I discussed with Shura that i have thought of changing the glossary from a physical collection , into an interactive part of the workshop format, where as each tool is used, and described, i ask participants of the workshop if they have seen it before, and what they would call it.
Shura expressed a lean to ward asking openly for contributions on this is preferable, rather than explicitly asking each person to engage one-by-one, as this could have some feeling of “performing a cultural thing” attached to it, that can make people uncomfortable which is totally the opposite of what I intend to achieve with this.

Instead, I will ask the group if anyone has seen this tool before, and describe it, what it is made from and what it is used for. There is then a time period where it could be comfortable for some to contribute what they would call that tool, or if they use it in a different context, what they would use it for.
This informalises the contribution. I can also level the field by beginning with a difference my colleague and I have,

For example I can mention;

“I call this an awl, and Rahel calls it a pricker.”

These differences can sometimes be cute or funny, and Shura mentioned it is still worth cataloguing these, to have potentially as a glossary that students could engage with after the workshops, if they found this part of the discussion interesting, but weren’t confident to contribute in the session.

We went on to discuss how I hoped the public sharing would create a social aspect and interaction between the students, as we often notice students speak only with their established friend group, but there can be four of five students regularly accessing the workshop, working on the same type of project, with a lot in common, but as they didn’t have the initial connection, they are reluctant to speak to each other. He mentioned that I could still find a way to Gamify this, and use previous contributions, and ask “where do you think this is called this?” as a way to let the students know the glossary is something I am building, and working on, rather than just an unrelated quiz in the middle of a Book Arts session.

We also discussed the possibility of other tools, or ways of making that can lead to the same result, either for disabled or less able students, who for example, folding a piece of paper with a bone folder could be hard for , and could be replaced with using the foot pedal creaser. Sewing horizontally could be difficult for someone with reduced mobility in their hands, but one could use a stitching pony to hold their book in place, enabling them to sew more freely.

Shura reminded me that the point of the Artefact is the way you critique it against the blogs and sessions, and so to cover more than one possible use of the glossary could be beneficial, using inclusive and intersectional terms.