Making Print Artifacts

Dave Ingram David Luinstra

MAKING PRINT ARTIFACTS

Dave Ingram David Luinstra

MAKING PRINT ARTIFACTS A Makerspace Approach to Publishing

© Dave Ingram & David Luinstra Leading and Learning in a Digital Age MEd Interdisciplinary Program Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary EDER 678.68 L02: Technological Literacies Beaumie Kim December, 2020 Created on a Mac using Pages

PROLOGUE In the last 40 years, the process of producing print media has changed radically. Much like the introduction of the Guttenburg press, the emergence of digital technology has significantly impacted the ways in which authors, artists and publishers produce and distribute printed material. No longer bound exclusively to the pages of a print book, work can now incorporate alternative materials, digital artifacts, artificial reality, and new forms of media. Possibilities exist to create a wide variety of dierent ways to record, display and share data. With the rapidly changing nature of digital publishing techniques and the changing form of the traditional book in both material and function, it is time to examine whether it is possible to incorporate the production of print material into the traditionally objectfocused environment of the makerspace.

The makerspace processes of constructing new objects (by hacking and repurposing) and creatively solving problems using both analogue and digital techniques can also be applied to the production of and sharing of print material.

Tucker-Raymond et al. (2017) describes a typical maker process as including ideating, designing and planning, tinkering, fabricating, sharing, and teaching. While the intent of this process is focused on the concept of constructing an object, these steps also fit naturally with the process of producing print media. Authors, designers, printers, and publishers are naturally unconventional participants in makerspaces as they explore alternative

ways of producing print media while working with a variety of different media, low-tech and high-tech tools, and using analogue and digital processes. Makerspaces and print media production both have a common focus on the process of making (Sweeney, 2017a). Acknowledging the similarities between the maker process and the creative process of bookmaking opens up makerspaces to other users. There is a clear potential to develop the makerspace into something that incorporates both approaches.

The term “makerspace” covers a large selection of different facilities that are built around design, fabrication, experimentation, and collaboration. These qualities describe the core of the maker movement and are central to the configuration of each of these spaces. The design process (and subsequent learning), inclusivity, and social connections formed in these spaces drive the maker movement today. Adding publishing to the makerspace concept is a positive way to generate a student-centered, experiential learning process that is rooted in the Maker Faire history of makerspace. Makers interact socially, producing and sharing the products of their labour (Dougherty, 2013). Understanding the components of makerspaces and the context of both the makers and the authors working in them creates opportunities for interesting synergies and challenges that need to be overcome.

The literature is replete with evidence of the benefits of making as facilitated by makerspaces in post-secondary and secondary environments. For example, the act of

making has been shown to empower students and help them shift their perspective. The act of making helps students see that the world is not static or immutable; it can be altered in a myriad of ways and there are actions that can be taken to solve seemingly intractable problems. This leads to a sense of agency and self-confidence. Producing a print artifact that conveys this message in a tangible form helps to amplify the data that students are working with.

Engagement with makerspaces can also help develop critical thinking skills, interpersonal communication, prototyping, ability to work with cross-functional teams in interdisciplinary settings, and an interest in life-long learning (Nagle, 2020). Mathuews (2018) makes a strong case that the value of makerspaces goes well beyond gaining a level of proficiency with any given technology.

The real value lies in creating a culture where creativity, innovation, collaboration, and interdisciplinary are celebrated and nurtured in all students.

The use of digital technology related to publishing continues to change rapidly. This book explores the possibilities and challenges of introducing the publishing of digital media as a creative component of the makerspace community.

CHAPTER 1

HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

T

he process of transforming an idea into a physical artifact was, from the invention of the first printing press in 16th century to the invention of the modern personal microcomputer, a difficult, expensive, and arduous process. The equipment required to produce and disseminate information was prohibitively expensive and the expertise and access to traditional publishing infrastructure was beyond the means of most creators. This changed with the invention of the typewriter. A patent for a typewriter was filed in 1714, in which the device was described as an “Artificial Machine or Method for Impressing or Transcribing of Letters Singly or Progressively one after another, as in Writing, whereby all Writing Whatever may be Engrossed in Paper or Parchment so Neat and Exact as not to be distinguished from Print�. Advances in technology like the invention of the modern typewriter in the late 19th century advanced the capacity of authors to produce standardized, legible printed works relatively quickly and easily, but design options and layouts were extremely limited and adding visual elements was a laborious undertaking (Watson & Hill, 2015).

