Week 7: Smartphone Headset

The Smartphone headset presented by Daniela De Angeli and Eamonn O’Neill from the University of Bath seeks to engage the visitor through technology by augmenting the visitor’s museum experience.

headset2
How the headset actually works

The headset works by using the visitor’s own phone to record and project information onto a transparency in front of the visitor’s eyes.  Thus far, the researchers have run a small study testing lighting, color and image blurriness.  When the headset is less a prototype, they plan on testing it in National Trust’s sites.

 

There are possibilities of displaying an infinite amount of information that the visitor would not originally have had. Curating would certainly be affected.  The headset impairs peripheral vision and curators may have to edit the exhibitions to allow the headsets to be really effective.

headset
The Smartphone headset prototype

 

The pros for a headset over a purely phone based augmentation was that holding the phone is limiting.  Having the phone in your hand was a distraction in it of itself.

I would argue that having the headset on itself is a distraction as it would take a while for visitor’s to become adjusted to the having something cover and interfere with their vision.  It would certainly take some time, at least, for the novelty of the headset to wear off. Certainly it would be an initial distraction to the visitor but I see there being a lot of potential to what could be done with the projections.

 

Week 7: How to get visitor feedback on digital interactives

Coming from a communications and business oriented background, the reading that caught my eye was “When to ask and when to shut up: How to get visitor feedback on digital interactives.” Just two weeks ago in Management class, we learned about proper ways of hypothesis testing and interviewing customers. Interestingly, this article resonates with the methods I learned in that course, and actually goes deeper. There are four major ways to learn customer insights: interview, surveys, observations, and usability testing. The last one is the focus of this article.

 

Usability testing in particular can be very effective in helping assess how a museum’s digital gadget is accepted by the users. This is important because when users have bad experiences with digital tools, they themselves often don’t know why they’re struggling, this is where usability testing brings makers and users together, helping work out the problems. In order to conduct a proper usability test, one must first recruit proper participants. Of course, it’s possible to ask some museum visitors while they explore the gallery on a given day, however, that participant sample will not be representative of your target segment. Thus, it’s better to pre-select participants, inviting them to the institution for the specific purpose of testing the interface. Next, it’s important to give people tasks because when people use digital tools it is usually to accomplish something. For example, the article says “if you are concerned that the map does not distinguish between the first and second floors – the participant to find an object on the second floor while on the first floor.”

The next step is knowing how to guide the user’s experience smoothly without incorporating your own biases in the questions you ask. Here one must be very careful and patient, and really focus on wording open-ended questions that allow the users to do the talking as much as possible to describe their experiences. It is highly unlikely that they will know the source of a frustration if they encounter a problem during use. Thus, as you have them talk through what they do, see, feel, and want, and knowing your digital tool’s feature, you’ll be able to better realize the source of the problem.

The specific examples provided in this article were quite fascinating to read through. For instance, how should you guide a user who gets stuck when using your tool? Giving “hints” is obviously wrong, as is constantly asking “What’s the problem?” Instead, the author of this article suggests to take the screen away for a few moments and ask the user what was on the screen. This will give insight into what things were easy to find vs. hard to find for the user.

Finally, after usability data has been gathered, it’s important to evaluate it relative to all other participants, trying to find common trends and discovering whether some features were really problems or just inconveniences. This process will help prioritize the digital tool’s design iterations.

In conclusion, I’d say that this article definitely provided a much more in-depth and detailed review of usability testing than my management textbook!

Week 7 Blog Post

Playful engineering: Designing and Building art discovery systems was interesting to me because it discusses a project that utilized a humanistic approach to technology from the very beginning. The intention of the technology was to introduce individuals to new types of art in a meaningful and sustainable relationship. This process was intended to act as a complement to the works of art, rather than as a technology to replace the work of art. Finally, the project was integrated into the city of Boston, which makes it more human based because the users will be able to interact with their surroundings through the lens of this technology.

I found Andrew’s discussion of algorithms particularly interesting because he presents an idea that I had never considered. If people see too many objects and too many options, the technology looses its purpose. The point to the technology is to be specific enough that the user sees hidden gems, rather than multiple collections of work with gems hidden within them. This point also shows off the human concern based in these projects. The creators have adjusted these technologies to enable users to feel as though their personal preferences are being understood while avoiding them feeling overwhelmed.

Finally, the physical layout of this article proved that human understanding was crucial to this project. By breaking down each section step by step, and including images of the work along the way, users are able to understand the personal work that went into creating this project. So often our technologies are created to hide the human aspect of technology, and I appreciate that this project aimed to break that barrier.

