Technology & the Museum Visitor Experience

AAM Webinar: Technology & the Museum Visitor Experience

Peter Samis, Assoc. Curator of InterpretationSan Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Scott Sayre, Principal, Sandbox Studios

Robin Dowden, Director, New Media Initiatives, Walker Art Center

Michael Mouw, Multimedia Director, Minnesota Historical Society

Dan Spock, Director, History Center Museum, Minnesota Historical Society

Jonathan Finkelstein, LearningTimes.org

March 11, 2008

Learning Objectives

• Situate their museum on the Context Continuum

• Understand the range of technology tools at their disposal for improving visitor experience

• Understand approaches to optimizing each tool as an interpretive platform

• Recognize infrastructural implications to these solutions

• Better understand benefits, challenges, and issues that arise in the technology and interpretation planning process

After participating in this Webinar, attendees will be better able to:

Museums! Even if they look like this on the outside...

...they look like this on the inside.

…and this.

Modern art—like all the objects we exhibit —exists in a framework of meanings.

• Physical aspects• Process of its making• Relationships (to its maker, to ideas, to

other works)• Documents (journals, letters, sketches)• Media• Methods of approach and understanding

Of these, art museums typically strip away all but one or two.

• Process of its making• Relationships (to its maker, its time)• Documents• Media• Methods of approach and understanding

• Physical aspects

Experts………………Novices

Some objects have more “Visual Velcro” than others.

Photo: Kai Yamada

For those that don’t, we are left to restore the context…

so something sticks with our visitors!

Photos: Ashley Lovell and BiepMiep

Ways to restore context

Scott SayrePrincipal, Sandbox Studios

Audio Tours in Transition: Cell phones

Ways to restore context

Robin DowdenDirector, New Media Initiatives, Walker Art Center

Audio Tours in Transition: Multimedia Tours

Moving along The Context Continuum…

Jonathan: Please Insert POD video 1 at this point.

Walltext or Smart Table?

• Invisible author• Single “Museum

Voice”• Generalizations

without visual anchors

• Detached tone• Failure to connect

• Person to person• Multiple voices• No generalization

without an Illustration

• Allows for humor, warmth & passion

• Invites choice & visitor participation

Learning Lounge: dedicated gallery

• Artist video on plasma display• FAQ wall graphics w/ images• Educational website on kiosks• Related books and catalogs

Answer the Big Questions

• Why would anyone make this?• What’s it doing in this big

important building?• What does it have to do with the

other works around it?• What would I be doing if I made

this?

Visitors still prefer the analog:

INTERPRETIVE OFFERINGS (COLLAPSED) USED BYRESPONDENTS (I N PERCENT)

USED

INTERPRETIVE OFFERINGS (n = 251) %

Exhibition introduction wall text 78Exhibition brochure 55Learning Lounge (one or more offerings) 51Audio tour (audio guide headset, cellphone, or podcast)

47

Drawing Restraint 9 film 17Exhibition Web site 15SFMOMA docent- led public tour 2

Use of Matthew Barney offerings by respondents:

—Statistics courtesy Randi Korn & Associates

But on the other hand: TABLE 43RATINGS OF INTERPRETIVE OFFERINGS

RATING7-POINT RATING SCALE:DID NOT HELP ME APPRECIATE BARNEY’S ART (1) /HELPED ME APPRECIATE BARNEY’S ART (7) n MEAN ±

Cell phone audio tour 46 6.2 1.10Podcast audio tour 18 6.2 0.81Antenna audio guide headset tour 50 5.6 1.44Learning Lounge 95 5.5 1.45Exhibition brochure 131 5.2 1.53Exhibition Web site 31 5.2 1.37Drawing Restraint 9 film 40 5.1 1.92Exhibition introduction wall text 182 4.7 1.65

What helped make meaning?

—Statistics courtesy Randi Korn & Associates

Here are the stats :

FI GURE 7OVERALL RATI NG OF BARNEY EXHIBIT I ONBY TOTAL NUMBER OF INTERPRETIVE OFFERINGS USED IN THE EXHIBIT I ONANDBY FAMILIARITY WITH BARNEY’S ART

TOTAL NUMBER OF INTERPRETIVE OFFERINGS USED IN THE EXHIBITION

NO OFFERINGS( n = 1 6 )

1 – 2 OFFERINGS( n = 7 2 )

3 - 4 OFFERINGS( n = 8 8 )

5+ OFFERINGS( n = 6 2 )

MEANS MEANS MEANS MEANS

7 _

_ 6 .1_ 5 .9

6 _

_ 5 .6_ 5 .7

n 5.6S _ 5.4C

A n 4.8L

5_

_ 4.6E n 4.3

_ 4.04_

n 3.3MEAN SCORES:

_ Familiar with Barney’sArt

3_

_ 2.6 _ Unfamiliar with Barney’sArtn Combined

2_

1_ 7-POINT RATING SCALE: 1 = UNFAVORABLE / 7 = VERY FAVORABLE

Number of offerings: F=5.671; p=.001Familiarity with Barney’s Art: F=36.578; p=.000Number of offerings * Familiarity with Barney’s Art F=2.48; p=.062Model: F=12.500; p=.000 R2=.276

(Statistics courtesyRandi Korn & Associates)

What did we learn? What did visitors prefer?

The more interpretive resources visitors used,the more they appreciated the art—regardless of whether they had any prior familiarity with Barney and his work.

Other variants on embedded social spaces…

Robin DowdenDirector, New Media Initiatives, Walker Art Center

History and science museums are less restrictive…

In other museums, educational technologies can assume a more central role.

Ways to restore context

Michael MouwMultimedia Director, Minnesota Historical SocietyDan SpockDirector, History Center Museum, Minnesota Historical Society

Object Theater & Participatory Social Learning

Questions?

Analog: • Gallery level wall texts written to engage• Extended object labels focused on each work• Comfortable seating to encourage lingering & looking• Gallery attendants who dialogue

Interpretive Toolset

Digital:• Mobile interpretive devices: audio for now, multimedia on the way• Smart Tables in the galleries• Learning Lounges w/ video, kiosks, wall graphics…• Information on demand3