Technology and Interactivity in the Art Museum Environment:

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and Other Case Studies

Jeffrey Preston Holman

A Capstone in the Field of Museum Studies

for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University

Extension School

March 2018

ii

Author’s Statement

The following paper encompasses the research and experience I gained during my graduate internship in visitor studies at the Museum of Fine Arts in Spring 2017. During that time I assisted with the formative evaluation process for the Museum’s new Daily Life in Ancient Greece exhibition. I would like to thank Lynn Courtney, Adam Tessier, Barbara Martin, Janet O’Donoghue, and the entire exhibition team for their assistance and guidance throughout this project. I would also like to thank Sofia Walter of the Education Department for providing additional support during this process. The collections included in the Daily Life in Ancient Greece Exhibition and the history the represent have long fascinated and thrilled me. I was very fortunate to be a part of a project that involved making content that is already so interesting and meaningful to me personally accessible and engaging for those unfamiliar with Classical Greek civilization.

iii

Table of Contents List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v

Introduction: The Place of Technology in the Art Museum Agenda .................................. 1

Evolving Notions of Museum Interactivity ........................................................................ 4

Historical Development of Interactivity in Museums ...................................................... 4

Technology, Society, and Museums ................................................................................ 5

Researching the Effects of Interactivity ........................................................................... 8

Interactivity: Entertainment Versus Education .............................................................. 10

Motivations for Interactives in Art Museum .................................................................... 13

Renewed Object Focus .................................................................................................. 13

Redefining the Relationship with the Audience ............................................................ 15

Examples of Dynamic Relationships Through Technology ............................................. 19

Recommendation Systems: The Brooklyn Museum ...................................................... 19

Contextual Engagement: The Detroit Institute of Arts .................................................. 20

Self and Co-Curation: The Cleveland Art Museum ...................................................... 21

Lingering Questions of Motivation ................................................................................... 22

Appeal Without Purpose ................................................................................................ 22

Donor Influence ............................................................................................................. 23

Questions Around Democratization ............................................................................... 25

Assessing the Effectiveness of Digital Interactive in Art Museums ................................. 27

A Dearth of Outcome-Based Research .......................................................................... 27

Evaluation’s Crucial Role in Validating Expense ......................................................... 29

Approaches to Evaluation .............................................................................................. 32

Using the External Perspective to Create More Effective Exhibition Features ................ 36

The Museums of Fine Arts’ Background In Touch Screen Interactives and Research .... 37

MFA Motivations for Digital Interactivity .................................................................... 37

First Efforts: Maya Ceramics Interactive ....................................................................... 39

iv

Outcomes and Conclusions from Maya Ceramics Installation ...................................... 41

Daily Life in Ancient Greece Interactive .......................................................................... 44

Background on Exhibition and Interactive .................................................................... 44

Learning Objectives for Interactive ............................................................................... 46

Impact of Prior Efforts (Maya Ceramic and Others) on Design and Goals ................... 47

Formative Evaluation Process: Assessing Three Models .............................................. 49

Evaluation Results: How They Impacted the Final Product .......................................... 53

Benefits to the MFA’s Interactive Design and Evaluation Approach ........................... 56

Suggested Enhancements to the Process ........................................................................ 58

Conclusion: Valuable Features in a Larger Educational Mission......................................61

Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 65

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Rollout and Zoom Lens Features...................................................................................40

Figure 2: Interactive Users and Non-Users by Age Range............................................................42

Figure 3: The Conversation...........................................................................................................50

Figure 4: The Game.......................................................................................................................51

Figure 5: Click and Learn..............................................................................................................52

Figure 6: Preferred Version...........................................................................................................53

Figure 7: Version Which Would Most Encourage Looking at the Actual Object........................55

1

Introduction: The Place of Technology in the Art Museum Agenda

Digital technology has become a highly prevalent and integrated element of life in the

twenty-first century. The significance of this development has noticeably impacted museums’

efforts to relate to and expand their audiences to varying degrees, and these “[m]edia

technologies are seen as an important strategy in making [these institutions] culturally relevant to

an increasingly media-literate society” ( “Re-Imagining the Museum” 129). Museum staff are

increasingly compelled by the extensive application of digital mediums in the public, domestic,

and professional lives of their visitors to investigate how these new technologies can affect

experiences within their galleries, as well as beyond them (Heath and Vom Lehn 267). In

accordance with these efforts, the marriage of multimedia with interactivity has emerged as a

central pillar of many institutional agendas around technology in museum galleries and

subsequent efforts to create more immersive on-site experiences for visitors. Devices like touch

screen kiosks, handheld digital tours, large-scale media displays, and even computer games have

been implemented as a means to engage visitors in new ways with ideas, objects, and content.

This pattern has become so widespread that there are few museums operating today that do not

offer interactive technology, sometimes referred to as “new media”, in one form or another or

whose content consists entirely of the passive consumption of information (Marty 131).

For art museums, technology offers an opportunity to help break down traditional

assumptions about the accessibility and static nature of their exhibitions. Additionally, they can

utilize different digital features as a means of invigorating their gallery spaces and connecting

with new audiences. Many large and well-established institutions, like the Cleveland Museum of

Art, the National Portrait Gallery, and Metropolitan Museum of Art, have embraced technology

as part of their larger educational agenda (Bernstein; Lohr). However, despite the increasing

2

popularity of interactive media within the art museum environment, there is still a lack of

publically available research that examines the full extent of the effects that different digital

features have on the visitor experience. Uncertainties remain as to the scope of technology’s

benefits for audiences, and potential drawbacks that its use might also entail. To address this,

more investigations must be done into different art museums’ underlying motivations for

adopting digital components, what their goals are for these features, and how the multimedia

elements advance institutions’ larger mandate of cultural education (Anderson 297).

Furthermore, it is not always clear whether a digital component is the most effective or

appropriate way to convey the ideas or narrative of a given exhibition, and museums must

carefully investigate this matter on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the visitor perspective must be

taken into account when creating these interactives, as it the museums’ audiences that these

devices are designed to appeal to. Fortunately, evaluations of visitor experiences with

multimedia interactives are being carried out more frequently, and new approaches of visitor-

focused assessment are being implemented at different stages in the design process to help refine

technological concepts.

The following research uses a first-hand case study of the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA),

in Boston Massachusetts, and its approach to technology in the gallery environment, as well as

information from other institutions and scholarly works on technology and interactivity in

museum settings, to explore this issue. As a leading national art museum, the MFA provides an

opportunity to illustrate, from an institutional perspective, the impetuses for applying technology

in exhibitions, what kind of objectives are developed around these devices, and how they are

assessed to prove their effectiveness at meeting these goals. Several of their installations feature,

or will feature, touch screen components with different interactive mechanics, activities, and

3

supplementary information on objects. Examination of the design and formative evaluation

processes of an interactive for the MFA’s upcoming Daily Life in Ancient Greece exhibition

provides an especially detailed illustration of how the Museum approaches this concept. This

study allowed for a more concrete and nuanced understanding on how an art museum

incorporates on-site digital media into its galleries.

A cornerstone of the MFA’s approach to this matter is that interactives must function as a

complementary component to expand the appeal and accessibility of learning with the

collections. Digital technology is only one part of a larger interpretive and educational agenda

focused around the time visitors spend with the objects. The Museum has also increasingly

allowed for more comprehensive evaluation of these devices at different stages of the process

(Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). This allows visitors to have a degree of influence on the

development of digital media elements and enables the Museum to produce more refined and

effective features that have been proven to intrigue and engage users (O’Donoghue). For these

reasons, the MFA’s endeavors to design and incorporate interactives into its exhibitions have

only become more effective over time. The following investigation indicates that digital

interactivity has found an ultimately meaningful role in the Museum as one of many methods

used to connect its audience to objects in the galleries, without overwhelming the experience or

taking priority over other, equally important, interpretive tools or the collections themselves.

4

Evolving Notions of Museum Interactivity

Historical Development of Interactivity in Museums

Interactivity in the museum environment is not a new or strictly contemporary notion and

its historical trajectory in the museum world bears consideration. The idea of interactivity, as we

conceive of it today, has been around since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

(Whitcomb, “Interactivity” 353). Research by different scholars illustrates various cases of early

experiments by various institutions with interactive displays and experiences. One account, by

consultant Kathleen McLean, traces some of the earliest examples of interactives in the museum

to 1889, at the Urania [Science Center] in Berlin, and 1907, at Deutsches Museum in Munich,

both of which experimented with and featured working visitor activated models (qtd. in

Whitcomb “Interactivity” 353). Another, by media and museum historian Alison Griffiths,

identifies an effort by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1901, “when it designed an installation

that allowed visitors to turn the pages of an art book by inserting their hands into either side of

the display case” (377).