Along with most aspects of our society, common access to digital technology revolutionized the process of publishing and distributing ideas. Unlike the past when the production of a book required vast resources, in the 1980s, there were only three elements needed to create a physical document: 1) software for design and editing; 2) a printer capable of producing diagrams and images; and 3) a personal computer with a screen and a pointing device (i.e., a mouse). Before the 1980s, neither of these pieces of hardware and software were available or cheap enough to see mass adoption. While we take for granted the ability to produce something in real time and see our work as we progress, making changes and adjustments as necessary in an iterative way, this was truly ground-breaking at the time.

When producing material with a typewriter, the user was limited in their ability to alter their work once ink was on the page. Mistakes were permanent and blocks of text could not be easily moved around. For the first time with desktop publishing (DTP) users experienced a what-you-see-is-whatyou-get (WYSIWYG) interface, so that what they saw on the screen would be exactly what would come out of the printer (Brown, 2003).

The first piece of software that allowed users to create advanced layouts and visually interesting presentations of textual content was PageMaker, created by Aldus in 1985 exclusively for Apple Computers. PageMaker is credited as launching the desktop publishing movement, providing any owner of a Macintosh computer and a LaserWriter printer the ability to create newsletters, brochures, pamphlets, and other material. In 1987 the software was made available for

DOS users, further establishing it as the industry leader (Freeze, 1987). PageMaker was acquired by Adobe in 1994 and began losing ground to competitors like QuarkXPress.

Adobe regained its place as an industry leader in DTP with its release of InDesign in 1999 (Smith, 2019). PageMaker (later InDesign) and QuarkXPress were both initially released for the Apple operating system. DOS-based platforms were established soon thereafter, such as Ventura Publisher, founded in 1986 and Microsoft Publisher, launched in 1991.

CHAPTER 2

CURRENT LANDSCAPE

U

nlike the environment that existed in the 1980s and 1990s, there are now a wide range of both enterprisegrade platforms as well as cloud-based applications that authors, artists, publishers, and other types of creators can use to create visually appealing and professionally looking content without specialized expertise and hours of study. This parallels developments in other industries such as web development, where users can now create aesthetically pleasing websites using content management systems (CMS) like Squarespace, Wix, WordPress and other tools without having to learn how to hand code using HTML or other markup languages.

Today there exists a variety of types of DTP platforms, ranging from venerable products like Adobe InDesign that are the ancestors of the original software packages from the 1980s to entirely web- or app-based platforms that appeal to users who do not require some of the more powerful features of the professional tools and value ease of use and convenience. With the advent of the internet and especially after the emergence of smartphones and increased sophistication of cloud-based tools, there has been a great flourishing of options for those interested in publishing their own content.

For the purposes of this project, we will be looking at five traditional, desktop publishing applications and a smaller number web- or app-based tools. All these tools help the user produce electronic documents. However, most modern print books begin in a digital form, so for students to learn how to design and produce a print artifact, they must learn how to use these digital tools.

DESKTOP APPLICATIONS Adobe InDesign Adobe InDesign is a professional-grade publishing tool that represents the industry standard. According to PC Magazine, Adobe Indesign’s speciality is “assembling, designing, laying out, typesetting, and preflighting complex multipage layouts” (Tupper, 2018). InDesign specializes in features for users who care deeply about things like typography and layouts. Adobe has a library of more than 14,000 fonts for users who have very specific needs and interests. It also has a strong focus on flexible, adjustable layouts. These features are geared towards users who want to use different sized and shaped pages throughout the document in order to produce a unique document that can be customized and tailored to the client’s specifications (Tupper, 2018).

Audience: Professional or at least serious content creators who have precise needs and value advanced features.

Adobe FrameMaker Adobe FrameMaker can be seen as the successor to Ventura, a product that functioned like a word processor but with some advance features related to displaying visual content (graphs, tables, etc). Like Ventura, Framemaker is especially well suited to the creation of lengthy, technical books with substantial amounts of documentation. It is a highly sophisticated word processor with advanced features like the ability to integrate media, anchor frames and pull-outs to words and phrases, and an ability to break long documents down into discrete modules (Williams, 2020).