Week 7

This week I read about the “Infinite Museum” at the David Owsley Museum of Art. This interactive website is innovative and useful when trying to tie digital aspects into a museum. Although many museums already do have websites where you are able to explore the works currently on display, this project allows you to explore the galleries in a more creative way. It allows you to be reflective or look at things in a fun manner instead of just completely serious. They did this by creating numerous different prompts, which they then referred to as ‘lenses.’ This reminds me of the interactive wig exhibit we looked at in class. However, I feel like that was just more playful. It didn’t give any real information about the wigs, besides some very basic background. It was entertaining to create an outlandish wig, but ultimately I didn’t learn much. With the “Infinite Museum,” it will actually take you to explore different parts of the museum, which is what a good online digital component will do. I personally like this feature because I often times feel self conscious visiting museums because I’m not very knowledgeable about art and art history and so to be able to explore at my own pace from the comfort of my home is an amazing feature. I will be interested to see how the online realm further develops in the next few years.

Week 7: Augmented Reality

There is no denying of the continuing prevalence of technology installed in museums worldwide, even if the degree and types of technological utilization vary greatly from one museum to another. The problem, however, lies with the success of these museums in achieving their mission statements. With increasing availability of resources and innovations, museums can start conjuring up new ways and methods to attract more patrons, enrich their experience, collaborate with communities, and steady their position as a cultural institution. But it doesn’t necessarily mean they should all the time. I have seen museums incorporate technology in a favorable way, but I have also seen museums dump technology into exhibitions that distracts the viewers instead of supplementing the intended experience. Museums should really consider the ways technology can be appropriately implemented and carefully study the impact it has on the patron’s experience.

In the article “Data-driven enriched exhibits using augmented reality” by Warren et al., the authors discuss the ways museums can add “context or content, via audio/visual means, to the current physical space of a visitor to a museum or outdoor site,” which they define it as augmented reality. By drawing information from the data about the location of the artifacts, related events, and visitor behavior, there is a possibility of incorporating technology in a better and more useful way reducing what they call “visitor fatigue”.

The goal is to create links between the visitor’s immediate surroundings, as affected by his or her actions, and information held by the museum.

An example would be creating conversational noises in the background for specific exhibits to create resonance around the objects and place the visitors in a surrounding that reflects the historical context of the objects and the era of interest. Another example would be the sound of Morse codes when a sensor detects a visitor engaging with an object from wartime. According to the authors, all of this would be possible by, first, identifying the interaction points; second, detecting visitor action with the interaction points and the objects; third, mapping the interaction point to the object, which allows for personal and customizable experience for each visitor. An interesting case study would be the Anne Frank House, where it utilizes environmental noises and other audio/visual means to link the visitors to Anne Frank’s experience. If museums can create such a data-driven augmented reality in order to enhance the museum visitor’s experience, technology wouldn’t feel so out of place in an exhibit. Through smart implementation coupled with museum’s data, technology can evoke the intended emotions and guide the patrons toward a more cohesive understanding of the object.

Week 7

For this week’s blog post I looked at the article Personal and Social? Designing Personalised Experiences for Groups in Museums which covered a kind of experiment that involved allowing the visitors to become the curators for their friends’ and families’ experiences in the museum. To do this they offered a mobile app which had a basic template from which the designer could choose whatever pieces they felt their respective loved one should visit. After making those selctions they could add an audio element through song to better create the mood of the moment. Additionally they could provide instructions on how the loved one should interact with the chosen piece and textual information they should know about it. The purpose of the piece was to blend the personalization of self-curated tours of museums with the social experience of coming to a museum with others which can be lost when individually creating personal experiences.

In terms of how successfull the app was, I think they achieved their purpose in creating something that was both personal and social since they were able to watch as both pairs and groups interacted and reacted towards how their loved ones wanted to view an object. Though I think the argument could be made that this still removes the agency of the patron since they are stll not controlling their own experience, I think the personal element is still clearly evident in that the people who likely know them best are specifically designing something for them to enjoy which is pretty cool. The tour then perhaps becomes more personal then something purely self-curated since patrons are sharing an experience in which each object is chosen to have a special meaning. In that way I feel like there is a greater sense of resonance with each object since they would then be able to connect to the personal moment and interaction curated by their loved one. Thus in this way the technology enhanced the connection between the patron and the art.

Week 7: The Patron as a Piece of Art

The Pointillize Yourself and #NeoImpressed apps, implemented at the Indianapolis Museum of Art and the Phillips Collection, respectively, allow viewers to take selfies of themselves and apply filters that transform the images into pointillist paintings, within the context of Neo-Impressionism exhibitions. The article focused mainly on comparing the museums’ approaches in implementing these technologies (top-down in the case of the Indianapolis Museum of Art and bottom-up in the case of the Phillips Collection), but I found the results of the evaluations of the technology in both cases to be far more telling. Both museums received immense positive feedback from users of the apps, to the extent that the article considered the app “the most successful participatory tool [The Indianapolis Museum of Art]  has ever developed for an exhibition.”

