Hello Alison,
An interesting topic here, which sometimes leads to a debate or positioning
between the "physical hands-on" followers on one side and "computer
interactive" followers on the other.
While I don't think the actual touchscreen or multimedia-based computers in
themselves are inherently substandard as tools for interpretation or
stimulating exploration and discovery around a content/subject/theme/idea,
there's no doubt that some galleries and new museum projects have suffered
from an unfortunate multimedia kiosk overkill, resulting in monotonous
experiences, screen-fatigue and possible user-frustration among some of its
visitors.
The sort of standard package-solution of a number of terminals within a
defined space you could just as easily find at trade shows, airport
terminals or large shopping centres. Where they perhaps are suitable for
supplying information-on-the-go. This level of intensity is perhaps not
what is needed in a museum or visitor centre, if the aim is to address
different learning and exploring styles of visitors.
Obviously, screen-based delivery can never replicate seeing real objects or
physical handling of items. But it can become a new form of reality, adding
or complementing existing live-, mechanical- or object-centered
interpretation.
As some past research has shown, for instance at the Museums of Natural
History in France and individual studies in the US and UK (at the Pitt
Rivers Museum Oxford, mentioned by Maria Economou in a recent posting to
this list)
the addition of computer multimedia interactives increases visitors' length
of stay in particular galleries where these are found, as well as often
increasing the level of interest/exploration of connected displays within
the same.
For instance, there has been fears within the museum community that placing
images or collections on the Internet would decrease the amount of visitors
wanting to visit the real museum. Instead, the opposite is happening;
the wish to visit "the real thing" increases (how many of us haven't read
the book after seeing the film?!). The Internet gives the opportunity to
make frequent, short visits at any time at any site or part of a site as
well as potentially offering the ability to follow up a physical visit.
The advent of the Internet has perhaps shifted focus away from
computer-based interpretation in galleries into the uses in the private
homes of people and schools etc. But there is need for further research on
visitor reaction to computers in exhibitions, as it is what you decide to
use them for and how you interpret the delivery which is the key; not the
computer technology itself.
Naturally you have to respect that some people probably never will come to
terms with computers, perhaps finding digital mediation "soulless". To
others, it offers individual freedom and positive sense of adding to your
own experience.
The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney is often referred to as a good example of
well crafted, levelled mix of hands-on exhibits, mechanical interactives
and screen-based multimedia interactives in the same gallery or exhibition.
At the ICHIM conference in Paris (1997, at www.archimuse.com) they
presented a very inspiring case of mixing both physical hands-on with
screen based interaction, in an exhibition about chocolate-making and scents.
Just a few thoughts!
Best wishes,
Paul Henningsson
(research assistant,
Visions for Museums
Interactive Institute)
At 15:05 2001-11-13 -0000, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone know if there has there been any research into the visitor
>reaction to exhibits which use computer monitors as the visitor interface,
in >particular relating to young children?
>
>We are anxious to include a variety of interactive exhibits in a new
discovery >centre and are finding that the designers favour the multimedia
approach.
>Any hard evidence to support our arguments (or otherwise) would be valuable.
>
>Thanks
>Alison
>
>Alison James
>Unit 311
>241-251 Ferndale Road
>London
>SW9 8BJ
>Tel: 020 7733 1202
>Mobile: 0797 946 7740
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.alison-james.co.uk
|