Audience: Authors of lengthy technical documents (e.g., reports, manuals, etc).

Pages/iBooks Author Apple’s Pages blurs the line between a word processor and a DTP application. It provides basic word processing features, similar to what is offered by Microsoft Word. As with other Apple products, where it excels is in the production of visually appealing documents based on easy to use design templates. The strength of the template-based model is offset by the lack of customizability, areas in which MS Word provide more options. However, for creating short brochures, fliers, invitations, etc, Pages is a useful tool. Support for Apple’s previous book creation tool iBooks Author is now discontinued, however this feature is now placed within the Pages application (Mendelson, 2015).

Audience: Apple users who want to create small-scale, aesthetically pleasing documents.

MS Publisher MS Publisher is now a standard part of the Office 365 Suite. Users who are already familiar with other MS products such as Word will be immediately familiar with how this tool functions. It has been described as a version of Word that has more options related to styles, layouts, and design features.

However, in terms of its sophistication and advanced features, it is not seen to be a competitor to Adobe InDesign. MS Publisher is considered to be an entry level tool for users who are comfortable in the MS environment but would like to go beyond what Word oers. However, many users who are in the entry-level market find that MS Word has all the functionality necessary for their needs (Nield, 2018).

Audience: PC users who want to create small-scale, template based documents.

Scribus Of the following list, Scribus represents the only open-source DTP platform. Some reviewers suggest that Scribus can compete with InDesign in terms of its features, functionality, and user experience.

As it is almost as powerful and sophisticated as InDesign, users will also experience the associated learning curve. There is a level of learning, trial and error, and potentially frustration, as the user tries to master a free tool that can produce professional results. On the downside, Scribus cannot open or save the files of other DTP apps (Ellis, 2017).

Audience: Users who want to create professional-quality documents, similar to InDesign, but without paying for the Adobe product.

WEB/CLOUD-BASED APPLICATIONS In addition to the more traditional applications that are often used in professional environments, there are a variety of cloud- or app-based tools that are attractive due their simplicity, accessibility, and typically lower price.

Canva Canva is a way for users without a graphic design background to create visually appealing documents for use in a variety of settings, including brochures, flyers, social media graphics, invitations, etc. Like other similar products, users can access templates to jump-start the design process or start from scratch if they have conceived of a specific vision. Like tools like Squarespace, Canva allows for those without technical skills related to design to produce professional-looking products. Canva allows users to create content directly on their smartphones as well as on desktop computers. There are some restrictions on how much control a user can have over the design, which is the cost of using a relatively simple “drag and drop” interface. Like most web-based tools, Canva has free features that may satisfy casual, one-off users but also offers advanced features such as more templates, access to stock images, personal branding, more storage, etc. (Nield, 2020).

Audience: Users who want to be able to produce highquality, visually appealing documents while being

comfortable with some ability to manipulate individual pixels.

LucidPress LucidPress is a web-based app that is free to install and, like Canva, uses drag and drop technology to allow the user to create digital or print-based content. Like Canva and most web-based tools with a focus on facilitating the creation of digital content, it is template-based, relieving the user of the need to have any facility with coding. LucidPress is popular with teachers as its interface is similar to Google Drive, so students will not face a steep learning curve. Teachers also find that they can use it for their own projects (e.g., class newsletters). Also similar to Canva, the gains in ease of use are oset by a loss of control. Users who wish to have more power over the final product will have to transition to tools like InDesign. LucidPress also uses a tiered model that provides paying users with more advance features (Major, 2016).

Audience: Similar to Canva, users with basic computer literacy interested in producing digital content.

Other tools Other digital book making tools follow a similar playbook to the products described above. Like with most app categories, there are an overwhelming number of different apps that purport to be able to produce similar products, and many of them function in similar ways. The themes described above—drag-and-drop interface, customizable templates, use of the “freemium” business model, no coding required, e-commerce functionality, etc.— are common among most web-based design applications and so there is little value in attempting to generate an exhaustive list or comparing features. It is enough to say that for an enterprising teacher with an interest in using digital publishing as an assignment, activity, or part of a makerspace, these tools can help them achieve this for little or no cost.