As the twentieth century wore on, interactivity became strongly associated with science

museums in particular, and was a feature at institutions like the New York Hall of Science, the

Lawrence Hall of Science, and the Exploratorium in San Francisco (Whitcomb, “Interactivity”

353). Even in more recent decades, science centers have been credited with being at the forefront

of the design and implementation of more participatory experiences for museums (Heath and

Vom Lehn 267), and are still the institutions most often associated with the contemporary use of

interactives today (Pekarik, “Engineering Answers” 145; Simon). But, this development has not

gone unnoticed by other types of museums, and the progress of digital media has only presented

further opportunities for the development of more dynamic learning tools. In the early to mid-

5

eighties, electronic multimedia began to assume a greater role in the museum environment

(Griffiths 375). The presence of these elements only grew over time, and within a decade their

use had become incredibly widespread in numerous institutions (Stogner 386). At a 1995

American Alliance of Museums conference, an informal survey by Douglas Warts, then of the

Art Gallery of Ontario, revealed nearly every institution present was in the process of developing

new technological channels for the delivery of content to their audiences (Stogner 386). The

developments of the following twenty years would vindicate these findings, as digital technology

is now commonplace in many museums, and often factors into decisions and plans for content or

exhibitions in some form or another. Clearly, the principle of interaction is one intrinsically

linked to the history of modern museums and their earliest efforts to entice and educate the

public, and the technological applications of this principle we see today are simply its latest

iteration.

Technology, Society, and Museums

In the twenty-first century, technology and digital media pervade numerous aspects of

contemporary life, and are exemplified by widespread use of mediums like personal computing,

entertainment media, and the Internet. A PEW Research poll shows that, as recently as January

of 2017, eighty-eight percent of American adults use the Internet, seventy-three percent have

access to broadband in their homes, seventy-seven percent own smartphones, and fifty-one

percent own tablets (Smith). These figures exemplify the pervasion of personalized electronic

devices and services that the general public makes use of on a daily basis for an increasing

number of reasons. This upward trend in technological usage has also occurred at an astonishing

rate. Continuing with latter two examples from the above survey, tablet ownership has increased

6

forty-eight percent since 2010, and smartphone ownership has risen forty-two percent since 2011

(Smith). This last statistic is especially relevant for young people ages eighteen to twenty-nine,

ninety-two percent of whom own smartphones devices (Smith). These data points illustrate a

massive uptick in the usage, familiarity, and subsequent demand for digital media platforms,

which has shown little sign of slowing; meaning technology is only becoming more of a

foundational aspect of our modern lives.

Many in the museum world, from curators, education professionals, to administrators,

feel that technology can be a tool for attracting and connecting with audiences, now more than

ever, because of the level to which it now permeates our society. Maggie Burnette Stogner,

assistant professor of Film and Media Arts at American University in Washington, D.C., posits

that “[t]he rapid expansion of accessible and affordable media technology, combined with near

universal access to the Internet in the U.S., is fundamentally altering the museum experience.”

(385). Stogner argues that this change is indicative of a paradigm shift for cultural institutions;

“the issue is no longer whether to use media to enhance museum exhibitions, but how use it”

(385). With this in mind, more effort is being made to understand and explore the possibilities

presented by different forms of digital media. Proponents believe that applying technologies like

touch screens or handheld mobile devices in the museum space enhances visitor enjoyment and

learning in unique and exciting ways unavailable through print-based interpretation (Gammon

and Burch 35-36). A large part of this appeal in interactive media as a learning tool is centered

its mirroring of digital models and layouts that visitors will already be accustomed to from

experiences in the real-world (Gammon and Burch 44-45).

Another aspect of this drive toward digital components in the museum is its application to

newer educational approaches that favor the empowerment of visitors as more active participants

7

in exhibition narratives, gallery learning, and personally structuring museum visits (Stogner 386;

Simon; Bernstein). One striking aspect of the growth of technology in the modern era is the

increasing sense of empowerment it grants over the various media channels, which are used to

access numerous entertainment, learning, and creative experiences. This is particularly true for

children growing up in this digital era, who have grown accustomed to the more active control

various forms of technology now give them over how they access information and spend their

free time (Anderson 295). Supporters of incorporating digital media into institutional experiences

argue that utilization of technology connects museums, in more ways than one, to this more

digital generation, thereby increasing chances for them to become more invested visitors and

supporters of museums in the future (Stogner 387).

As such, many institutions are placing new importance on giving visitors a more direct

role in directing their own museum visits. For example, the notion of self-selected, free-choice

learning, as described by educational researchers John Falk and Lynn Dierking, has long existed

as part of the museum experience, but has taken on new importance in the twenty-first marked

by growing ability on part of individuals adapt different activities to their individual preferences

through technolgy (“Living in a Learning Society” 335). New forms of digital media affect

audience interaction with institutional content by “enabling visitors to customize their

experiences to meet their personal needs and interests” (Falk and Dierking, “Enhancing Visitor

Interaction” 27-28). Recent technological advances have given the public greater levels of

control over and discretion when it comes to many different experiences in their lives. Museums

are invariably affected by this development, as they must be sensitive to trends among their

audience that involve how information and cultural content is being consumed.

8

Researching the Effects of Interactivity

Today, different types of art, history, science, and cultural institutions employ interactive

technology in various ways. As institutions place greater priority on cultivating interactivity

through multimedia, and there is a growing body of research that suggests that visitors benefit

from the use of interactives on the whole (Falk et al. “Interactives and Visitor Learning” 172).

However the these results are not universally conclusive, as many of these studies also define

success in particular, sometimes narrow ways, and are often based solely in the short-term (Falk

et al. “Interactives and Visitor Learning” 172). Measuring and demonstrating the success of

interactives in gallery environments also varies between individual institutions, and it can be

hard to extrapolate data to draw overarching conclusions about the concrete benefits of digital

media for museums on a large-scale. Research into key components of the visitor experience

provides insight into how the effects of interactives are being understood according to newer

ideas and theories on learning in museum environments.

Various studies have been conducted to quantify the specific benefits of different

interactives for visitor experiences and learning, as well as to address concerns around perceived

drawbacks. For example, there is a question of whether including digital media in object-focused

environments, like art and culture museums, may detract from time spent with the physical

pieces by visitors, defeating the media’s purpose as a connector or “scaffold” between the

audience and those objects (Adams et al. 158). Yet, research has shown that this is not always the

case. One analysis of the Getty’s interactive galleries in 2000 showed that those galleries held

visitor attention longer than in non-interactive spaces (Allan and Gutwill 200). Another case

study of computer labels in galleries of the Victoria and Albert Museum showed that visitors

“felt that the computer labels helped them appreciate and understand more about the objects” and

9

“were found to have engaged more deeply the objects as a result of using them” (Gammon and

Burch 40). Maria Economou, of the University of the Aegean, found that while visitors spend a

significant amount of time using multimedia-interactives in galleries, this is in addition to the

time spent with the objects, rather than instead of it (“A World of Interactive Exhibits” 153).

However, despite these encouraging findings, consensus on this point is not entirely unified.

Other studies have demonstrated that, while interactives may not distract from the objects, in

certain cases they can fail to create connections between the visitors and the collections they are

designed to highlight (Heath and Vom Lehn 271-272).

There is also the question of the long-term impact of interactivity on the visitor

experience. According to newer models of understanding visitor learning in museums, meaning

making from exhibition experiences happens over the course of months, with the full educational

impact of the experience taking shape well after the subject has left a given museum (Falk et al.

“Interactives and Visitor Learning” 172). Unfortunately, few studies have attempted to address

the long-term outcomes interactivity, let alone digital technology, and what little information

there is gives an intermittent understanding at best. One early investigation conducted in 1991 by

researcher John Stevenson on the long-term effects of interactives showed “many visitors [were]

able to describe the thoughts and feelings they had at the exhibits more than six months after a

visit” (Allan and Gutwill 200, 212). Another study from 2002, carried out with visitors at the

collections-based Powerhouse Museum, in Sydney, Australia, and the Scitech Discovery Centre

in Perth, Australia, found that four to eight months after the visit, visitors recall new perspectives

and awareness gained, however their retention of knowledge was low (Falk et al. “Interactives

and Visitor Learning” 189). From what these rare cases of long-term interactive research can tell

us, it seems people recall experiences rather than content. Such as result, if it can be replicated

10

with further studies in different settings, would be desirable as it could create positive

impressions of an institutional experience and even compel return or recommendation to others

on the part of the visitor. However, a great deal more study is needed before drawing any

significant conclusions in regards to long-term effects of interactivity.

