Digital Design Thesis 2020 Process Book by Alyssa Hearon
alyssahearondesign.com
Contents INTRO
4 Project Overview Interest in Topic 8
RESEARCH Engagement, Learning, and Emotion Socialization and Groups Balancing Attention Navigation Observational Research CONCEPTS
21
PRODUCTION
23
INSTALLATION PROPOSAL
25
FINAL THOUGHTS
27
BIBLIOGRAPHY
29
3
Project Overview
Thesis Question: How can interactive technology be implemented to effectively increase audience engagement in a museum setting? When it comes to interactivity in museums, there are many ways to approach it, and I think that it’s important to approach it from different angles. The idea of creating interactive environments in a museum setting that incorporate technology, with the ability to engage groups of people of different ages and backgrounds, is complex.
4
5
Interest in Topic
I’m interested in how interactive technology can engage an audience and also create a memorable and meaningful experience. Because of this I wanted to examine the best way to create an interactive environment in amuseum exhibit. I wanted to know if updated interactive technology actually is better at engaging people versus older more kinesthetic approaches to interaction. Or is a combination better? Why are people interested in interactive tech? Is it simply an attractive way to entertain and spark interest? Or can it be implemented as a learning tool? While I was not the first person to ask these questions, from what I could tell in my research, the idea of interactive technology is still debatable among those who create and curate museum experiences. A lot of people are still unsure of its benefits. In my thesis I wanted to show why interactive technology is important to the future of museum exhibits and curation and I wanted to show the benefits that can be gained by the audience and museums by implementing interactive technology. All of this ultimately lead me to want to know what design methods canbe best implemented in order to create an educational experience thatis seamless in integrating the exhibit and its artifacts with existing and updated technology.
6
7
Research
So I had a few goals in mind when beginning my research, I wanted to explore the existing discourse on interactivity in museums. I wanted to know what was effective when it came to engagement and learning, about the social aspect of museums and exploration of exhibits, how interactions can enhance an experience or distract from objects and artifacts displayed, if interactions were helpful in navigating the physical space of the exhibit, and how to create an emotional connection with he museum audience. I think knowing all of this is important to the end result of my thesis, which will be redesigning the gem and minerals exhibit at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS). My research included scholarly research as well as observational research including visiting the DMNS as well as other museums in Colorado, and also drawing from my own past experiences at museums outside of Colorado to see what is currently being implemented in terms of interactive technology, and observe how people interact with these exhibits.
8
9
Engagement, Learning, and Emotion
When it comes to interactivity and learning, I found that interactivity is an important component to learning in a museum setting. Interactivity is important because it promotes participation and creates a sense of agency which can be especially pertinent in a nature and science museum, because it bridges the gap between the object behind the glass and the audience (1) (2). It’s theorized that in our early stages of development, we learn about the world through touching and moving objects (2). Interactive learning in a museum also plays upon the constructivist theory of learning, which is the idea that we create meaning from our prior knowledge and experiences and what we are currently learning and experiencing (2). Many museums decide to approach these concepts of learning in different ways. There are a few that employ interactive devices that serve not only as a guide to the exhibits but also tell a story and connect with the audience on a personal level. In all these instances, mobile technology was implemented to personalize the experience. In case studies on these types of interactives, most visitors wanted a personalized experience and were interested in more casual ways of learning (4). Other studies have shown that this type of informal learning is important because it creates a feeling of personalization and an emotional connection to the experience, emotion being a key component in the formation of memories (5). An important aspect to this type of interaction is follow up or “debriefing” as information is best retained when it is reflected upon (3). Another case study focused on multimodal interactivity that had to do with interactive spaces, in this case interactivity was employed within specific spaces of museums on a larger scale. Specifically at the Denver Art Museum, these types of interactive spaces are called “installed interpretatives” by the museum, with the purpose of offering different ways to look at and experence art (2). These types of larger interactives allow for independent and group learning, they also play upon the concepts of constructivist learning, and also offer a “debriefing”. These larger installations also have the potential to encourage navigation.
10
Socialization and Groups
Socialization is an important part of the museum experience. When most of us go to museums, we don’t go alone, we often go with a group, whether it’s friends, family, or with a signifigant other. Therefor, the idea of group learning and socialization is something that has to be considered when talking about museum nteractivity. Group learning can be a powerful motivator when it comes to interactivity, many people enjoy sharing an experience with someone in their group (4) (6). However, it can also hinder an individuals ability to experience interactions on their own, mainly if an individual is trying to keep up with their group, and they miss out on information (8). Interactions with mobile devices tend to be more isolatiing (4), while larger interactive spaces tend to promote group learning (2). A good alternative to either of these could be table top touch screen interactions (7).
