Thanks Richard, that's a useful bunch of thoughts.
Did any of your work involve how many people actually engage with these
solutions? As a percentage say of footfall or web visits?
Actual analytics in this area seem very sparse and I'm trying to work
out if that's because in reality no-one actually uses stuff like this or
because no-one writes it up.
We did some work with a big heritage client in Bath a while back where
we used QR next to short urls as part of a big bus-back / train station
/ bus stop poster campaign - our findings basically showed that
shorturls performed slightly better than QR but that overall very few
people actually engaged with the content at all. In this particular
instance they were also given a code to get 10% off entry to the
attraction, so even with an incentive the click rates were very small.
Anyone else got any insights into this stuff? It's very easy to get
excited about the tech possibilities but if no-one is actually wanting
the content then we should probably reconsider.
Andy - what kind of click-through rates do you see on QRPedia?
Mike
_____________________________
*Mike Ellis *
Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
agency:http://thirty8.co.uk <http://thirty8.co.uk/>
* My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk <http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
Richard Malloy wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> We've developed a beacon based CMS platform and app, and before getting to
> this stage we undertook user testing within a art gallery with QR codes vs
> presentation cards vs Beacons.
>
> You could argue that we have the complete system (CMS, app and beacons)
> which is an unfair comparison to the QR Codes, but we could have easily
> retasked our CMS to generate QR Codes and our app to read them. However
> there were the several factors that we encountered:
>
> *Quality of display*
>
> QR codes need to printed. We looked at the professionally printed codes vs
> in house printed vs beacons.
>
> - If your exhibit changes that QRC sign cannot be reused, you have to
> generate a new. This will incur a cost and print time.
> - Inhouse QRC looked unprofessional (laser / bubble jet does not have
> the quality of a printers)
> - We observed more users scanning the professionally printed QRC than
> the inhouse one.
> - Beacons can be hidden out of site and it could be easily re-assigned
> (with our CMS) if the display changes. Content is pushed to a users device
> as soon as they come into proximity,
> - 92% of users questioned said they prefer the beacons solution as they
> didn't have to do anything - content was pushed to them.
>
> *Size of QRC*
>
> How large do you print the QRC out? This was a constant question.
>
> - Too small:
> - Users had to get up really close to scan - which was often a barrier
> - Risk of getting too close and damaging display/artwork
> - Too large:
> - Over-powered the display
> - Looked tacky
> - Just because it was bigger didn't mean we could scan it from further
> away and the size of the QRC made no difference to the number of visitors
> who would scan.
>
> *Accessibility& engagement*
>
> We observed a crowd around a display having to queue in order to scan the
> code.
>
> Several member of that group gave up waiting and became disinterested. We
> asked those users why they walked away and the general feedback was;
>
> - having to wait for others to finish scanning
> - too many people around that one display in close proximity - they felt
> they where pushing and shoving each other just to scan the code.
>
> We also encountered a chap who had 2 walking sticks who struggled to hold
> his phone at the angle needed to scan the code - not great for
> accessibility.
>
> This also then made us aware of users in wheel chairs, although none
> attended, if the QRC have been positioned too high or in a tight space,
> those user may not have been to access the area or been able to reach the
> QRC to scan.
>
> With beacons they transmit, so anyone within that proximity can get the
> information sent to them - you don't have to get up an close.
>
> *Usability*
>
> Of the organisations that we spoke to who had implemented QR codes did so
> with free software. They would publish content on their website, copy that
> URL to the free software, generated the code and print it.
>
> Users would then have to download and/or open a QR code reading software
> app, scan the code, wait for the code to ping back with the URL, then take
> them to the phone's browser to then load the content.
>
> The majority of the time, it would have been just as easy to type in a
> dedicated url rather than do all of the above, but many CMS systems do not
> publish search friendly URLs, making QRC previously the only option.
>
> We even found that with one organisation they would do the above, but their
> site was not responsive! So after all that, the user still couldn't access
> the content.
>
> In general, beacons and QRC are just the physical triggers to content. Its
> how the content is structured and how that is accessed.
>
> Beacons are lot better than QRC as you don't need to get close, you don't
> need to scan, you don't need to generate the QRC or print it or mount it
> and so on.
>
> There was a lot that we discovered undertaking the pilots and I could write
> a lot more - but perhaps save that for phone call if you wanted to know
> more.
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
>
> On 26 February 2015 at 10:58, Mike Ellis<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hey all
>>
>> Has anyone done / know of any studies (or have any thoughts) about
>> comparisons between the take up / usage of on-gallery "find out more about
>> this object" solutions?
>>
>> Do people want to find out more? Do they scan? How?
>>
>> cheers!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>>
>> *Mike Ellis *
>>
>> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital agency:
>> http://thirty8.co.uk<http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>>
>> * My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk<http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|