Interactivity: Entertainments Versus Education

Due to the uncertainties around electronic media in the museum that remain in spite of

research, there have been, and still are, several questions and criticisms around interactivity in

institutional settings. A focal point for the detractors of digital technology relates back to

question of balance between entertainment and education. This has been a core dilemma for

museums dating back the early twentieth century and before, as long as they have sought to

appeal to the public’s interests (Griffiths 381). There was, and always has been, an internal

contest for museums “in reconciling crowd-pleasing exhibition techniques with the philosophical

remit of an institution (Griffiths 381). Now, we find that this reconciliation often involves the

digital technology that so many contemporary institutions feel they must leverage in order to

maintain and grow their audiences.

Complicating the situation further is that the desire for experiences that are both

entertaining and educational function as key incentives for museum visitations that involve

technological experiences. Many museum experiences offer an amalgam of these two qualities,

and studies on different visitor motivations for institutional attendance suggest that visitors may

not (always) distinguish between the two (Ellenbogen et al. 190). Katherine Ting Zhen Ling, of

the Multimedia University in Malaysia, conducted research on touch screen interactives at the

11

Malaysia’s National Museum, and found that a majority of respondent visits driven by the

purposes of either education or entertainment (Ling 98). Furthermore, Ling found that these

underlying aims also played a major role in decisions by visitors to use the interactive devices

(98). She argues modern museums must provide both information and entertainment, and that

electronic devices like touch screen kiosks are often employed with this dual function (Ling 17).

These motivations have always, and still do, played a key role in museums’ considerations

around their content and output, and adequately addressing both without sacrificing one is a

difficult task. This goal is only further complicated by myriad of possibilities offered by, and

cultural popularity of, technology in our modern era.

This predicament is the backdrop of much of the criticism around the issue of digital

interactives in cultural institutions. Many fear that efforts to incorporate popular forms of digital

media are “blurring the line between the traditional public museum and the commercial theme

park and retail complex”(Griffiths 376) and turning cultural institutions “into generic spaces of

‘edutainment’” (Griffiths 376). Popularization of museum offerings is a legitimate phenomenon,

and can be seen in numerous instances, from the blockbuster exhibitions and restaurants, to large

gift shops and events institutions feature to appeal to larger audiences, all done to help maintain

economic viability (Anderson 296). Opponents see digital media as part of these more superficial

efforts, and such fears are not without merit. The competition museums today face from other

recreational and entertainment venues and has led some institutions to implement contemporary

media technology hoping that it might serve as an attraction in and of itself, rather than facilitate

a larger educational agenda (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 152). Experts like

Maxwell Anderson, formerly of the Indianapolis Museum of Art, caution that attempting to

compete with and imitate other for-profit attractions leads institutions to rely on unreliable short-

12

term trends for commercial gain (296). He argues that many museums today are measuring

success in superficial terms, such as raw numbers of people through the door, rather than what

kinds of interactions or experiences visitors have once they arrive (Anderson 296). For many in

the museum field, technology’s powerful appeal in undeniable, but its impact on and benefits to

institutions and their audiences lie in the ability of digital components to service larger goals

around mission, not become the focus of it.

Despite criticism, it can be argued that using technology as a lure for visitors is not

intrinsically wrong, so long as there is an educational experience that furthers museums’

educational mandates within that prospect of interactivity. Interactives are costly, and institutions

should not incur those costs simply to offer the most cutting edge or exciting technology (Marty

135). Research suggests museums need to have a clear purpose behind digital interactives in

terms of what they wish to accomplish and the audience they wish to reach in order to avoid

frivolous application of electronic media (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 154;

Adams et al. 160). Digital interactives cannot and should not function as a replacement for

objects, collections, or cultural materials, but serve as a complimentary element to more

traditional content (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 154). Interactives can and

should be a part of modern approaches to engaging and connecting with the modern museum

audience. Without careful consideration of the goals and desired outcomes behind them on the

part of institutions, interactive approaches will almost certainly fail to make any meaningful

impact or contribution to their mandate to educate the public (Adams and Moussouri 6).

Technology should also be employed in service mission-based ends to further emphasize

museums’ culturally enriching role in society (Anderson 297), which in turn, will distinguish

them from other, more commercial attractions that so many institutions fear loosing audiences to.

13

Motivations for Interactives in Art Museum

Renewed Object Focus

There is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates “a strong interest in how art

museums can incorporate interactives into galleries and how they can benefit from these types of

exhibits” (Hunt 4). With this in mind, these institutions have also developed increasing interest in

integrating technology with interactivity, but not in such a way that either of these principles

deviates from their collections-based approach to education. In certain types of institutions, like

science centers, interactives can function as an exhibition unto themselves in order to illustrate

different concepts or natural processes through direct engagement, thereby contributing to the

overall educational mission (Adams et al. 158). For art museums, the focus of the mission

remains the actual objects, so a great deal of the motivations for digital media in their galleries

are still derived from the goal of directing visitor focus to the physical materials in their

exhibitions. In these cases, an interactive is regarded as successful when it “lead[s] visitors to a

greater appreciation of the objects…and ultimately, lead[s] visitors to focus more intently on

them” (Adams et al. 158).

Interactive technology can augment traditional content in exhibition galleries, deepening

the experience by providing more involved interactions with the artwork, especially for those

uninterested in conventional labels and generally static displays. But while newer approaches

featuring digital interpretive tools may cause some to question more traditional methods, the

underlying motivation behind these features is the same regardless of their novelty or

sophistication. Kathryn E. Blake, Curator for Education at the Phoenix Art Museum, notes that,

in an effort to teach museum behaviors through more visitor-centric and interactive programs,

14

curators sometimes employ newer methods in galleries that encourage people to create their own

narrative around an art piece that challenges the traditional interpretative authority of the

museum (3) However, she says that even in these cases, such approaches are adopted to instill

audiences with a sense of “reverence” for the artifacts, and draw more attention to them (Blake

3). Jane Alexander is the Chief Information Officer at the Cleveland Museum of Art, where

numerous touch screen and multimedia elements are employed in their new ArtLens gallery,

formally Gallery One, a space dedicated to using digital interactive technology to illustrate

artistic principles and artwork (Alexander; Alexander et al.). Yet, she says that any feature they

design must come back to the art, and if it does not it is removed from the planning process

(Alexander). As exemplified in cases like these, multimedia applications are playing a key role in

newer, but still collections-focused, approaches to museum learning.

Art museums have endeavored to utilize interactives to emphasize their objects in

different ways. One such project strove to create smartphone software that would have museum

visitors go into galleries and examine objects using the cameras on their mobile devices, and the

application would respond to whatever piece was being viewed by projecting supplementary

information and additional details on the users’ screen (Lohr). The goal of the project according

to its co-creator Colleen Stockman, of the Cantor Arts Center at Stanford University, was to

“give you more points of access into the artwork, so that it keeps you in the moment of looking,

almost as if someone is guiding you through the painting or sculpture” (Lohr). Another example

is found at the Columbus Museum of Art in Ohio where, in front of a painting in one of the

galleries, there is a puzzle that, when correctly assembled, duplicates the image of that painting,

and participants must examine the features of the original piece closely to complete the activity

(Hunt 36). The Cleveland Museum of Arts’ many interactive offerings include augmented reality

15

features are designed to give visitors enough, but not an excessive amount of, information on

pieces of interest so as to inspire closer inspection of the actual works by visitors in the galleries

(Alexander).

Objects remain the focus at institutions of art and culture even as technology evolves

rapidly in the modern era, thus these new are inevitably utilized to service the mission of

connecting visitors to spend time with the artwork. Many experts and professionals still believe

that despite the advances in interactive multimedia, these attractions “cannot substitute for the

direct encounter of our senses with the material culture [of museums]” (Economou, “A World of

Interactive Exhibits” 154). The value of these institutions still is, as it has always been, on

experiencing physical works of art, and regardless of new mechanics, activities, and interpretive

tools that modern multimedia technology offers, the emphasis always comes back to the

collections. David Odo, Director of Student Programs and Research Curator of University

Collections Initiatives at the Harvard Art Museums, notes that more of your senses are engaged

with objects when viewing them in their physical form (Odo, Interview). He believes that that

interactives, when properly designed, can potentially create opportunities to explore contextual

aspects of art that the pieces themselves do not offer, such as displaying an archeological site

where an antiquity was discovered, but that this does not supplant or serve to replace the works

themselves (Odo, Interview).

