1

Double Vision

Post-Redesign Evaluation Adam Klinger and Nina Hido

January 2013

2

Double Vision Post-Redesign Evaluation

Study Goals After an exhibit has been renovated, redesigned, or refurbished in preparation for the Exploratorium’s move from the Palace of Fine Arts to Pier 15, an interview and observation study is conducted. The purpose of the study is to identify any major issues that would require immediate attention prior to the move. This collection of redesign evaluations will serve as a baseline of information for the Exploratorium’s new exhibit set at Pier 15. General goals:

• To confirm that visitors are able to access and use the exhibit • To confirm that visitors can build a basic understanding of the exhibit’s content • To uncover visitors’ frustrations and confusions • To understand whether visitors move on from an exhibit for intrinsic or extrinsic

reasons

Exhibit Description This exhibit consists of five sections that demonstrate some of the strategies the eye-brain system uses to form patterns from the information it receives. Each tube or pair of tubes gives you a different perspective on how your brain deals with too much, too little, or conflicting information. The 5 sections include: Hole in Hand, Circle Fusion, Eye Rivalry, Overlapping Spots, Bright Spot/Dark Spot.

Double vision exhibit kiosk

3

Part 1: Hole in Hand Part 2: Circle Fusion

Part 3: Eye Rivalry Part 4: Overlapping Spots

Part 5: Bright Spot/Dark Spot

4

Methods Uncued observations and interviews were conducted. A researcher randomly selected visitors who crossed an imaginary line on the floor that stopped facing the exhibit with two feet planted and either looked at or touched the exhibit for approximately 15 or more seconds. Uncued visitors do not know they are part of the study until after they finish using the exhibit so their behavior can be considered representative of normal use patterns. This means that some of the visitors in this study may have used the exhibit only briefly. Visitors were approached after they left the exhibit and asked if they would be willing to participate in a 7-question interview about their experience at the exhibit.

Demographics

Gender Count

(N=12) M 4 F 8

English as a Second Language? Count

(N=12) N 11 Y 1

Estimated Age Count

(N=12) 8-12 2 13-17 2 18-29 1 30s 3 40s 2 50s 1 60+ 1

Visitor Group Composition Count

(N=12) Adults-only 4

Adults with children 6 Adults w/ teens 2

Adults w/ teens and children 0

5

Findings

Holding Time

This is the time the visitor spent using or otherwise engaged with this exhibit. The amount of time a visitor spends at an exhibit is influenced by many factors and can indicate level of engagement or interest, but not as a measure on its own.

Time at exhibit

mm:ss (N=12)

Mean 2:13 Median 1:58 Minimum 0:44 Maximum 6:04

Visitor Behaviors

Visitors were observed as they used various parts of the exhibit.

Use Hole in Hand? Count

(N=12)

Yes 10 No 2

Use Circle Fusion? Count

(N=12)

Yes 9 No 1

Yes, problems 2

Use Eye Rivalry? Count

(N=12)

Yes 6 No 3

Not aligned 3

Use Overlapping Spots? Count

(N=12) Yes 5 No 6

Yes, problems 1

6

Use Bright Spot/dark spot? Count

(N=12) Yes 3 No 5

Not all tubes 3 Other problems 1

Visitor Interest

Visitors were asked about their interest in the exhibit and why they rated from “not interesting” to “very interesting” (1 – 7).

Interest Level Count

(N=12) High Interest (6-7) 5

Moderate Interest (4-5) 6 Low Interest (1-3) 1

Visitor responses:

H Probably because I didn’t know how I would see things differently. H How the brain interacts with the eyes. H I don’t know, I never thought about how my eyes work together.

H Because some are really interesting, I felt like it was someone else looking through it, not me.

H All experiments are surprising.

M For me, I didn’t get eye rivalry? It was interesting how the eye works, no… I mean I didn’t get circular fusion that one didn’t work for me.

M Just an interesting phenomena.

M Well it’s a little bit of stuff we already know, if you put your hand over one eye you see out of the other.

M I was curious about it, I wanted to see how it worked, it was interesting the different ways to look through the tubes and the ways it was challenging to vision.

M I couldn’t see some of them… M Because I have eye issues, so I was seeing what my eyes would do on one. L It was ok, nothing fascinating.

7

Visitor Frustration or Confusion

Visitors were asked to tell us if there was anything confusing or frustrating, what the source of the frustration was, and whether or not it made them want to leave the exhibit and move on to another one. Source of visitor frustration or confusion*

Count (N=15)

# that wanted to move on

The knob 1 1 Unsure of distance to put hand from eye 1 1 Didn't understand first one. Didn't understand what to do

1 0

Didn't understand last one 1 1 Nothing Frustrating or Confusing 11 --

*Totals may add up to more than N = 12 because visitors gave more than one response.

Visitor Understanding

Visitors were asked what they think the exhibit was about with the goal to determine whether or not they have a basic understanding of the concepts presented and to identify possible areas of misunderstanding. We acknowledge that this study has a small sample size and that these findings illustrate trends and may not be representative. It appears that visitors DO have a basic understanding of concepts presented.

X

It appears that visitors DO NOT have a basic understanding of concepts presented.

Visitor responses:

• Eye sight, which is dominant, which side of the brain…circular fusion confused me. • I guess how does your brain…I wear contacts that do the same thing. Your brain so it

gets your vision working right. • Relationship between eyes and brain, interpreting what we see. • About looking at things in a different way. • About different ways your eyes see something and how your brain works with your

eyes. • About how your eyes and brain process images, exhibits fool your brain to show how

it process stuff. • I guess, I don’t understand it still… how your eyes focus differently? • Eyes dominance, and how eyes work, vision. • Brain play, you are tricking the brain into doing things. • Double vision… learning how to use a telescope properly. • Seeing how vision,,, you can see by transforming what is in front of the eye. • The vision and how your brain works and your relationship to it.

8

Visitor Reasoning for Leaving the Exhibit

The goal of this question is to explore how open or closed-ended the exhibit seems to be for the visitor. Visitors tend to leave exhibits for intrinsic reasons, such as feeling bored, or finished with the experience, or for extrinsic reasons, like having to go to lunch or being distracted by another exhibit. Leaving for intrinsic reasons could suggest a more close-ended exhibit experience.

Reasons for moving on to the next exhibit

Count (N=12)

Intrinsic 3 Both 4

Extrinsic 5

Visitor responses:

Intrinsic Just that it was ok, but I wasn’t totally interested in it, I want to do something else that is fascinating.

Intrinsic I was kind of done. Intrinsic I went through the whole thing and then I thought I was done with this.

Both I don’t know… I kind of roam around, when I get bored I move on. I like more of the hands on stuff, like the fog one, or the bubbles, or the lights with the colored lights, those I had fun with.

Both I felt like I had seen it, I got the point. [Anything else?] A 9 year old boy was tugging at my arm.

Both This one said cloud chamber so I wanted to see how clouds were made. [Anything else?] I was done with this one.

Both They left (points to daughter). [Anything else?] I finished. Extrinsic Probably, I was just interested in looking at that one, then moving along. Extrinsic Curiosity, what was the next thing.

Extrinsic I don’t know, I didn’t try it all, it’s so overwhelming in here I want to see everything.

Extrinsic The child. Extrinsic Curiosity, how we use time.. We don’t have much time.

Conclusions Based on this small sample, we conclude that the redesigned exhibit does not require immediate remediation. This evaluation did not identify sufficient impediments to visitor use, engagement or basic understanding.

9

APPENDIX: Graphic Panels

10

11

12

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Emily Leighton for observing, recruiting and interviewing visitors for this study. This material was created with funding provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect their views.