There's masses of sense being spoken and I'm agreeing with much of it...but
I'm not hearing anyone yet who has solid figures about x scans of qr codes
on gallery or y BLE engagements...
Is this data out there...?
Mike
On 27 Feb 2015 11:00, "Pugh, Jo" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I think, on the quiet, we do have a good handle on the user need. But
> let's rehearse it.
>
>
>
> The best museum content for visitors is layered content. Some visitors
> want more content, some want less. Some visitors are 7, some are 70. Some
> visitors would like a 'hidden histories' trail focusing on disability in
> the collection, some others want to know what Grayson Perry thinks about
> stuff.
>
>
>
> When we try to accomplish all of this with labelling at once, the result
> is a mess.
>
>
>
> Digital layering is, in theory, a far more preferable notion. Rich content
> about the object, tailored to what the visitor chooses. In digital space,
> this content can be unlimited.
>
>
>
> The question is, what is most frictionless way to help users access the
> contextual information they want and need when confronted with an object.
> (It's the same question every exhibition designer always asks).
>
>
>
> I like QR codes because they're a cheap and easy way to explore this idea.
> But they are very, very far from frictionless as Mike's handy chart showing
> all the pinch points shows.
>
>
>
> Perry has now done a good job of outlining some of the barriers with
> iBeacon. But I think we're able to articulate what we would like because we
> can list reasons why these technologies don't implement it.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Jo Pugh
> Research Engineer | The National Archives / University of York
> tel. +44 (0)20 8392 5330 x2292
> The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
> www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Bonewell, Perry
> Sent: 27 February 2015 10:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't seem to have a handle on
> smartphone use in galleries in the same way we do over web accessibility
> for instance (judging by the recent discussion on this forum at least).
>
>
>
> iBeacon seems to be very much in its infancy and to me at least it has
> some of the limitations, if not more, of QR:
>
>
>
> Do your visitors have Bluetooth switched on?
>
> Have they got your app installed?
>
> How are you going to persuade them to install it?
>
> Android implementation is currently much flakier than iOS - how to deal
> with that?
>
> What happens if the room is crowded (eg BLE signal strength tanks once
> bodies get in the way)?
>
> And so on
>
>
>
> By comparison QR is technically more straightforward to implement but
> requires more direct interaction by the user, but I think the consensus is
> people hardly ever use them.
>
>
>
> I suspect the main advantage of NFC or BLE (if mainstream) would be to
> facilitate some sort of interaction with visitors that doesn't require them
> to even look at their phone. Something that ticks along in the background
> but allows them to go home and enhance or augment their social media
> streams when they upload their photos, tweets and so on.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:
> [log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Mike Ellis
>
> Sent: 27 February 2015 10:09
>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
>
>
> Thanks Perry - I think this:
>
>
>
> What are users wanting when they walk into a museum with a smartphone in
> their pocket? What are their expectations?
>
>
>
> Aren't these the questions we should be asking first (bearing in mind that
> what users think they want and what they actually do tend to be two
> entirely different things)?
>
>
>
> Just maybe they want to keep the thing in their pocket and do something
> that takes them away from all the intrusive technology in their lives.
> Aren't museums diverting enough already?
>
>
>
>
>
> ..are really what I'm interested in too.
>
>
>
> As it happens we're running a little tech prototype with Bristol Museums
> called "Go Collect" which involves people being able to "collect"
>
> objects as they go around the museum using their smartphone - but then get
> the detail of what they've collected later on when they get home.
>
> It's kind of responding to your last point - when people are in museums
> maybe they should be spending more time with the objects..? But again - I
> have no idea if people will actually do it, or whether they're there trying
> to escape a screen...
>
>
>
> The original question wasn't actually prompted by this but by a meeting
> with a company who do NFC tech - and I was just wondering what the
> realities are vs what geeky types might _like_ to happen.
>
>
>
> tt
>
>
>
> 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/> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bonewell, Perry wrote:
>
> > Just to play devil's advocate on all this for a moment:
>
> >
>
> > What came first, the technology (QR, NFC, iBeacon or whatever) or the
> desire by users to interact with museum displays/billboards/posters/TV ads
> using their mobile devices?
>
> >
>
> > I can't help thinking the main imperative behind at least two of these
> technologies is mainly commercial (as in how to get customers to easily
> part with their cash).
>
> >
>
> > This is not to say that other uses can't be found for technology beyond
> the original intention but I kind of wonder if as people interested in
> technology we're falling into the same trap we grumble that our marketing
> teams and department managers fall into with apps: "look at this cool stuff
> everyone is talking about, how can we shoe horn it into our service" as
> opposed to "we have a problem that needs solving, this technology over here
> appears to address our needs"
>
> >
>
> > What are users wanting when they walk into a museum with a smartphone in
> their pocket? What are their expectations?
>
> >
>
> > Aren't these the questions we should be asking first (bearing in mind
> that what users think they want and what they actually do tend to be two
> entirely different things)?
>
> >
>
> > Just maybe they want to keep the thing in their pocket and do something
> that takes them away from all the intrusive technology in their lives.
> Aren't museums diverting enough already?
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:
> [log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of
>
> > Mike Ellis
>
> > Sent: 27 February 2015 09:12
>
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
> >
>
> > I totally made that up - just looked at the report we did and actually
> QR out-performed short urls - which is interesting - but most striking is
> the fact that very few people followed up on the call to action at all..
>
> >
>
> > 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/<
> http://heritageweb.co.uk%3chttp:/heritageweb.co.uk/>> *
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Mike Ellis wrote:
>
> >> 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/<
> http://heritageweb.co.uk%3chttp:/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]<mailto:
> [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/<http://thirty8.co.uk
> %3chttp:/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/
>
> > ****************************************************************
>
> > This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be
>
> > legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended
>
> > addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to the
>
> > sender and then immediately, permanently delete it. Do not read,
>
> > print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-mail may be
>
> > monitored by Bolton Council in accordance with current regulations.
>
> > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept
>
> > for the presence of computer viruses currently known to Bolton
>
> > Council. However, the recipient is responsible for virus-checking
>
> > before opening this message and any attachment. Unless expressly
>
> > stated to the contrary, any views expressed in this message are those
>
> > of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of
>
> > Bolton Council. http://www.bolton.gov.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/
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be
> legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If
> you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then
> immediately, permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store
> or act in reliance on it. This e-mail may be monitored by Bolton Council in
> accordance with current regulations. This footnote also confirms that this
> e-mail message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses
> currently known to Bolton Council. However, the recipient is responsible
> for virus-checking before opening this message and any attachment. Unless
> expressly stated to the contrary, any views expressed in this message are
> those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of
> Bolton Council. http://www.bolton.gov.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/
>
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus
> service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM
> Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your
> organisations IT Helpdesk.
>
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> National Archives Disclaimer
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
> use of the
> individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient and
> have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the
> email.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and
> attachments that do
> not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither
> given nor
> endorsed by it.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ****************************************************************
> 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/
****************************************************************
|