Redefining the Relationship with the Audience

Art museums also seek to create more vibrant and energetic spaces where visitors feel

more immersed in the various collections, cultures, and narratives on display. They wish to

16

challenge dated perceptions on the part of the public “that [their institutions] are esoteric,

passive, and boring” (Blake 1). This frequently means offering more active opportunities for

visitors to participate in and gain more active control over the nature of their visit and the content

they investigate. Access to digital technology and proxy representations of objects in galleries

has removed certain obstacles that restricted the capacities of audiences to more directly interact

with objects (Marty 131). Institutions also want to give visitors more ways to examine the art,

greater interpretive means to help expand understanding of the themes and ideas behind

exhibitions, and interactivity provides “an important resource…in creating new forms of

engagement with museum collections” (Heath and Vom Lehn 267). This can help draw in new

groups that may have found more traditional experiences in the art museum and intimidating and

unsuited to their learning needs. By creating more diverse offerings, institutions can also cater to

wider variety of learning styles and enlarge the impact their exhibitions have on the public.

In addition to efforts to become more generally accessible and lively, there is also a

specific demographic that art museums are particularly interested in using digital installations,

and more interactive approaches overall, to attract: children and families. The more passive

nature of traditional exhibition methodologies at art museums have proved a disincentive for

families in the past, who feel there is little for their children to do and stress about keeping them

under control in what is perceived as a more restricted gallery environment (Adams and

Moussouri 4-5). But, art museums are employing approaches like interactivity and multimedia to

alter the non-family-friendly and elitist perceptions that have previously driven visitors away

(Adams and Moussouri 3). There is a pragmatic reason for this: the children and family group

represents a substantial part of present and future visitors these institutions are trying cultivate

relationships with. According to one study by John Falk, even discounting school-related visits,

17

children make up a significant portion of regular institutional traffic, and most are accompanied

on visits by parents or other adults, usually between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four,

making these groups together a potentially substantial part of a modern museum’s audience

(Ellenbogen et al. 190). Recent research by the National Endowment for the Arts has shown that

overall turnout in museums among adults in the thirty-five to forty-five is declining, and certain

institutions want to reverse this trend (Sydell). Additionally, they in general want to provide

engrossing and memorable experiences in children at a young age to cultivate a more dedicated

visitor base for the future. The American Alliance of Museums reports that, “[five] to [nine] is

the critical age for converting children into life-long museumgoers and advocates” (Chung et

al.). The hope is that once grown, such individuals will in turn visit museums with their families

those museums with which they have fond associations from their childhood, drawing

subsequent generations to the institutions and ensuring long-term viability and relevancy.

At the same time as this effort is being made towards attracting or maintaining audiences

with digital technology, it is imperative to note that there are also plenty of people for whom a

more dynamic and active museum learning environment is not appealing. Notable portions of

museum audiences “[still] enjoy exhibitions [which confer] authoritative knowledge” (Simon),

preferring more conventional means of accessing information (labels, docent tours, lectures).

Some still wish to experience objects by wandering the galleries without direction, inspecting

static pieces without additional input (Alexander). More participatory or vibrant experiences,

enabled in part by new multimedia, are not a replacement for traditional forms of learning in art

museum environments, but an additional component to capture an established audience

perceived to be looking for these kinds of experiences (Simon). The push for technological

integration does not have to be mutually exclusive with the preservation of other, older

18

interpretive techniques, and museums are and should not be looking to discard more classical

informational features in their galleries. Alexander explains that Cleveland Museum of Art,

despite its enormous investment into the development of digitally interactive gallery features,

sees the ideal use of electronic multimedia as being one tool in the Museum’s approach to

education, designed for those who are more comfortable or inspired to explore the Museums’

collections in that way (Alexander). However, she notes that they do not wish the technology to

be seen as a necessity that will handicap the experience of those who prefer to forgo it

(Alexander).

Additionally, there is the reality that many people come to institutions like art museums

to escape the complex, hectic, and sometimes overwhelming climate of an increasingly digitized

culture. One report, published by Center of the Future of Museums in 2008, discusses how, in

this climate of widespread technological integration, there is both growing demand for and a

lower supply of spaces in which people can find reprieve from the rigors of the digital world

(Chung et al.) This is especially true for older audiences and particularly, the report found, for

women over the age of fifty (Chung et al.), but can also apply to younger visitors as well. For

instance, many parents and families visit museums to engage their children with a physical

environment rather than a screen or kiosk, given the level to which devices saturate so many

other areas of young peoples’ lives (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). Museums want to keep

in mind that modern interactive devices should be a means of drawing certain audiences into

galleries, but not applied to such an extreme extent so that they drive others out. This is

especially important going forward because the technological trends that permeate so many

aspects of our lives show little signs of reversing, and the appeal of spaces for people to

disengage from their influence will only increase (Chung et al.). Ironically, as the rising use of

19

digital media in the larger world has become a core motivation for institutions to adopt it in

various forms for the sake of the visitor engagement, that same pattern should is also a strong

incentive for offering experiences that allow audiences a release from its influence.

Examples of Dynamic Relationships Through Technology

Recommendation Systems: The Brooklyn Museum

Notable art institutions have endeavored to create a more vibrant and accessible learning

environment for audiences through use of technology that also empower those audiences to play

a more active role in their visits. These efforts have involved a variety of approaches and

mechanics, such as newer ways of immersing visitors in the context of objects and galleries, or

offering them greater input in co-curating their own museum experiences to various extents. In

2009, the Brooklyn Museum tested a feature which included text codes on the labels of different

objects, where visitors could send a message to a particular object’s code to signify enjoyment or

interest and the system would then present those visitors with suggestions for similar pieces in

the museum (Simon). The feature had a function similar to music recommendation engines like

Pandora, and through it users could build “profiles” of favorite artifacts and collections, or

simply conduct individual inquiries (Simon). In this case, the Museum utilized ubiquitous digital

technology as a means of personalizing the visit, but the concept and interfaces used to translate

this idea have since evolved well beyond the handheld sphere.

20

Contextual Engagement: The Detroit Institute of Arts

Certain institutions have also invested experimental multimedia technology designed for

a deeper immersion in their collections’ history and functions. The Detroit Institute of Arts

features several digital installations, including “The Art of Dining” in the Institute’s gallery on

eighteenth century decorative arts (“Detroit Institute of Arts”). Visitors sit at a table onto which

is projected a recording of a three course French dinner service, as it would have been

experienced by aristocrats of the time period, using images of porcelain and silver objects from

the surrounding gallery (“Detroit Institute of Arts”). This example illustrates the interesting

duality of using of media technology for contextualizing objects in an experience that is both

active and inactive. On one hand, it can be seen as a highly effective means of physically

immersing visitors in the history of objects through the act of sitting and visually experiencing

their daily use. The spatial design of the installation is also advantageous for socialization,

discussed earlier as an imperative function of learning that interactives do not always address or

accommodate (Heath and Vom Lehn 275), as multiple visitors, whether standing or sitting, have

ample opportunity to fully view the display and discuss its contents with peers. However, despite

the advanced technological mechanic it utilizes, it still amounts to a more passive activity, once a

visitor is seated, of observing recorded content rather than actively driving the experience.

Videos are often included in exhibitions to compel closer inspection of the objects they depict,

but research has shown they do not always engender that result, and may even remove the

inclination to examine the actual objects (Heath and Vom Lehn 274-275). Though this by no

means negates the potential benefits of the activity, it raises questions that hearken back to the

21

issue about how to effectively use interactivity to enliven static objects without displacing the

objects themselves.

Self and Co-Curation: The Cleveland Art Museum

Returning to a previous example, the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Gallery One

installation, opened in January of 2013 and containing numerous digital interactive elements and

activities around some of the institutions most notable pieces (“Original Gallery One”). A

highlight of this exhibition consisted of a forty-foot touch screen wall with thousands of object

images, which allowed visitors to select individual pieces, the digital likenesses of which are

then enlarged and arranged with similar objects adjacent on the screen (Bernstein), similar to the

Brooklyn Museum’s suggestion feature. Users can then touch a heart-shaped icon in the corner

of a chosen image, which also contains information on the object’s location in the museum,

transferring it to an iPad (rented at the museum or brought from home) or personal mobile device

to create a list of objects selected that they can use to conduct their personalized own tour

(Bernstein; Loesser 20-21). The concept of this activity by itself is not terribly novel; visitors

could accomplish the same thing looking through a guidebook or brochure, though its delivery

through a visually arresting and highly advanced digital channel certainly enhances the impact.

However, the Museum takes things a step further, allowing users to name and share their

personally designed tour with others, similar to music applications like Spotify that allows for

the sharing of playlists with friends (Bernstein). The Museum’s leadership hoped this

democratizing feature would extend the ability of visitors’ create arrangements of cultural

content for themselves (“Original Gallery One”).

22

Lingering Questions of Motivation

Many art museums today have made the leap to interactive technologies in various ways

and to different extents. In the cases explored above, there is a consistently stressed and

believably genuine desire to utilize these approaches to digital multimedia as a means to connect

both existing and new audiences to objects and exhibitions in novel and exciting ways and

perpetuate their ability to provide visitors meaningful learning experiences. However, recalling

issues associated with the debate of entertainment and education, there are also uncertainties and

trepidations about other factors driving this trend that may be at best unrelated to, and at worst in

conflict with, these institutions’ mission of public education and cultural uplift.

