# Design findings for the Wanuskewin learning landscape

Prepared 26 September 2026, Vancouver time. This brief combines a bounded review of **20 archaeological and institutional sources**, additional geographic/design research, and a read-only check of the current learning code. It is a design recommendation for the independent recreation, not an approved Wanuskewin plan. Detailed evidence is indexed in [archaeology.md](archaeology.md) and [geography.md](geography.md).

The strongest direction is an accessible landscape that helps anyone ask better questions about Wanuskewin. The terrain creates a sense of place; a short guided journey provides orientation; objects and research explain how people learn about the past. Contemporary Indigenous knowledge, restoration and culture belong throughout the experience. More visual detail is valuable when its source and uncertainty remain understandable.

## Implemented in this version

The current code contains seven historical chapters, six evidence cards, three short archaeology challenges, a five-step guided journey, a browser-saved field notebook, comparison of the last two completed model-herd runs, and terrain elevation/slope views with two-point measurements and a profile. The journey uses four mapped learning locations and a final experiment step; it is not a five-site archaeological route.

The terrain now imports the NRCan lidar-derived ground model. Uncovered ground is excluded from rendering and measurements. The previous regional elevation model is retained as a development record. The measurement implementation reports horizontal distance and height difference, rejects transects crossing missing coverage, and keeps numerical heights independent of display exaggeration.

This research review inspected source/code. Subsequent root-agent checks verified the browser journeys, measurement output, local notebook persistence, run-result capture, and desktop/mobile visual layout; the README records that bounded verification. The evidence cabinet currently presents text and source links; it contains no verified artifact scans. History chapters change interpretation, not the land surface or buildings. The bison experiment uses hypothetical placement and uncalibrated movement rules. Its results teach comparison of a model, not the outcome of a historic hunt.

## Make the landscape visually convincing through evidence

The important improvement is the **2019 Saskatoon bare-earth DTM**, whose source cells are one metre. The browser uses an approximately eight-metre mesh, so the final display does not preserve every source detail. This is lidar-derived elevation, not a photogrammetric scene containing current buildings, foliage and materials. The dataset covers about 68% of the chosen scene rectangle; empty areas must remain visibly outside the supplied evidence. Cell spacing is not a guarantee of positional or vertical accuracy. [NRCan source metadata](https://datacube.services.geo.ca/stac/api/collections/hrdem-lidar/items/SK-Saskatoon_2019-1m)

Use restrained ground colours, readable creek and river edges, clear trails, and vegetation that communicates scale without hiding landforms. Labels should appear when useful rather than compete with the terrain. Keep true vertical scale as the initial view and explain exaggerated relief at the control. Elevation and slope views should help visitors notice valley shelter and changes in grade; they cannot reconstruct all historic landscape conditions.

The largest remaining visual gap is the visitor centre. The current mapped footprint and estimated height are useful orientation geometry. A detailed roof, façade or interior needs newer, cleared documentation: the architect records a 2020 renewal, after the terrain acquisition. [aodbt project record](https://aodbt.com/projects/wanuskewin/)

## Keep learning simple, layered and open to everyone

Start with the guided journey and one question per step. Offer deeper source detail as an option. People should be able to explore independently, follow the sequence, or read the same evidence without operating 3D controls. Short sentences, large controls, keyboard access, visible focus, readable contrast and reduced-motion behaviour need practical QA with the finished interface.

The present archaeology questions are well chosen: discovery date versus object age, stored plants versus occupation season, and recovered fragments versus reconstructed vessels. They teach reasoning without asking visitors to memorize terminology. The notebook can support a simple sequence: observe something, record an interpretation, and name what additional evidence would change it.

Honey Constant-Inglis’s research is especially relevant: interpretation centres Indigenous ways of knowing, inquiry, stewardship and living relationships. Its program is a source to learn from and cite, not an activity script to reproduce wholesale. Wanuskewin’s own online resources offer the next learning step for visitors of different ages and backgrounds. [Constant-Inglis thesis](https://harvest.usask.ca/items/598d39b7-7723-4011-82c3-944f03a3f300) · [Official online learning](https://wanuskewin.com/learn/online-learning/)

## Grow the evidence cabinet before adding historic spectacle

Wolf Willow provides compelling everyday evidence: pottery surface impressions, toolmaking debris, worked bone, bead-making traces, plant remains and a shell interpreted as a gaming piece. Those subjects support observation, manufacture, food preparation and social life. Mampe’s studied level contained 39 pottery fragments interpreted as parts of five vessels; Willie’s interpretation of the shell does not supply a complete game's rules. [Mampe thesis](https://harvest.usask.ca/items/3fceaa3a-197d-4f67-8580-9e721e252208) · [Willie thesis](https://harvest.usask.ca/items/fbc310a7-b825-4646-9463-ef54ecabe7ce)

A useful next cabinet version would distinguish **observation**, **interpretation**, and **unknowns** for each object. Add an original explanatory diagram where it helps. A later measured artifact model could show scale and surface marks, provided the scan, photography, interpretation and publication rights are cleared. An attractive invented mesh should be labelled illustrative rather than presented as the recovered object.

## Evidence limits and next priorities

Source conflicts belong in the research record. Parks Canada gives formal national designation as 16 June 1986; the park timeline associates 1987 with the royal visit. Sources report differing archaeological-site counts and scopes. Meewasin’s opening year differs from the park’s 1992 account. The petroglyph release gives a broad 300–1,800-year age estimate, with about 1,000 suggested by context. The current learning text appropriately preserves these distinctions rather than manufacturing precision. [Designation record](https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=760) · [Discovery release](https://wanuskewin.com/major-archaeological-discovery-at-wanuskewin/)

Prioritize current building documentation and cleared artifact scans next. Then consider dated historic scenes, each with a specific period, supporting evidence, visible assumptions and review of cultural narration. Archaeological layers support repeated use across time; they do not establish a single timeless village or every ancient building's appearance. Small research activities can grow before those reconstruction questions are resolved.

Maintain an asset register separating source facts, original artwork, geodata and licensed cultural material. NRCan data carries the Open Government Licence; public thesis access does not transfer author copyright. Publicly viewable park photographs, maps, videos and teaching materials have not become unrestricted application assets. No openly licensed park-wide mesh or current building model was verified. [Canadian open-data licence](https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada) · [USask thesis copyright guidance](https://library.usask.ca/copyright/learning/thesis_FAQ.php)

Before a future offer to Wanuskewin, present the working experience, a concise claim/asset register and concrete review questions. Keep the independent status visible. This phase has created no endorsement, partnership or external commitment.