline filters. However, as already mentioned, there are other features designed specifically as a result of the “double sensitivity” approach taken by our project.

A close up of text on a whiteboard Description automatically generated

We carried out a user study of our web-based digital archive in February and March 2020, comprised of three parts: two interviews and one prototype navigation. The first interview was conducted in order to establish what knowledge the users had about both Sámi culture and archives. Participants then navigated around the prototype. The aim of this part of the user study was to evaluate the general feel of the prototype, specifically the “double sensitivity” features. Initially the participants were asked to navigate the prototype by themselves, in order to get the “look and feel” of it. They were then given different scenarios and tasks to perform. The participants were able to hear instructions from the researcher via the software, and the researchers were able to see the screen and hear the participants. With the participants’ consent, their voices and the screen were recorded. In order to ascertain the participants’ thoughts on the process, they were asked to conduct the navigation using the think-aloud method [46].

After the evaluation, the participants were invited back for a second interview to explore their experience of the prototype. This interview consisted of questions focusing mainly on their overall opinions relating to their personal experiences with either Sámi culture or archives, as well as more detailed aspects and features of the prototype. Anything that came up during the first interview or trial navigation was followed up during this interview.

Some questions were raised and opinions expressed regarding the overall design and look and feel of the prototype. They included color use, placement of certain elements, phrasing of certain words and other design-related aspects. The code tonality of design was created to collate all the opinions regarding design. Some participants were positive about the general look and feel of the prototype. Participant 2 said “It generally felt nice, I don't know in what way but it felt nicer and more sympathetic”. Participant 7 was also positive and said “The prototype feels more designed than a conventional archive”. Some participants felt that the accessibility of the prototype was good and that they could also understand what the limitations were. Participant 9 said “I grasped better what could be done in this (prototype) just by looking at it”. Participant 8 also mentioned this, “I understand what the prototype can give me”.

The code usability refers to any comment, question or issue raised by the participants in regard to the usability aspects of the prototype. This code was then divided into two subcodes:

The first one called usability Context encompassed comments that were more focused on the context of the archive. These were more common among those participants who had more experience of archives.

The second one called Usability Functionality encompassed comments that covered general aspects of usability, such as adding a specific button.

In going through the usability concerns we were inspired by the work by Díaz et al [56] on cultural-oriented usability heuristics in order to link aspects of usability to the particular cultural context in focus.

Many of the researchers and participants with archival knowledge would comment that context was a very important feature to them. The Usability Context code was applicable to various responses made by different participants. For example, participant 11 explicitly mentioned “I want to have the volumes in front of me when I open the boxes (in physical archives) and when I go to a digital archive I want the same thing”. Many similar comments were made by a number of the participants in relation to any digital archive, not just our web-based digital archive.

Given that we were aiming for a minimalistic design for our prototype, we decided to avoid some archival technical features, for example identifying the organization from which the material came. Although this minimalistic design was appreciated by the non-professional participants, those participants who had extensive experience of archives felt that this feature resulted in a lack of context.

Additionally, a large number of participants mentioned struggling to get a feeling of context when using a digital archive. All of the participants with knowledge of archives said that the best aspect of physical archives was the context provided by seeing, smelling and feeling the material. However, the more positive aspects of having a digital archive are availability and searchability. As participant 5 said about physical archives, “you feel the material, you have the sense of feel and touch of the material, and you have the smell. When you work on a computer you only have the visual, and also when it comes to the visual, I would say that it is one thing to see the document on a web page and another thing to see it in real life.”

The part of the archive that included a map where participants could navigate to various geographical locations also generated comments that were coded as usability. The map was presented with two different designs, one contained country or border filters, where users could see the Sámi countries, while the other design did not contain the same filters and users had to navigate dots on the map in order to find a certain geographical location. Opinions on this were many. Some participants said that for them the map was more usable with the country filters, because they did not have any detailed knowledge of the borders and did not see any issues with having the borders there. This was expressed, for example, by participant 12: “The map would be confusing for a person with a non-Scandinavian background”. However, while some of the participants, such as participant 1, appreciated the idea of the borderless map as a symbol of a borderless world, others highlighted the importance of raising this as an issue. For example, participant 11 mentioned that “The border issue can be a discussion he sees the point of having it this way although it is not an issue for me.” Most participants did not see why there would not be any borders or country filters, simply because for them it was easier to have them than to not have them. Participant 11 suggested that having the borders or countries merely depended on the user: “If a user knows about the borders, then they don't have to be there but if a user doesn't then the borders are better, it all depends on the user”.