Appeal Without Purpose

Firstly, there is the issue that some have raised around digital media’s potential for

misapplication as an interpretive method in museum spaces, where the rationality for its

inclusion in exhibitions is based largely on its appeal as an eye-catching feature, rather than its

educational benefit. Just as museums must carefully consider a technology’s role in enabling

them to fulfill their overall educational mission (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits”

154; Anderson 298), so to must this logic be applied to individual galleries. In other words, the

interpretive plan, educational goals, and overall narrative of an exhibition should be a starting

point, and interactive media should only be applied insofar at it serves these core elements of a

given experience (Tessier; Odo, Interview).

23

But, there are times in the planning process when strategies around technology run

contrary to this logic. In certain situations, many people, including curators or gallery designers,

may focus on how the presence of a digital element makes for what they see as a more exciting

gallery space, without necessarily considering whether it adds anything to the overall purpose of

an installation (Tessier). In other cases, it is assumed that an interactive that succeeds in the

context of one exhibition should be applied in every situation, which can lead to pointless

interpretive choices that add little to no educational value to the museum experience (Tessier).

These instances are microcosmic examples of that larger issue of focusing on interactivity for its

own sake, rather than its effects on the results or mission one wants to achieve. Museums and

their staff must be aware of that this misguided tendency to emphasize the appeal or dynamism

of the interactive can sometimes shift priorities in a way that negatively affects desired

educational outcomes. Interactives that serve no larger educational or interpretive purpose in an

exhibition and lack a clear purpose “run the risk of becoming insignificant add-ons” (Adams and

Moussouri 6). Questions must always be asked, on a case-by-case basis, about whether or not a

given piece of technology actually improves the learning experience (Odo, Interview).

Donor Influence

There are also external factors that can skew the priorities of art institutions when it

comes to digital media in museums. There are times when benefactors who fund galleries

stipulate that part of their donations go towards the inclusion of multimedia components, simply

because they are excited by the prospect of such devices in their spaces (Tessier). This

complicates the design process by requiring technological feature before the planning team

knows whether it is the most effective interpretive approach to the educational story and plan for

24

the exhibition (Tessier). Once again, in these cases the concept of the digital component exists

before a purpose or need that has been outlined, increasing the risk that the final product being

nothing more than a frivolous afterthought. This kind of approach to interactivity ensures

whatever technological medium is employed will inevitably disappoint in almost every case

(Adams and Moussouri 6).

Additionally, there are certain museums that use the implementation of more advanced

forms of interactive technology in their galleries, in part, to attract new sources of funding. For

example, the Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian Design Museum in New York City reopened in late

2014 after a three-year multimillion-dollar renovation, with its exhibitions featuring some truly

innovative digital multimedia installations (Sydell). One of the highlights of these new offerings

is a massive touch screen table focused on the aesthetics of wallpaper. It allows users to browse

hundreds of wallpaper samples, create their own design, and, if they wish to see what a given

pattern would look like in a room, project any of the prints on to the walls of the gallery (Sydell).

This is an undeniably impressive and novel means of contextualizing the material within an

immersive visual experience, and, as a tool for deepening and expanding the educational

experience with the art, it appears an effective, mission-driven application of technology.

However, the institution also hopes these modern multimedia centerpieces will attract and

impress a new generation of young financial patrons by demonstrating in a tangible way how

donations are used to improve and impact the museum experience (Sydell). Certainly, this dual

purpose is not intrinsically compromising to the educational benefits or character of the content,

as long as the interactives contribute value to the Museum’s learning agenda and achieve certain

established outcomes that the staff has hopefully outlined. At the same time, it does raise

questions on how these considerations affect such installations and upgrades, and in turn how

25

that might cause institutions to lose sight of the larger goals of public service in the course of

these quests to modernize.

Questions Around Democratization

In many cases, interactivity is associated with making exhibitions more open and visitor-

directed in nature, allowing users more direct control over the learning and what information is

gleaned. While that can certainly been said of some examples of digital technology that allows

museum audiences to customize aspects of their experience, exercise more choice in the learning

process, or generate content, interactivity alone does not transform museum learning entirely.

Critics who favor visitor empowerment and more radical redesigns in how museums connect

audiences with information point out that in several cases digital interactives fail to offer “a more

democratic-open medium of communication” between the audience and the institution

(Whitcomb, “Re-Imagining the Museum” 130). They argue many multimedia installations are

still structured along a didactic learning model, primarily to impart information to its users that

the museum thinks important, and not to “necessarily challenge [this] one-way flow of

communication which the exhibition” (Whitcomb, “Re-Imagining the Museum” 129-130).

To an extent, this is not an unreasonable assessment of art institutions’ intent with many

interactive elements; they still control the themes, arrangements, and available information of the

exhibitions they create. Though interactivity gives visitors more points of access for information

on and content of the artwork (Lohr), what visitors ultimately end up accessing in many cases is

shaped by curators and interpretive staff. However, the mechanics behind the interactives can

still enable the visitor to direct aspects of the gallery experience, even while placing the

26

exhibition narratives in the hands of institutions (Whitcomb, “Re-Imagining the Museum” 130).

One way that digital media enables visitors control over the flow of information is giving them

access to different layers of supplementary material on objects to view at their pace and

discretion (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 138). Staff composes the

interpretations and content around the object, but in these cases it is the visitor who determines,

to an extent, what is communicated.

Another means by which museums cede authority is by instituting visitor studies

endeavors early in the exhibition design process to better understand different museumgoers

preferences and allowing that to shape content, like multimedia experiences, according to

audience perspectives, rather than solely those of the staff (Pekarik and Mogel 465-466, 469-472,

479). Evaluation of technological component’s from an early stage gives individuals more power

and stake in affecting the contents and arrangement of exhibitions, as well as determining the

most effective means of presenting information, which allows visitors to have a great deal of

influence over the final interactive product.

The question of empowering the public through the use to digital technology and more

involved learning experiences is one of degrees, not absolutes. Research shows visitors desire a

mixture of freedom and structure when it comes to technology in the museum (Smith and Tinio

76). Many interactives accommodate this need by being designed with visitor input, offering

different levels of involvement with content, and allowing users a more active role in the

learning experience. But at the same time, they are still designed around stories the museum

wants to tell about the objects and subjects (Tessier). While some might see the adherence to

internally generated narratives as reductive or restrictive (Whitcomb “Re-Imagining the

Museum” 129-130; Wong), this is also an effective way for institutions “to create frames of

27

experience that encourage deep and satisfying engagement for visitors (Wong). Incorporating

more technological approaches to gallery learning also thrives on constraints and organization

around these experiences provided by institutions to give participation a focus (Simon).

Empowerment through interactivity while preserving a voice for the institution is a balancing act,

and different museums approach it in a variety of ways that fall along different points of this

spectrum. Every visitation experience is marked by a combination of options and parameters on

how a collection is viewed (Smith and Tinio 65), and digital multimedia often encapsulates this

dynamic. Multimedia experiences are dictated by the narratives museums build their exhibitions

around, but visitors also have opportunities for input, control, and choice in the course of the

technology’s design and usage within galleries.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Digital Interactive in Art Museums

A Dearth of Outcome-Based Research

While there is a widespread shift toward the integration of technology among art

institutions and the wider museum community as a means of advancing meaningful outcomes for

visitors, there is a shortage of research evaluating the results of various applications of these

concepts in different museums. Clearly, institutions have understood the increased need for

effective evaluation for some time now (Economou, “The Evaluation of Museum Multimedia

Applications” 391). But, even today, it can be difficult to find publicly available data that

provides insight into different digital installations’ effectiveness at improving the aspects of the

visitor experience that they were created to effect. Questions linger on issues such as how

visitors respond to efforts to create more personalized and dynamic experiences though

28

technology, and whether this makes a noticeable impact on how they view the art (Loesser 16-

17). There are also uncertainties around visitor impressions and design preferences with certain

technological mediums and interfaces, such as touch screens (Ling 4). Much of the research

currently available addresses the logic behind technology’s use in art museums, principally how

it may more effectively incentivize visitors to connect with objects. More investigations into the

actual results of digital interactivity can provide a better understanding of how audiences are

utilizing and reacting to these installations, what is being achieved, and what needs to be

reexamined.