11
12
13
Balancing Attention
When it comes to interactive technology, there is always a danger of sensory overload for the audience. Especially when it comes to mobile interactives and touch screens (4)(6). Both designers, and museum attendees are often concerned with the attention being predominately taken over by the interactive screens, when the interaction should only be a suppliment to the museum objects, and not the main attraction (4)(8). One study found that simply pairing traditional text with their mobile interactive was both effective in creating meaningful interaction without distracting the viewer (5). This study created an AR experience that encouraged the participant to find objects in the gallery to scan insuring there was a balance between viewing the screen and physical object. There is less danger of this occuring when it comes to larger interactive spaces as these types of interactions are not often paired with the exhibit simultaniously.
14
Navigation
In most cases, the interactives studied increased spacial awareness and the need to travel between displays. One study observed that visitors liked returning to displays and navagating in a non-linear way (4)(5). It was also found however, that most visitors do not like to stand in one place too long, and become impatient, causing them to miss content (4). If there is too much information presented in any format, a visitor may become stagnant in the exhibit, which causes them discomfort or other negative feelings (4)(8). Keeping this in mind is an important part of designing interactions.
15
16
17
Observational Research
For my observational research, I visited the Museum of Boulder (their history museum), and most of the exhibits at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. When I went to Denmark in 2018, I had the privilege of experiencing interactions at multiple museums designed by the Danish firm Yolk. I kept a few things in mind when reviewing these experiences. Firstly, I wanted to think about my own personal experience with the interactions, what I thought was engaging, what granted me agency to personalize my experience, what was memorable, as well as interactions that did not make any of those happen for me. Secondly, I observed how others interacted with exhibits, I watched strangers interactions as well as observing members of my own group. With the people in my group, I asked them questions about their interactive experience, how it made them feel, was it a positive experience, did they learn anything? Finally I looked at navigation, my own as well as everyone elses. How long were people spending at interactions and why? What areas were the most popular or traffic heavy, what were the least? The Museum of Boulder had a large room that detailed the history of Boulder County. Corners of the room were clearly divided by the types of interaction as well as the grahical and design elements. Each area had a slightly different reaction that was optional, some of these interactions were obviously suited for adults, while others were more for children, but most were for all ages. A lot of touch screens were implemented in the interactive design for the space, In this case I think they enhanced the exhibit and the interaction, they were placed in open areas so they could be seen by everyone. There were either table top interactions or tablet/ smaller screen interactions. Every smaller screen had a larger projection on the wall, so even if one person was interacting with the screen, everyone could still view and participate. This exhibit allowed linear or non linear navigation, depending on your preference, and the interactions were also left up to the viewer.
18
Observational Research In contrast, the DMNS has a lot of dated interactions. Most are still simply tactile, accompanied by wordy plaques, this can especially be seen in the Hall of Life exhibits with taxidermied animals, the dinosaur exhibit, the gem and mineral exhibit, the history of native peoples exhibit and the Egyptian Exhibit. A few of these exhibits had a single example of updated interactive technology, but the implimentation felt off. For example, the Egyptian exhibit had a really cool table top touch screen that let you look at a CAT scan of the mummy in the exhibit, layer by layer. But the interaction was placed up against a wall in a corner next to a glass exhibit, so it did not encourage group learning. The more popular exhibits included the body exhibit, the space exhibit, and the visiting Pixar exhibit. These exhibits have examples of interactive technology, the space exhibit is more of a gamified approach, while the body exhibit is more of a personalized approach. Excluding the temporary exhibit, the most successful implementation of interactive technology The museums in Denmark for the most part, were pretty similar to the Boulder Museum. They employed a multitude of interactions, encouraged non-linear exploration, and offered story telling methods that created personalization. I think the Danish museums and the Boulder Museum are successful at this implementation because the interactions are a suppliment to the exhibit, so while the interactions create memorable emotional experiences (fun, wonderment, introspection), the educational content is not forgotten I think this is a concept that can be improved upon at the DMNS. I chose to reimagine the gem and mineral exhibit for a few reasons. It’s a smaller space, with a smaller subject, while the layout is linear it has an oppurtunity to easily become more open and non-linear. The smaller subject matter allows for a variety of interactions to be implimented without distracting from the scientific and historical aspects of the exhibit,and it also offers a unique way to improve the localization of the exhibit, as some parts of Colorado have a history rooted in mining. With the research I’ve done and the observations I’ve made, I can create new interactions that enhance the science of gems and minerals as well as the historical aspect of mining that are prominent in the exhibit.