The part of the archive that included a map where participants could navigate to various geographical locations also generated comments that were coded as usability. The map was presented with two different designs, one contained country or border filters, where users could see the Sámi countries, while the other design did not contain the same filters and users had to navigate dots on the map in order to find a certain geographical location. Opinions on this were many. Some participants said that for them the map was more usable with the country filters, because they did not have any detailed knowledge of the borders and did not see any issues with having the borders there. This was expressed, for example, by participant 12: “The map would be confusing for a person with a non-Scandinavian background”. However, while some of the participants, such as participant 1, appreciated the idea of the borderless map as a symbol of a borderless world, others highlighted the importance of raising this as an issue. For example, participant 11 mentioned that “The border issue can be a discussion he sees the point of having it this way although it is not an issue for me.” Most participants did not see why there would not be any borders or country filters, simply because for them it was easier to have them than to not have them. Participant 11 suggested that having the borders or countries merely depended on the user: “If a user knows about the borders, then they don't have to be there but if a user doesn't then the borders are better, it all depends on the user”.

This code referred to comments, issues and questions raised by the participants in regard to the social aspects of the prototype, in particular the design of the sociability feature. Given the unconventional nature of this feature, opinions about the social or community side of the prototype were both positive and negative. Most participants discussed how hard they thought it would be to have a comments function in the archive. Allowing comments would mean having strong moderation to mitigate discriminating comments, and some participants discussed whether that would be possible or even worth it. Participant 12 felt that moderation would simply be too much: “I just don't see it being worth it, it would be hard to moderate all the hate”. The majority of participants felt that even if there was extensive moderation and restrictions, the value of being able to share experiences and thoughts on the archive was greater than the possibly negative consequences.

In spite of this, the majority of the participants responded positively to being able to save images to private collections and expressed how useful they thought such a feature would be. Participant 8 liked the save feature, “I very much like the fact that I can save the images like on Pinterest” and also felt like it would be useful to be able to comment and share the feature, “I would use the social aspect of the site, it would give value to my work”. Participant 5 felt the feature could bring a sense of community: “it was more like a community type of webpage, like this is for people interested in like Sámi photography”.

Only a few of the participants did not find this feature useful. Participant 2 preferred to use his own methods to save the material: “I can see why some might use it but for me I would rather use my own personal methods of saving and collecting the material”. Participant 4 also had a hard time seeing why this function would be good: “What is the point? I cannot see the point for myself, but perhaps for elders it would be good”.

Overall the social aspect was positively received by the participants, even if some questions were raised, particularly about the commenting function because this would require significant moderation by the administrators of the archive.

Authors The code ethical considerations encompassed comments that were mostly directed towards the ethical guidelines and how the participants experienced this feature.

Reactions to the two different ways of presenting the ethical guidelines varied among the participants. The ethical guidelines of both the “normal” wall of text and the “quiz” version were appreciated by some and not liked so much by others. Participant 6 talked about the version with questions: “Most people won't read the guidelines, and this will make me not want to join the archive”. Participant 2 also felt the questions were not a good idea: “The questions feel too easy and dumb, like the answers are given without any thought”. However, there were positive comments as well. Although some participants raised concerns, others liked the idea of having a new ethical guidelines solution. Participant 1 said, “It's a good way for users to have to read the ethical guidelines, the questions are also good. Without questions I will not read guidelines”. Participant 3 also liked the design: “I like the design of the questions”.

Participant 7 questioned how the text of the ethical guidelines was written and said that it could possibly strengthen prejudice against the Sámi population. “The text is interesting; you need to talk to different Sámi-groups and not just the groups that the government defines as Sámi. The sentences can be seen as portraying us like victims”. This was because the phrasing of the text looked like it was written by a non-Sámi individual who wanted to create a helpful text. “This text looks like it was written by a non-Sámi person who wants to do things right.” Further, and regarding how images in the archive were named, participant 5 mentioned the ethics of naming places and individuals: “There are a lot of pictures of anonymous Sámi people, and it's a good way (having comments) to name places, so it's not just oh, random Sámi in a random mountain area, it's a way to empower and to say, okay this is the place, it has a name and a person”.

This section has presented the highlights of the results generated by our user study. These results provided a means to uncover opinions about the features of the archive. The opinions expressed could then be summarized and translated into a model in order to show how “double sensitivity” has benefited the design of this prototype and how this study has helped us understand “cultural sensitivity” better. In other words, the model illustrates how using “double sensitivity” can be beneficial in the design of prototypes such as this archive. In the next section we present the “double sensitivity” model followed by discussion on the overarching take-aways for HCI researchers and designers. technologies.