That being said there is more available now than two decades ago when these questions

started being asked around art institutions (Economou, “The Evaluation of Museum Multimedia

Applications 391; Adams and Moussouri 17), as demonstrated by some of the research explored

above. There are more efforts to understand outcomes now, but more is still needed to

substantiate a meaningful place, beyond simple contemporary appeal, for digital media as an

educational mechanism in art museum environments. As far back as 2000, researchers Marianna

Adams, of the Institute for Learning Innovation, and Theano Moussouri, of the Research Centre

for Museums and Galleries at the University of Leicester, talked about the importance of a more

communal approach to interactive evaluation among art museums (Adams and Moussouri 17).

They stressed that, in part because this is a newer field for art museums compared with other

informal learning environments, these institutions needed to develop “a shared research agenda

and construct a means some means to share findings from that research” (Adams and Moussouri

17). The need for such collaboration has only increased as technology becomes more ingrained

in discussions on the advantages of interactivity, as more museums will rely on this kind of

29

research to outline, and more importantly produce, meaningful learning outcomes if digital

media is to evolve to better serve museums’ educational mandate.

Institutions have demonstrated that leveraging the long-term upward trend in

technological literacy in our society by offering new channels through which visitors can connect

with objects is an effective strategy for expanding museum audiences. For example, the

Cleveland Museum of Art saw a thirty-one percent increase in individual visitor traffic and a

twenty-nine percent increase in family attendance after the opening of their Gallery One space in

2013 (Alexander et al). The Victoria and Albert Museum’s British Galleries, first opened in 2001

and featuring a number of electronic interactive elements, were shown to attract considerably

more visitors than exhibitions with more traditional labels and display methods alone (Gammon

and Burch 38-39). The appeal of multimedia and its effectiveness at engaging audiences seems

clear, but effective evaluation of its outcomes, with results made available to the larger

community, will help the industry as a whole better understand the effects of these efforts

(Adams and Moussouri 17). A substantial body of proven results in place is crucial for proving

interactive technology’s viability for art museums. In several cases, in order for museums of

various sizes and budgets to apply it, it is not sufficient that technology enhances learning for

certain populations. A base of significant research around this issue will provide more concrete

justification for digital media in the museum, substantiating the technology’s value for the

institutions that wish to expand its role in their agendas (Faulk and Dierking, “Enhancing Visitor

Interaction” 28).

30

Evaluation’s Crucial Role in Validating Expense

A major reason for increased efforts towards generating and exploring evaluation results

around multimedia is the justification of the costs associated with its implementation for

institutions less interested in, or less able to afford accommodation, of current visitor interests

and trends without more proof of their success as learning tools. Interactive approaches,

including and especially technology, are still being experimented with by art museums, but not

every effort is as successful as hoped and trial and error are part of this process (Adams and

Moussouri 18). There is also a body of research that suggests the actual results for many

interactives in terms of their effects on the visitor experience often have unanticipated outcomes,

different from what was intended (Whitcomb, “Interactivity: Thinking Beyond” 355). Returning

the previous example of the Victoria and Albert Museum’s British Galleries, a study around one

video display, designed to promote closer inspection of an exhibition piece by illustrating its

functions, found that in several cases the film replaced the object as the focus of audience

attention (Heath and Vom Lehn 274). Researchers found it was not abnormal for visitors to

spend much of their time in the gallery viewing the video while only intermittently examining

the object it featured, in part because taking time away from the film to inspect the physical piece

meant missing interesting or critical information (Heath and Vom Lehn 274). Examples like this

illustrate why there is still a healthy amount of uncertainty around the roles of digital media and

interactivity for art museums, and this lingering ambiguity raises questions about committing the

necessary funding to implement these features.

Several larger and wealthier institutions like The Cleveland Arts Museum, Cooper

Hewitt, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have been able to allocate millions to the

installation of new interactive features (Bernstein; Sydell; Loesser 7-8). However, many smaller

31

and medium-sized museums are hesitant to spend their limited financial resources on approaches

they view as still somewhat unproven (Odo, Interview). This is partially because larger

institutions with more ample funding have greater liberty to experiment with learning tools like

multimedia interactives. This is not just because they can afford more advanced and extensive

digital displays and activities, but also because they can afford the risk of failure, at least more

than smaller institutions. Larger museums can explore more untried technologic arrangements in

their galleries because they have more of a financial cushion to absorb the flop of an exhibition

(Odo, Interview). While research has already shown interactive technology attracts large groups

who respond to its use in art museum settings (Gammon and Burch 38-39; Alexander et al.),

some institutions want more definitive examples of outcome-based evaluation before they take

the risk of making the digital jump.

This is not to suggest that any application of technology will always be extraordinarily

expensive and require millions to invest, and in fact there are many ways to approach the issue

that accommodate a variety of budgets. Also, no approach to exhibition design and construction

of goal-oriented educational content carries absolute certainty that the effects will reflect the

intent, especially in the case of informal environments like museums. Rather, technology, as

mentioned previously, is and should be one of many interpretive methods employed by art

museums to achieve desired outcomes, a means of expanding the audiences whose interests and

learning styles are catered to without overhauling the entire approach (Simon). If an institution’s

financial means are limited, it makes little sense to disproportionally large amount of one’s

budget on digital learning tools if other lower-tech options will accomplish similar purposes for

reduced cost, unless they offer a particular, and demonstrable, advantage (Falk and Dierking,

“Enhancing Visitor Interaction” 28). Greater effort needs to be made to assess, in a more

32

empirical sense, digital interactives’ singular educational benefits for target audiences relative to

and against other interpretive approaches (Falk and Dierking, “Enhancing Visitor Interaction”

28) if technology’s role in art museums is to continue to expand in a meaningful way.

Approaches to Evaluation

Effective evaluation can help to address some of the ambiguity around outcome-based

questions when it comes to multimedia interactives in order to create more effective frameworks

for their use, range of applicability, and limitations in art museums. Most would see assessment

of digital exhibition components’ use in institutional settings as a good idea, and very much a

necessity given the degree to which these and other technologies have and are being applied

across the museum field (Hsi 179). However, it can be difficult for museums to find support and

resources for such evaluative efforts (Hsi 179), and though visitor studies has been well-

established in terms of approaches, specialized personnel, and research for some time, as a field

has traditionally been underutilized as a tool in the design and creation of exhibition components

(Pekarik and Mogel 466). This represents a potentially serious obstacle in designing gallery

components, specifically digital interactives, that audiences will respond to, as they must be

designed, to some extent, with visitors’ perspectives in mind in order that the users can

effectively connect with a feature (Pekarik, “Recasting the Visitors” 56). It also creates a

potentially paradoxical situation for those smaller or less affluent institutions hesitant to make

the leap to interactivity when lacking further empirical proof of its value. Without allocating the

necessary resources to sufficiently evaluate multimedia’s potential as a beneficial addition to

certain galleries, such museums might never attain the definitive evidence that, by their own

33

admission, they require in order to justify the cost of such undertakings (Odo, “In A Digital

World”).

This is changing, however, and evaluation is becoming an important part of not just

understanding the technological content’s effects on the audience, but using that understanding

in the content planning process for museums and their digital media offerings. As technology has

become more integrated in our larger society, it now “falls on museum curators, education and

design professionals, and researchers, to better understand the visitor’s attraction [to interactives]

and nature of this engagement” (Adams et al. 156). The field of visitor studies presents an

opportunity for purposeful assessment of newer approaches to learning in art museums,

especially digital interactives. Museums are recognizing the importance of more detailed

research and understanding around the roles of multimedia usage within exhibition and gallery

environments in order to maximize the benefits of its application (Ling 1).

Though there is a shortage of published data on the educational consequences of specific

interactive endeavors within the art museum field, there is a great deal of research and literature

available illustrating effective approaches to evaluating technology and how they can be applied

to generate meaningful results. In terms of generating support for these undertakings, it is

important to underscore how the resulting data from such studies can answer important questions

around elements like digital multimedia that key staff members may have (Hsi 180). The

informational products of these studies can both useful in identifying issues and refining

interactive concepts before they are installed (Allen and Gutwill 211), as well as for honing and

improving future approaches and designs (Martin).

To that end, evaluation of multimedia elements at all points of an exhibition’s lifespan,

from concept design (front-end), to prototyping (formative), to after it has opened to the public

34

(summative), using a variety of methods (Hsi 181). This is important not only to allow audience

input through such collaborations to shape the interactive content, especially in the early stages

of development but also to expose and, if need be address, some of those unintended or

unforeseen outcomes that the staff may not anticipate (Whitcomb, “Interactivity: Thinking

Beyond” 355). Necessary adjustments can then be made and a more effective interactive

produced to avoid negative effects on learning outcomes. Such research represents an

opportunity for staff to gain unexpected or surprising insight into how audience members think

and react to different media installations. No matter how much expertise, experience, and ability

staff brings to these projects, the digital interactives are being designed for the public’s use, and

their educational outcomes are what museums are interested in. Therefore, visitor participation in

shaping the development and implementation of technological features through evaluation allows

the staff to understand those features and the full extent of their complexity from a more visitor-

centered perspective (Allen and Gutwill 211).