But what made the app so popular? The article credits the popularity of the app at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, in particular, with the fact that the museum learned from its previous interactive components. However, given the younger demographics of people using the app, the option to post to social media after you create the pointillist image, and the simple fact that the images are self portraits, I credit the popularity of the app in the case of both museums to my generation’s narcissism and obsession with “selfies.”

In the first act of the This American Life episode, “Status Update,” Ira Glass interviews a group of teenage girls, who discuss the importance of posting selfies to platforms like Instagram, as well as the implications and politics associated with that practice. These girls– and many of my peers– construct their senses of self based on their Instagram identities and the reactions they get to what they post. Selfie culture has permeated teenage realities. It would be interesting to see if the app would be as popular without the social media aspect, or even the self portrait aspect, but I think it wouldn’t be. Patrons’ fascination with this technology stems from the fact that they themselves become a piece of artwork, put in the online gallery space of Instagram, to be admired, in turn, by the patrons there.

The Infinite Museum

The Infinite Museum is an application to enhance the museum going experience by providing a wide range of prompts to promote patrons to think about art in new ways. This prompts range from silly to philosophical, asking about specific artworks or more broadly about the museum/life. This application gets at a tension that’s come up a lot in class – that there is a specific way in which art should be viewed and interpreted in the museum space. There is a stigma in society that art placed in museums is something to be venerated with little to no critical thinking involved. This application puts itself right in the middle of that process by providing a platform in which it is encouraged to think of art in news. With new prompts being added frequently, this is something that patrons can use on their own or that museums can include in the exhibit itself.

I like the concept of this application – prompts are randomized so the experience changes every time, and you can save your favorites to reuse them. The constant additions will also continue to change the experience. To some extent, though I think the prompts could be distracting if the user engages with too many of them during the museum experience, or engages only with prompts and not with the museum space itself (this has its pros and cons for sure). What if the user gets distracted trying to find the perfect random prompt? What if they spend the whole time jumping from specific item prompt to specific item prompt? Do they loose the museum or the exhibit’s sense of cohesion (and is that a bad thing)? It sort of equates to trying to find the best Instagram photo, or reddit post to retweet or share. You spend a lot of time looking for it, but are you actually looking at all the things you scroll past?

Week 7: Personal and Social?

Most museums these days have implemented digital applications or other technologies that are developed to enhance the museum experience by offering information about the museum and its collection. On my most recent museum visit to The Broad, I was presented with their app that can be used alongside one’s visit. Though this app was extensive, interactive, well designed, and easy to use, I found myself only using it for a short period of time. An important part of my museum going experience is not only engaging with the artwork, but watching how others engage with it as well. People watching is just as integral to my museum going experience as the artwork itself, and app’s like The Broad’s require a degree of attention and isolation that takes you out of that experience. I found it really refreshing to hear that museums are conscious of how the sociality of a visit can affect a visitor’s museum experience. In “Personal and Social? Designing personalized experiences for groups in museums,” conducted by Lesley Fosh, Katharina Lorenz, Steve Benford, and Boriana Koleva of the University of Nottingham; the authors explore designing “interactive visiting experience[s] that lets visitors create interpretations of exhibits for their friends and loved ones that they then experience together.” The final “interactive visiting experience” designed required visitors to choose for their loved ones a set of objects, a piece of music, instructions on how to engage with the objects, and a portion of text for context. By allowing visitors to “gift” their loved ones a personally curated experience, I believe that this new approach definitely makes that experience more personal, intimate, and social. I think that their new design template is a great start in the right direction towards bridging the gap between the often impersonality of technology and the personal experiences museum visitors, like myself, wish to have.

The Virtual Docent

I chose to read an article from 1998 by James Berry entitled “The Virtual Docent”. I found this article interesting because it was written 18 years ago and it is proposing digital technologies to repair discrepancies in the museum world that we use today and that we have surpassed.

The article calls for some kind of virtual docent program in which docents are able to lead patrons from off site, transcending place and time.The article proposes examples where technology is used to extend the interpersonal aspects of museum docents. While I feel that many museums have not replaced docents with digital tools, I do not see that museums have incorporated them well into docent relations. Usually in museums there are either docent lead tours or self guided audio tours.I think the closest we see to the resolve that the article calls for is at the Brooklyn Museum, where they have text in docents answering questions. However, as we discussed in class, this is more of a community based outreach that does not transcend space as the “virtual docent” does.

However, I do think it is interesting that the article looks to virtual docents as a way to reach schools and interested patrons that may not be able to reach the museum. I see that this is very apparent through the digital designs and interface of museum websites. I think in a way, how museums curate their online databases is a a of virtually docenting. For example, the Getty has its collections available on line and commentary from the curators of exhibitions and walk throughs. The Hammer streams all of its art in conversations and museums like the Cooper Hewitt have virtual activities to make viewers make meaningful connections with the art. In this way, I feel that there is no real resolve in the personal aspects of docents but digital tools can still be used to make meaningful connections with the art.