Great discussion - thanks to all.
Did anyone in this discussion try our Google Glass (like I did) at the Imperial War Museum recently? There was a lot to be learnt (and shared) from that experience.
Royal Museums Greenwich have Compass Stories - not QR of course but I wonder if they can give some feedback on how well used it is?
Eons ago - I was skyped into a class of dynamic media graduates in the US who were looking at QR code use by craft makers in markets and galleries - whereby you could scan a QR code beside a piece of jewellery or some such and learn more from the maker. There must be lots of research out there about how well used this stuff is.
As previously posted, should anyone want to volunteer to be part of a field test of an app (that includes scan facilities) based on political science landmarks between Tate Britain and Tate Modern - we will be running these in May on Tuesday evenings - do please get in touch.
Best, Andrew
On 27 Feb 2015, at 10:45, Bonewell, Perry wrote:
> 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]] On Behalf Of Mike Ellis
> Sent: 27 February 2015 10:09
> To: [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]] On Behalf Of
>> Mike Ellis
>> Sent: 27 February 2015 09:12
>> To: [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/> *
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/
>> ****************************************************************
>> 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/
> ****************************************************************
ANDREW STUCK
Managing Director
Rethinking Cities Ltd
07725555460
[log in to unmask]
http://www.rethinkingcities.net
@RethinkCities
Geovation Housing Challenge Finalist 2015
Producer - Talking Walking
http://www.talkingwalking.net
Founding Director of the Museum of Walking
http://www.museumofwalking.org.uk
@museumofwalking
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|