PRINT ON DEMAND In addition to the software and web applications needed to develop digital print artifacts, there may also be a need for users to publish their books in a tangible form. In addition to standard equipment like printers and photocopiers, some of which are capable of collating pages into a simple booklet that can be assembled by hand, there are a number of print on demand options for creatives who are making print objects. The drawback of these limited print options are that they tend to be expensive to produce small numbers of books. However, the quality of the books is on par with a regularly printed book.

Blurb Blurb oers one-stop shopping for creatives looking to produce print media with support for creation, production and distribution. Books and magazines can be designed using a variety of tools provided

by Blurb. Options include using Blurb’s BookWrite downloadable app or using plugins that work with advanced editing software like Adobe InDesign and Adobe Lightroom. In addition, if a book has been created and is in PDF format it can be uploaded to Blurb for printing. Work can be sold directly through the Blurb Bookstore or pushed out to Amazon and other sellers.

A wide range of options exist for book sizes, paper quality, bindings, and cover material. Books and magazines can be printed as customers order them and Blurb can handle the shipping. Or the creative can choose to bulk order and distribute the publications themselves. While the quality of the printed work is good, it is expensive. A single 20 page softcover book costs around $20 and shipping adds another $15 making the finished work fairly expensive for most users. Costs vary depending on the size of the book and the number of copies ordered. (Blurb, n.d.)

Audience: Users who are interested in producing a small limited run of books with a specific audience in mind or those who want to see their work bound professionally.

Lulu Lulu presents a cost effective option to producing print material. Like Blurb, there are a wide range of choices in paper, sizes, cover material, and so on that can be selected during the design process. Unlike Blurb, Lulu users have to design their book in a desktop editor and then prepare a print ready PDF that is uploaded during the production process. More technical work needs to be done by the author to get the book ready for the printing stage, meaning that the platform is more suited to individuals who have experience with design software. Lulu is geared toward getting indie publishers up and running with options to distribute and sell through the Lulu Bookstore, international sellers like Amazon, or directly through the publisher’s own website. Lulu also offers the option of converting and selling a book in digital format as an epub or a PDF. (Lulu, n.d.)

Audience: Users with design experience using software that can create print ready PDFs. Appeals to individuals who may be looking for a cost effective, alternative way to publish work.

CHAPTER 3

THE POTENTIAL OF PRINT

T

raditionally the production of print material has been a time-consuming process involving a multiple number of individuals with specialist skills and a variety of complicated machines. Today, the ability to create and produce work both in a digital and analogue form is much easier and accessible to authors of any skill level.

Bookmakers can leverage user-friendly technology to reenvision the traditional form of the book and begin to explore visually experimental pathways that incorporate enhanced choices for developing narratives (Reina, 2019).

Changes in technology and the convenience of desktop publishing present new possibilities to creatives working with print. Innovative approaches to publishing, distribution and reading of material are now possible with a mix of both analogue and digital methods available to content creators.

Seita (2017) gives us a window into several new ways of publishing and distribution that are possible with digital documents. Using .pdf file formats and print on demand both have application in a makerspace with a print and digital media focus. Publishers like Troll Thread and Gauss PDF play with the medium and what a book actually is providing suggestions of how the form of the book is changing. Both use Tumblr as a method to distribute pdf

books while also providing readers with the option to print on demand a hard copy of the book using Lulu.com. Triple Canopy (Triple Canopy, n.d.) is an online magazine that may serve as a possible model for a digital/print makerspace with publications that mix digital work with conversations, exhibitions and books in an informal way. The focus of the organization is reimagining traditional print related artifacts incorporated with new media and technology.

More radical changes to the traditional form of the book are possible. Weedon et al. (2014) explore options beyond the simple transformation of a print book into a .pdf that be read as an e-book using reader technology changing both the form and function of what a book is. Whereas traditional books tell, Weedon argues that technologically enhanced media can also engage readers by providing mechanisms to show, interact and even participate in the production of a cross-media artifact which creates a combination of new relationships between the text and the reader. Readers can participate with the creation of the book itself by modifying it and expanding the narrative, as is the case with the fan produced digital book Nature Mage. Bruce Stirlings’ Dead Drops project allows users to interact with physical USBs that they locate using an AR based app. Once there, they can browse the digital files at the dead drop taking what they want and adding files if they so desire.