In terms of approaches to assessing visitor experiences with digital interactivity in the

gallery environments themselves, there are three key strategies that are often employed in some

combination or another: visitor observation, visitor interviews, and embedded data capture. Each

method has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the best results involve cross-referencing

different approaches to search for consistent patterns (Hsi 182; Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep.

2017). Visitor observation, sometimes referred to as “quiet capture”, is witnessing an

individual’s actions and conduct in a gallery without actively approaching or disturbing them

(Hsi 181-182). Interviews involve actively recruiting people and asking questions about an

experience, usually allowing for more focused examination of interactive features and for staff to

address specific institutional concerns or inquiries about visitors’ experiences with said feature or

35

its multimedia platform. With this method, one does run the risk of swaying or guiding subject

feedback if questions are too specific, so it is best to ask more general and open-ended questions

first to get the most authentic and minimally influenced answers possible before proceeding to

more explicitly defined lines of inquiry (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). Finally, embedded

evaluation is a method where internal software tracks user activity, determining patterns such as

how long visitors spend using the interactive, the nature of their usage, such as what features or

pages are most utilized (Hsi 184), and a number of other statistics. With any and all of these

methods, the larger the audience sample size, the more comprehensive and credible any trends

that emerge (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017).

Even within this basic outline of assessment procedures, there is room for both nuance,

depending on the goals of a particular inquiry, and error. Visitors are multifaceted subjects, and

therefore understanding the museum experience from their perspective can be equally so, which

can complicate the task of extrapolating larger conclusions around evaluations. In evaluation,

there are always personal biases or dynamics which institutions have no control over (Courtney,

Interview, 25 Sep. 2017), which makes the task of assessment all the more daunting in terms of

how comprehensive and personalized it needs to be in order to be seen as effective. Even so, no

evaluation process could hope to produce an interactive that addresses all of the internal

emotional, intellectual, and experiential motivations that influence every single individual’s

learning process. Rather, researchers are trying to find different frameworks and methodologies

that help museums incorporate, in a broader sense, the museum experience from the perspective

of visitors when carrying out qualitative evaluation, as well as applying the results to elements

such as the design and assessment of digital media. As Andrew Pekarik of the Smithsonian

Institution explains, when it comes to qualitative evaluation, “[u]understanding will never be

36

complete, so it is sufficient to reach a point where one has gained some insight that feels

significant” (“Recasting the Visitors” 59). Any effort that leads to increased knowledge of visitor

motivations can be employed to refine approaches to audience engagement. Museums, through

qualitative analysis, are able to gain better understanding of individual visitor’s motivations and

experiences, thereby generating more complete information around concepts like gallery learning

around which to create more effective technologic learning tools (Ellenbogen et al. 194; Falk and

Dierking, “Enhancing Visitor Interaction” 28).

Using the External Perspective to Create More Effective Exhibition Features

To one degree or another, it is recommended that there should be some attempt to

understand and integrate the “outside” viewpoint of an audience when it comes to planning

exhibitions, in order to make features more effective and appealing (Pekarik, “Recasting the

Visitors” 56). Efforts should be made to allow those inside museums to understand their public,

and to conduct research in ways that help illuminate how visitors view their institutions. Such

efforts can lead to more effective prototyping of concepts and experimental designs that

incorporate more visitor feedback and perhaps challenge certain assumptions on the part of

exhibition design staff (Pekarik, “Recasting the Visitors” 59; Pekarik and Mogel 479). However,

this is not to say that art museums should completely abandon all notions of internal expertise or

the importance of a more learned voice in the gallery experience. Incorporation of outside input

may mean ceding a certain amount of scholarly authority that art institutions have traditionally

relied on when designing exhibitions, but to do so completely would mean museums would

cease to serve a purpose as a source of education and enlightenment (Anderson 297). Rather,

37

newer approaches to evaluating visitor perspectives simply allow for the creation of exhibitions

and features that accommodate a wider variety of visitors and their interests.

The Museums of Fine Arts’ Background In Touch Screen Interactives and Research

MFA Motivations for Digital Interactivity

The Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) in Boston, Massachusetts has engaged in their own

efforts to incorporate digital media elements, and in particular touch screen devices, into their

exhibitions. Thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of these devices, according to both their

own internal educational agenda and visitor impressions, has been an important part of this

process for the Museum. The initiative to use digital interactives in the galleries has been driven

heavily by the Education department and newly developed Creative Media team (Martin).

However, curators and other staff have also embraced the application of such technology, as it

has become a more established part of the Museum’s approach to exhibition design (Martin). As

with other art institutions that utilize interactives, a core goal that underpins all of the MFA’s

endeavors of applying these features is to increase the time audiences spend with the objects, and

in doing so engage more deeply with their historical and cultural contexts (Lynn and Courtney 3;

Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017).

Additionally the implementation of more technological components is part of a larger

strategy to make the Museum livelier and more accessible (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017),

This objects remains consistent with the previously established trends of art museums using

multimedia as a means of providing a more invigorating learning environment for certain

audience groups (Adams and Moussouri 3; Blake 1). More specific objectives vary depending on

38

the nature of the narrative, objects, and arrangements of particular exhibitions, as well as the

character and history of the collections involved. An overriding philosophy behind the MFA’s

approach to digital interactives is that this technology is one of many different tools that can be

used to promote learning, providing an additional means of experiencing the art (Courtney,

Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). Electronic media is viewed as conduit for expanding the educational

impact of different galleries and collections, not and end unto itself (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep.

2017).

However, this was not always the paradigm for the MFA. Janet O’Donoghue, head of

Creative Media at the Museum, explains that when the MFA first began installing touch screen

devices in exhibitions roughly a decade ago, the logic behind their inclusion could be as

simplistic as wanting to embrace exciting technology in the galleries (O’Donoghue). In certain

initial cases, digital interactives were a means for the MFA to keep pace with offerings of other

museums, but their approach has since evolved significantly, and a great deal more thought,

consideration, and effort is put into how these interactives are conceived and designed

(O’Donoghue). This evolution in the their approach to exhibition multimedia features has

translated to more effective and strategic uses of this technology. According to O’Donoghue,

digital elements are often considered, but an interactive must service the larger narrative of a

given gallery and the objects it contains, to ensure it adds substantive value to visitor experiences

in the exhibition which in which it is featured (O’Donoghue). The progression of the MFA’s

logic in regards to the application of interactive technology is encouraging. The more refined

view of multimedia as a single component in a larger agenda with many different methodologies

for connecting audiences with gallery content suggests a strong understanding has evolved in the

39

Museum regarding the importance of ensuring more purposeful and meaningful utilization of

digital components.

First Efforts: Maya Ceramics Interactive

One of the MFA’s first efforts with digital interactivity, which provides a foundational

understanding of the Museum’s goals and approaches to technology, involved a touch screen

display created for its Maya ceramics exhibition in its Ancient Americas gallery 2007. This

initial endeavor was launched, in part, with a rudimentary but practical goal of helping the

institution to more directly investigate and address the question of whether such devices distract

from experiences with the physical artwork (Lynn and Courtney 6). As mentioned previously,

this potential issue has been a major concern and source of trepidation for museums that seek to

promote object-based experiences (Adams et al. 158; Gammon and Burch 40).

There were also more positive and aspirational elements to the exercise, a desire to

improve and enhance the experience with these particular objects through the use of technology.

The Museum hoped that the interactive would act as a tool that might teach visitors how to

“read” the imagery of the ceramics, and in so doing gain deeper understanding of various aspects

of Maya culture through the narrative conveyed by the visuals (Lynn and Courtney 6). Inspired

by the investigations of psychologist and Visual Thinking Strategies co-founder Abigail Housen,

the interactive was “based on the premises that visitor learning is enhanced when interpretive

methods promote increased looking” (qtd. in Lynn and Courtney 6). Other purported advantages

of more audience-centered and empowering approaches were also of interest to the staff. Prior

research at the Museum that demonstrated there was an interest among visitors in directing their

40

own educational experiences (Lynn and Courtney 6), along the lines of the free-choice learning

model that has become increasingly prevalent in twenty-first century museums (Falk and

Dierking, “Living in a Learning Society” 335-336). Ultimately, it would provide an opportunity

for the MFA to investigate the potential benefits of digital media in the gallery environment.

The interactive included several functions designed to address the goals and concerns

raised in the planning process. It was centered on six objects, five of which were cylindrical

Maya vases (Courtney and Lynn 2). There were four main features, including a “rollout”

function that allowed for viewers to interact with a flattened three hundred sixty degree image of

key ceramic pieces (Fig. 1), “hotspots” on the image that could be selected and contained key

contextual information, as well as a “zoom lens” function (Fig. 1) that permitted users to more

closely examine the imagery of the pieces (Courtney and Lynn 14-15).