19
20
CONCEPTS
I chose to re-imagine the gem and mineral exhibit for a few reasons. It’s a smaller space, with a smaller subject, while the layout is linear it has an oppurtunity to easily become more open and non-linear. The smaller subject matter allows for a variety of interactions to be implimented without distracting from the scientific and historical aspects of the exhibit,and it also offers a unique way to improve the localization of the exhibit, as some parts of Colorado have a history rooted in mining. With the research I’ve done and the observations I’ve made, I can create new interactions that enhance the science of gems and minerals as well as the historical aspect of mining that are prominent in the exhibit.
21
22
PRODUCTION
I started out with rough sketches and word maps, conceptualizing different sections of the exhibit individually. Once I had an idea of what each section of the exhibit would look like I began to formulate a floor plan. With that I was able to story board the eventual video walkthrough of this new imagined space. Once my story board was complete I began to create the scenes from the story board, based on my initial concept sketches and word maps. After my scenes were complete I began to desigh the typography and design elements. After this I began to piece the final vide together.
23
24
INSTALLATION
The piece I am creating for the BFA thesis exhibition will consist of my process book, which will detail the research and conclusions of my project, a 27” iMac to display the final video mock up of an interactive exhibit, a vinyl decal displaying the name of my project and a brief description, and business cards. I will be using 4’ the right side of the 8‘ shelf Visitors will be able to take away buisness cards. My vinyl decal will be made by Mad Graphics 303 so that it is safe to remove from the wall. If the power is above (on the ceiling) I will run the power chord for the iMac through the shelf, down the wall, along the bottom of the wall, and then up the side of the 3’ wide face of the wall. I’ll use gaffing tape to keep the cord down and also minimize its presence to the viewer. Additionally I’ll be using a white wall mounted chord cover to hide the chord running down from the iMac under the shelf.
25
26
29 27
FINAL THOUGHTS
Overall this thesis project was a very positive experience for me. I was able to demonstrate the design skills which I have learned throughout my degree, and I was able to apply my skills in solving my thesis problem. I love museums, and I wanted to tackle the issue of interactive technology because I believe museums need to stay up to date to keep repeat attendance as well as interest new visitors, I also think it is important for museums to be innovative when it comes to interactive technology, because it can be effectively applied to museum spaces. Innovation is also important in securing funding. When the concepts of learning, emotion, balancing attention, social interaction, and navigation are applied to the design process when creating an interactive space, a truly unique experience will be created because each museum, and it’s visitors are different.
28
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Berry, Marguerite. “Fifteen Years Of Talk: Newspaper discourses on Ireland’s ‘interactive’ science museum”. Irish Communications Review. 2012. 2. Hunt, Julia Katheryn. “Emerging Trends with Interactives in Art Museums”. University of Washington. 2013 3. Pierroux, Palmyre. Sanchez, Eric. “Gamifying the Museum: A Case for Teaching for Games Based Learning” 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning. 2015. 4. Roussou, Maria. Katifori, Akrivi. ”Flow, Staging, Wayfinding, Personalization: Evaluating User Experience with Mobile Museum Narratives” 2018. 5. Hornecker, Eva. Damala, Areti. van der Vaart, Merel. van Dijk, Dick. Ruthven, Ivan. ”The Loupe: Tangible Augmented Reality for Learning to Look at Ancient Greek Art”. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 2016. 6. Grinter, Rebecca E. Aoki, Paul M. Hurst, Amy. Szymanski,Margaret H. Thornton, James D. Woodruff, Allison ”Revisiting the Visit: Understanding How Technology Can Shape the Museum Visit” 2002. 7. Clarke, Loraine. Hornecker, Eva. ”Designing and Studying a Multimodal Painting Installation in a Cultural Centre for Children”. BISL. 2012. 8. Tolmie, Peter. Benford, Steve. Greenhalgh, Chris. Rodden, Tom. Reeves, Stuart. ”Supporting Group Interaction in Museum Visiting”. Mixed Reality Lab, School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham Nottingham. 2014.
29
9. Roussou, Maria. Katifori, Akrivi. Pujol, Laia. “A Life of Their Own: Museum Visitor Personas Penetrating the Design Lifecycle of a Mobile Experience” 2013. 10. Law, Effie Lai-Chong. “The Measurability and Predictability of User Experience” University of Leicester. 2011. 11. Roussou, Maria.Pujol, Laia. Engelke, Timo. Keil, Jens.“A digital look at physical museum exhibition : Designing Personalized Stories with Handheld Augmented Reality in Museums.“ 2013.
30
alyssahearondesign.com