AR can be introduced as a narrative device allowing authors to disguise and hide storylines that the reader has to decode virtually as is the case of the Sherwood Rise, an augmented novel created by Dave Miller that explored community issues. The video below (see Figure 1) provides an overview of Miller’s project and a visual demonstration of how this augmented reality book works.

Figure 1 Sherwood Rise

Note. By D. Miller, 2013, video, public domain.

Sweeney (2017a, 2017b) argues that the act of making must be rethought from the perspective of the artist working in a makerspace. Bookmakers can allow the rich maker environment to influence their design approach and the mediums with which they are working including physical, digital, and virtual materials. Makerspaces with a media focus provide an opportunity for students to rethink traditional use of materials and to explore mixing of familiar techniques with new approaches. Creative design problems can emerge around the artistic use of digital technology like AR, 3D modelling, photography, video, light, and sound.

Questions about the form that a book should take become more complex. Makerspaces with a print focus provide ways for students to develop familiarity with digital technology that they can weave throughout their practice, exploring complex ways in which tools can be integrated instead of using them occasionally for narrow, single-use applications (Sweeney, 2017b). Digital tools and virtual spaces can be leveraged as well, incorporating a purposeful design approach by digital makers that could also include traditional methods of making (Lu, 2019).

Ultimately, a makerspace is about the individuals who make up the maker community. Sweeney (2017a) points out that “a maker is one who makes, while an artist is one who makes art” (p. 356). Acknowledging this key difference is important when developing the intent of a makerspace. A publishing makerspace focuses on the production of books, rather than simply using print material to document more traditional engineering activities. A digital focus meshes well with the nature of the space, but it should be

guided by student interest and familiarity with the digital tools available while also allowing students to discover technology outside of their comfort zone. With that in mind, makerspaces should provide makers with a range of options that include both new technology, older defunct technology, and non-traditional material to work with (Sweeney, 2017a, 2017b). Potential also exists to create virtual makerspaces using virtual worlds where students can create content and display work in virtual galleries instead of static traditional venues (Lu, 2019).

Miller et al. (2015) examine how the traditional makerspace can be reconfigured to include all variety of published material ranging from physical objects like books and exhibits to virtual and digital artifacts like film and ebooks.

They visualize the publishing makerspace as an environment where creatives can mix analogue, digital, physical and virtual forms. In doing so, they formed Publishing Makerspace, a project team that looked at ways to enable publishers and authors to take advantage of digital platforms and weave them into the content of the final multimodal print artifact. The overall direction of the project was open-ended and encouraged exploration of non-traditional means of sharing data with participants becoming co-creators of content.

These expanding possibilities and the speed with which the media can be experimented with are important considerations when examining the potential of print in the domain of the makerspace. In addition, the “tinkering� with the medium fits very well with the makerspace mentality of

taking apart traditional forms of print and reformulating it into something, with the incorporation of technology, that is very dierent. As technologies become obsolete (i.e. phasing out of iBook software, AR software like Junaio being discontinued) new approaches are necessary. Emerging technology can reshape publishing formats in new and exciting ways.

Figure 2 Reality Shapers

Note. By M. Djallo, 2016, photograph, public domain.

CHAPTER 4

JUDGING A BOOK

BY ITS COVER

A

ssessing students’ technology enhanced learning using traditional and non-traditional publishing tools in a makerspace environment presents a number of challenges and opportunities that are common to traditional STEM makerspaces. Appropriately, the activities in these open-ended environments (which include decision making, critical thinking, problem solving, hands-on learning, design thinking, creative approaches, student risk taking, teamwork, and self-reflection) can be repurposed as components of a digital publishing makerspace.

Research into typical makerspaces provides several directions that could be useful to develop assessment strategies. Lui et al. (2019) distil what is involved in demonstrating both understanding and engagement into three distinct criteria: 1. the project itself (what is produced); 2. the process (how it is created); and 3. reflection (how has the experience shaped the student).

In the case of digital publishing, the artifact produced is the project and can be a tangible physical or virtual object. It could be something material that can be held in the hand or something digital that can be accessed through a reader or other device.

