The Museum of the World

Read the campaign story

The British Museum and Google introduced The Museum of the World in November 2015. The microsite arranged selected objects along a timeline and connected them through themes, with further interpretation available around individual items. A current Google listing carries a February 2020 label, but contemporary launch reporting clearly establishes the earlier origin.

Samantha Lash’s 2017 Internet Archaeology review identifies Weir+Wong as the interface builder and raises questions about framing and representation. These are important limits, not evidence that the project lacked value. The case studies an approach to discovery, while recognising that a visually comprehensive timeline can appear more complete or authoritative than the selected material and available explanations justify.

Editorial interpretation: relationships can offer a useful starting point when visitors do not know an object’s name. A timeline or theme gives them a way to move from one interest to another without mastering a catalogue first. The design still needs to explain the nature of each connection. Two objects can share a category without one causing or influencing the other, and a line between them should not silently imply a stronger historical claim.

Editorial interpretation: the shape of a dataset becomes part of the story. Dense areas may reflect collecting practices, available records or editorial choices rather than the relative importance of cultures or periods. A responsible adaptation makes those limits visible near the visualisation. It also provides a path to fuller records so that an attractive overview becomes an invitation to investigate rather than a final account of what matters.

Choose an entry question before choosing the visualisation

Decide what a new visitor should be able to ask: what happened around the same time, what shared a function or what came from a particular place. Use that question to organise the interface. A dramatic visual structure can be difficult to navigate if its purpose is unclear. Start with a small collection and verify that the arrangement helps people formulate useful questions rather than simply admire the display.

Label connections and gaps explicitly

Explain whether a link represents chronology, material, use, location or an editorial comparison. Do not use identical visual treatment for relationships with different levels of certainty. Show missing dates and incomplete coverage without inventing precision. Where the collection has a known selection bias, describe it in plain language. This makes the interface more trustworthy and prevents visual density from becoming an accidental ranking of cultural importance.

Keep discovery connected to evidence

Provide a readable route from the overview to an object’s source record and contextual explanation. Visitors should be able to inspect why an item is included and what remains uncertain. Offer a simple list or text route alongside complex interaction. The goal is not to force everyone through the most visually impressive interface, but to make the same material understandable through several appropriate levels of detail.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: organise a fictional workshop’s ten invented tools on a small timeline and a separate function map, with clear labels explaining every relationship.

Measure whether participants can answer a basic comparison question, distinguish association from causation and identify the collection’s stated limits. Compare the map with the list. Ask what they infer from empty areas and dense clusters, then revise any visual choices that imply unsupported completeness or hierarchy.

Stop if the display invents dates, conceals missing coverage or presents an editorial relationship as established historical causation.

• Use invented objects and original diagrams rather than museum imagery.
• Include deliberately unknown dates and explain how they are shown.
• Provide keyboard access and a plain list with identical information.