View
1.599
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A presentation from Museums and the Web 2010. This paper is about a fundamental, three-fold issue concerning interactive multimedia communication. What is the best timing for providing information about an exhibition? And, depending on the answer: what should be the goal(s) be? What kind of information should be provided? We want to challenge the implicit assumption that ’before the visit’ is the best time for delivering synthetic, promotional and practical information, while ‘during the visit’ is the best time for providing in-depth information. We propose here that two additional important segments should be considered: users who have already visited the exhibition, and users who will never visit it at all. We suspect that ’after the visit’ could be a suitable time for pursuing a strong cultural impact (providing in-depth content, multimedia material, links to interesting sources, etc.). Moreover, past visitors are usually easy targets to reach: they bought tickets! Also, non-visitors could be interested in receiving in-depth communication. Our discussion is based on observations and data collected during two extensive user studies (involving more than 250 users) conducted on the occasion of the exhibition Enigma Helvetia, held at Museo Cantonale d’Arte and Museo d’Arte Moderna, in Lugano (Ticino, Switzerland) in 2008. Additional observations are drawn from a third user study, still ongoing, for the exhibition Look at me, at the same museum.
Citation preview
1
WHEN-WHY –WHAT-HOW
COMMUNICATION ISSUES
Paolo Paolini : HOC-LAB, Politecnico di Milano, IT
AuthorsMarco Franciolli
Director of “Museo Cantonale d’Arte”, Lugano, CH
Elisa Rubegni
TEC-LAB, USI: University of Italian Switzerland, CH
Paolo Paolini
HOC-LAB, Politecnico di Milano, IT
TEC-LAB, USI: University of Italian Switzerland, CH
2
RESEARCH QUESTION(s) When is the best timing to deliver “in depth” info?
Related questions: What the info should be about? Why we should deliver this info? What are we trying to achieve? How should we deliver it? What’s the best medium?
3
CENTRAL QUESTION: WHEN Before a visit During a visit After a visit Independently from a visit ….. A combination of the above
4
USER STUDIES
Two exhibitions at Museo Cantonale d’Arte “Enigma Helvetia” : spring-summer 2008
(in conjunction with the city “Museo d’Arte”)Swiss identity and stereotypes
2 user studies: 201 surveys “Look at me”: winter 2009-2010
Faces, seeing, staring, …in the last 50 years of art
1 user study: 84 interviews
5
ENIGMA HELVETIA- First User Study : 1
When user utilized the MM narrative, had they visited the exhibition?
32% not visited yet and may be would visit; BEFORE 48% not visited and no plan for a visit; INDEPENDENTLY 20% already visited ; AFTER
6
ENIGMA HELVETIA- First User Study : 2
No important difference for consultation time!!!
7
ENIGMA HELVETIA- First User Study : 3
AFTER“Visitors”
Find the MM narrative more interesting than the others!!
8
ENIGMA HELVETIA- First User Study - 4
AFTER“Visitors” slightly outperform “non visitors”
9
ENIGMA HELVETIA- Second User Study
2 MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE EXHIBITION!An overall high appreciationPeople who “totally missed” the exhibition seem to appreciate the narrativeAlso “visitors” seem to appreciate “reenacting” the experience
10
Look at me - User Study
Interviewing VISITORS “I do not want to be prepared for my visit”
“I like to be surprised by the exhibition and get the info later”
“After the visit I’ll know what to look for”
11
Conclusions : questions Are we focusing on the proper “timing” and
goals? Focusing on AFTER and INDIPENDENTLY
would our “multimedia products” be the same?
What for?
12
Current and future work Focusing on AFTER: giving in depth info to people
who had visited the exhibition (easy to identify)
Improve the research methodology
We would like to cooperate with cultural institutions in different contexts (avoiding specific production bias)
13
Recommended