Both Lui et al. (2019) and Bergner et al. (2019) consider the use of portfolios as a way to demonstrate learning. Bergner suggests that portfolios can be used to show what is done and may also be eective as a method of documenting creative process. Some key constructs like design process and creativity fit better with publishing than others like tinkering and hacking and repurposing, but many of the core components are common to both engineering type makerspaces and digital publishing makerspaces. Hwang et al. (2016) provide additional direction with their study of the creation of eBooks in a 5th grade classroom. They found that student engagement and quality of the finished work improved with peer evaluation as well as developing an assessment rubric based on content (structure, accuracy, completeness) and design (appearance, innovation, and interaction). While this tool might be too simplistic for more open-ended and complex media produced by older students, it could provide a general framework that can serve as a starting point for developing an assessment tool.

Lui et al. (2019) also identify components that are eective for enabling students to reflect on their work, determining that limiting students’ focus on specific details to two discreet parts of the process where they had success or overcame difficulties produced better quality reflection than a vague, open-ended reflection process.

More research is needed in this area, particularly in developing a robust assessment tool to measure both the end product of a digital publishing makerspace and for evaluating the process that students engage in to produce their finished artifact. Reflective-folios and process-folios

with limited and specific questions may help students produce quality assessments. Because the end product in a makerspace with a publishing focus would typically be some sort of document, it might be possible to incorporate the process and reflection responses into an author/artist statement or into an introduction in the artifact itself, combining product, process and reflection into one artifact.

Figure 3 Book by Artist Julie Chen

Note. By J. Kennard, 2020, still from The Book Makers, public domain

CHAPTER 5

CASE STUDIES

M

akerspaces and fab labs have traditionally been the domains of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Creative processes like book design don’t quite fit into this established injection mold definition of a makerspace and the activities that take place inside it.

Working with printed work in both analogue and digital form is very dierent from running a job in a 3D printer (although it would be interesting to make a book that could be printed using this technology). As a result, creative allowances need to be made and opportunities where makerspace projects can be translated to incorporate the production of print artifacts explored.

DEVELOPING CRITICAL DATA LITERACIES Stornaiuolo (2020) describes a study that examined how a makerspace focused on developing student data literacy in an inner-city school in on the east coast. The project looked to transform students from being passive generators of data to becoming active agents of data collection about themselves and their community. In essence, students were given an opportunity to write their own stories, collect their own data, and develop their own narratives within the context of the broader community. Critical analysis of the data generated was key to the project. At the beginning of the project students perceived data as information, facts,

and numbers that could be gathered, counted and compared. Students were encouraged to think about data differently and determine ways that they could expand their definition of data to include aspects of their own lives as data. Narratives were developed, art created, and interactions that were personally important to the students explored. Students began to see themselves as “producers, architects, and authors of data” (p. 92). Once the data was analyzed, the students converted the data into a symbol that could be screen printed onto a t-shirt which was the completed public artifact for the project (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Hannah’s Data Visualization Drafts

Note. By A. Stornaiuolo, 2020, photograph, public domain.

Thinking about the meaningful impact that this media makerspace project had on the students involved, one can see that publishing a print document as the end artifact is another option to visualize the data creatively. Instead of printing a graphic representation of the data on a t-shirt, students could explore a variety of dierent print materials to communicate the findings of the data collected. The research could be presented in zine, a series of infographics, a collectively published magazine, a graphic novel, or a perfectly bound book. More abstract representations of the data could be developed, limited only by the technology present in the makerspace and the intent of the students involved. Potential interdisciplinary projects to collect data around themes of community history, social issues, and so on provide connections for students in humanities classes.

PRINTING WORLDS Karel Martins describes a fascinating printing process in an interview with DannĂŠ Ojeda (Martins & Ojeda, 2019) that provides another possible way that print media can make its way into the realm of the STEM dominated makerspace.

Martins describes the challenges faced by modern printers and the way that the unique production methods of Counterprint use technology (both analogue and digital) to produce interesting print work (see Figure 5). The process has aspects of both publishing and tinkering associated with it. Experimentation is involved and non-traditional use of printed material is explored to produce unique artifacts.

Even the parts of an older disassembled printing press

come into play as the metal objects are inked and used to make print impressions on paper. Martins also talks about the role of technology and how advances in technology influence what can be done with print media.

Figure 5 Counterprint, 2004. Texts: Carel Kuitenbrouwer, Paul Elliman. Design: Hans Gremmen, Karel Martens.

Note. By D Ojeda, 2019, photograph, public domain.

Mixing traditional forms of print with non-traditional forms of print artifact creation provide opportunities for print media focused makerspaces to explore processes that may or may not include using mixed media and alternate printing methods. Ojeda’s work provides a rich collection of inspiring alternative approaches to making print media and ways to combine dierent media. The open-ended creative process is ideally suited to a makerspace environment.

STORYMAKING Bull et al. (2017) provide an example of a story driven makerspace which culminates in the production of a script and programmable diorama. While this project was developed with elementary and middles school students in mind there are ways in which it can be modified to create a more print-centric artifact. The process began with developing a model for the diorama and then converting it into a digital story. Both the physical and digital versions were combined in the finished product.

The process of creating the project (development of a script, creation of dialogue, use of images, use of text boxes for speech) could be modified older students using more complex software and incorporating non-traditional forms of digital storytelling. In a creative print-based makerspace perhaps the end result would be a pop-up book instead of a diorama. Depending on the skill level of the students, using AR related technology to create an immersive narrative might be an alternative approach.

THE BOOK MAKERS To understand the real potential of what is possible with the creation of print material, the direction of where publishing is heading, one has to watch The Book Makers. The Book Makers is a fascinating look at individuals who are reenvisioning what a book is. Far from being a dying industry in the digital age, books take on new forms in the hands of these capable book artists. The trailer for The Book Makers

(see Figure 6) provides a window into ways in which book making can be integrated into a makerspace.

Figure 6 The Book Makers

Note. By J. Kennard, 2020, video, public domain.

As an inspirational jumping o point, The Book Makers is a film that provides a glimpse into the world of specialized art book creators. The skilled book makers profiled in this documentary may provide inspiration to students, an awareness of a community to connect with, and a direction for them to pursue. It also ties the making of books with the book makers who gather at book fairs, much like the makers who gather at the Maker Faires across North America and beyond.

EPILOGUE Makerspaces have long been the domain of engineers and tinkerers, machinery and electronics, robotics and programmers. Alternative and traditional publishing have a role to play in this environment. Based on its history of printing presses, there is a connection between publishing and machinery that can be translated to current practices.

There is a rich collection of traditional print media to draw inspiration from that can be used to make multimodal artifacts that span the gap between analogue and digital methods. The transition to digital publishing methods coincides with the use of technology and computers to create content. New emerging technology like AR can be leveraged to distort the definition of what a published artifact is. There are ample opportunities for students to experiment with digital and analogue methods of publishing and printing to share the narratives that tell the stories of their lives. Desktop publishing software and webbased options are ubiquitous, enabling anyone to become a publisher. Authors have a wide range of experimental ways to produce print material in physical and digital form.

Makerspaces provide a place where those tools can be used to mix the narrative in new and unexpected ways. Despite the challenges, a makerspace based on publishing may provide opportunities to welcome new creatives who bring design and narrative skills with them as well as providing new tools for members of the traditional makerspace to explore.

REFERENCES Bergner, Y., Abramovich, S., Worsley, M., & Chen, O. (2019).

What are the learning and assessment objectives in educational Fab Labs and Makerspaces? Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, 42–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3311890.3311896 Blurb. (n.d.). About Blurb. https://www.blurb.ca/about-blurb Brown, H. (2003). Desktop publishing. In E. D. Reilly, A. Ralston, & D. Hemmendinger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of computer science (4th ed.). Wiley. Credo Reference: http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=https:// search.credoreference.com/content/entry/encyccs/ desktop_publishing/0?institutionId=261 Bull, G., Schmidt-Crawford, D., McKenna, M., & Cohoon, J. (2017). Storymaking: Combining Making and Storytelling in a School Makerspace. Theory into Practice, 56(4), 271–281. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00405841.2017.1348114 Djallo, M. (2016) Reality Shapers [Photograph]. Pixnio. https://pixnio.com/miscellaneous/printing-presstemplate-typography-equipment-device

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–11). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ellis, C. (2017, May 16). Scribus Review. Techradar. https:// www.techradar.com/reviews/scribus Freeze, K. (1987). Flexibility for PC pros is page layout strength. InfoWorld.

Hwang, G-J., Tu, N-T., & Wang, X-M. (2018). Creating Interactive E-Books through Learning by Design.

Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 25–36.

Kajamaa, A, Kumpulainen, K., & Olkinuora, H-R. (2019).

Teacher interventions in students’ collaborative work in a technology-rich educational makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12837 Kennard, J. [InCAProductions]. (2020). The book makers trailer[Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/ 361431030 Lu, L. (2019). Engaging digital makers through interactive virtual art makerspaces: Possibilities and challenges in art education. International Journal of Education through Art, 15(3), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1386/ eta_00007_1

Lui, D., Fields, D., & Kafai, Y. (2019). Student Maker Portfolios.

Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, 10–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3311890.3311892 Lulu. (n.d.). Online Self-Publishing Book & Ebook Company. https://www.lulu.com/ Major, E. (2016, November). Lucidpress review for teachers.

Common Sense Media. https:// www.commonsense.org/education/website/lucidpress Martens, K., & Ojeda, D. (2019). Karel Martens: Printing Wor[l]ds. The Journal of Modern Craft, 12(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496772.2019.1620433 Mathuews, K., & Harper, D. (2018). One size does not fit all: Maintaining relevancy in the modern makerspace movement. College & Research Libraries News, 79(7/8), 358–359. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.7.358 Mendelson, E. (2015, March 10). Apple Pages (for Mac) review. PC Magazine. https://www.pcmag.com/ reviews/apple-pages-for-mac Miller, D. [Dave Miller]. (2013). Sherwood Rise - the augmented book [Video file]. Retrieved from https:// vimeo.com/65450877

Miller, S., Phillips, D., Berger, C., Fowler, M., Martin III, J.D., Mcleod, J., & Rowell, C. (2015). Publishing makerspace: A new approach to scholarly publishing. Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316324 Nagle, S. B. (2020). Maker services in academic libraries: A review of case studies. The New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13614533.2020.1749093 Nichols, T. P. (2020). Innovation from Below: Infrastructure, Design, and Equity in Literacy Classroom Makerspaces.

Research in the Teaching of English, 55(1), 56–81.

Nield, D. (2018, October 7). Microsoft Publisher for Officer 365 review. Techradar. https://www.techradar.com/ reviews/microsoft-publisher-for-office-365 Nield, D. (2020, October). Canva design app review.

Techradar. https://www.techradar.com/reviews/canvadesign-app-review Reina, B. (2019). Digital print in the material world: paratext in service of narrative. Word & Image (London. 1985), 35(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02666286.2018.1539552 Seita, S. (2017). Thinking the Unprintable in Contemporary Post-Digital Publishing. Chicago Review, 60/61(4/1), 175–194.

Smith, E. (2019, October 3). How Adobe InDesign conquered the world of graphic design. Medium. https:// onezero.medium.com/how-adobe-indesignconquered-the-world-of-graphic-design-a094ff076798 Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Authoring Data Stories in a Media Makerspace: Adolescents Developing Critical Data Literacies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10508406.2019.1689365 Sweeny, R. W. (2017a). Makerspaces and Art Educational Places. Studies in Art Education, 58(4), 351– 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2017.1368288 Sweeny, R. W. (2017b). Making and breaking in an art education makerspace. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13731-017-0071-2 Triple Canopy. (n.d.). About – Triple Canopy. https:// www.canopycanopycanopy.com/about Tucker-Raymond, E., Gravel, B. E., Kohberger, K., & Browne, K. (2017). Source code and a screwdriver: STEM literacy practices in fabricating activities among experienced adult makers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(6), 617-627. https://ucalgaryprimo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1p0s7n7/ TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1904025870

Tupper, S. (2018, December 28). Adobe InDesign CC review.

PC Magazine. https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/adobeindesign-cc Watson, J. & Hill, A. (2015). Typewriter. In Dictionary of media and communication studies (9th ed.).

Bloomsbury. Credo Reference: http:// ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=https:// search.credoreference.com/content/entry/dictmedia/ typewriter/0?institutionId=261 Weedon, A., Miller, D., Franco, C. P., Moorhead, D., & Pearce, S. (2014). Crossing media boundaries. Convergence (London, England), 20(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1354856513515968 Williams, S. (2020, March 5). Adobe Framemaker 8 review.

TrustedReviews. https://www.trustedreviews.com/ reviews/adobe-framemaker-8

Made on a Mac