Figure 1: “Rollout” and “Zoom Lens” Features. Mayan Ceramic Touch Screen Summative

Evaluation. MFA, 2009.

The device allowed for more tactile exploration of the ceramics and their imagery, as well as

greater control over the content accessed and the direction of the experience. Offering users

proxy objects to engage with in lieu of the actual pieces through interactivity has enabled many

Maya Ceramics Interactive Summative Evaluation Page 12 MFA, Boston

Figure 5: Rollout

Once the object was rolled out the visitor could then engage the zoom feature

(whimsically referred to as the “Bubble of Knowledge” by the designers) which was a moveable digital magnifying lens with a tab that allowed for close observation of specific details. (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Zoom lens

The lens was easily navigated across the field of the object with the drag of a finger and could be used on any detail. The third feature, the hotspots, was activated through the zoom lens. As the visitor moved the lens across specific areas of the object that were targeted as hotspots, a short description or additional information would pop up, along with a line drawing of the featured detail. Multiple hotspots were embedded in each object. From the hotspots the fourth feature, the theme page, could be activated. When the lens was dragged over particular hotspots (usually 2 or 3 in each object) a link to the theme page would pop up along with the above mentioned hotspot information.

Maya Ceramics Interactive Summative Evaluation Page 12 MFA, Boston

Figure 5: Rollout

Once the object was rolled out the visitor could then engage the zoom feature

(whimsically referred to as the “Bubble of Knowledge” by the designers) which was a moveable digital magnifying lens with a tab that allowed for close observation of specific details. (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Zoom lens

The lens was easily navigated across the field of the object with the drag of a finger and could be used on any detail. The third feature, the hotspots, was activated through the zoom lens. As the visitor moved the lens across specific areas of the object that were targeted as hotspots, a short description or additional information would pop up, along with a line drawing of the featured detail. Multiple hotspots were embedded in each object. From the hotspots the fourth feature, the theme page, could be activated. When the lens was dragged over particular hotspots (usually 2 or 3 in each object) a link to the theme page would pop up along with the above mentioned hotspot information.

41

museums to remove certain barriers between their visitors and the artwork and artifacts (Marty

132), an effective and admirable use of technology in tandem with physical collections. The

ultimate goal of using the touch screen technology to emphasize the visual features of the objects

(Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017) also represents a strong and clear purpose for a project of this

nature that services the institution’s educational mission, essential elements for ensuring the

interactive’s success as a valuable and relevant addition to the educational experience of the

gallery (Adams and Moussouri 6; Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 154; Adams et

al. 160).

Outcomes and Conclusions from Maya Ceramics Installation

The interactive was installed in the gallery from October of 2007 until June of 2008,

during which time its use by visitors was extensively studied (Courtney and Lynn 6). The

Museum’s evaluation staff generated a great deal of research data that addressed several of their

concerns and questions about this process. Evaluators used a combination of observation, visitor

interviews, which included forty-four touch screen users and twenty-six non-users, as well as

tracking software embedded in the program of the media device to obtain their results (Courtney

and Lynn 7). The sample size of the study appeared suitably varied and extensive in terms of the

different age groups included, creating the opportunity for insight into how the technology might

affect or entice these different audience segments. Participants in both the users and non-user

groups aged eighteen to seventy-five and above, and though there was a larger concentration a

younger visitors in the user group, according to the study’s findings “visitor use of the interactive

did not decline with age in a strictly linear manner” (Courtney and Lynn 9). The fifty-five to

sixty-five age group made up over a quarter of the total number of users interviewed (Courtney

42

and Lynn 9), proving that technology’s appeal is not consigned exclusively to younger

generations and can add value to the experience of visitors of all ages (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: “Interactive Users and Non-Users by Age Range”. Mayan Ceramic Touch

Screen Summative Evaluation. MFA, 2009.

The results from the study reveal some interesting figures of how the touch screen

affected subjects’ experiences, and how it added to their experience in the gallery. Firstly, the

device was only used twenty-two percent of the time it was available, according to the tracking

software (Lynn and Courtney 11). However, this was at least partially due to its location, as

“[m]any in the non-user group were unaware of the touch screen in the gallery…they simply

didn’t see the interactive and some said they would have used it had they been aware that it was

available” (Lynn and Courtney 39). It is unclear from the report’s findings exactly how more

effective placement would have increased the device’s usage, but it certainly bears consideration.

Placements of any interactive in a given exhibition are a crucial part of its potential success in

Maya Ceramics Interactive Summative Evaluation Page 10 MFA, Boston

Figure 2: Age of Users

The four age ranges that account for visitors between 18 and 44 years of age, and

over 74 years of age saw larger percentages of users than non-users in our sample (See Figure 3). Conversely, the three age ranges that account for visitors between 45 and 74 years of age had lower percentages of users than non-users. Particularly, visitors aged 45-54 had the greatest difference between users (11%) and non-users (27%). Additional research is required to better understand possible explanations for this large difference. Is this age group less comfortable with or less interested in museum technology? Are they more likely to visit museum with young children and therefore not stop at this type of kiosk? Overall, age did not make a difference in those that used or did not use the interactive. Figure 3: Users and Non-Users by Age Range

Age of Users of Maya Ceramics Interactive

Age 18-24, 18%

Age 25 -34, 18%

Age 35-44, 11%Age 45-54, 11%

Age 55-64, 25%

Age 65-74, 11%

Age 74+, 5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

18-24 ys

25-34 yrs

35-44 yrs

45-54 yrs

55-64 yrs

65-74 yrs

74+ yrs

Users

Non-Users

43

terms of how often and to what degree visitors make use of it (Adams et al. 161), and the

research done by the Museum around this installation and some of its shortcomings underscored

the importance of this point.

Another major component of the study discussed heavily in the report focuses on the

previously noted question around how multi-media affects the object-viewing experience for

users versus non-users. Concerns of interactives distracting visitor attention from objects are

widespread in the world of art museums, and, while prior research on this issue suggest that

while it is largely an unfounded concern (Allan and Gutwill 200; Gammon and Burch 40),

questions still remain (Heath and Vom Lehn 271-272). As such, in-depth examinations of

specific museums’ findings on this issue offer valuable research data to address remaining

concerns about the relationship between the visitors, the objects, and multimedia installations. In

the case of the MFA’s evaluation, no major difference was found between the user and non-user

groups in terms of time spent looking at objects (Lynn and Courtney 23). In fact, users of the

interactive were found to have spent an average of 2.9 minutes more time in the gallery overall

and, discounting the time spent with the interactive, an average of .31 minutes more in time spent

with the physical objects, than non-users (Lynn and Courtney 23-24). The difference in time

spent with the actual artifacts between these two groups may be minor, it still indicates a positive

outcome in that the touch screen was not a detriment to the object-based experience of the

gallery.

The research also addresses key questions about how, if at all, the interactive content

enhanced users’ experiences with the actual objects. Subjects who used the touch screen were

shown to have a generally stronger reaction towards the desired learning outcomes, indicating

“an appreciation for of the skill of Maya artists and an increased understanding of the cultural

44

meanings imbedded in the art” (Courtney and Lynn 31). However, it should be noted that

different questions were asked on the subject of knowledge gained between the two groups, with

more specific questions directed at the user group, somewhat offsetting the conclusion that the

interactive was solely responsible for one group’s higher performance in learning outcome

assessment (Courtney and Lynn 31). Still, it would appear that the interactive at least proved

effective in the short-term learning tool for those who made use of it, demonstrating the value

this kind of feature could offer audiences in terms of the degree to which they engaged with and

recalled the content. This would be an important factor in future endeavors of this nature and a

goal the Museum has continued to pursue for all the interactive components installed in its

galleries (Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017).

Daily Life in Ancient Greece Interactive

Background on Exhibition and Interactive

More recently, in 2017, the MFA is preparing to open a new gallery, Daily Life in

Ancient Greece, in their Arts of the Ancient World wing, and have been testing a new interactive

to feature in the exhibition. Part of an ongoing effort to reinstall the Museum’s Classical Greek

collection, this newest exhibition features objects arranged around themes of ordinary life in this

ancient society, like marriage, war, athletics, child-rearing, and death, that the staff hope will be

more relatable to visitors unfamiliar with the art and its cultural history (Tessier). As part of the

planning and design process for this new installation, a digital touch screen device was

developed to serve as an educational tool to facilitate learning goals. Since the re-opening of the

new Art of the Americas wing in 2010, implementing different technologies in new and re-

45

installed galleries has been a priority for the Museum whenever possible (Martin). Barbara

Martin, the MFA’s Curator for Education, explains that a general consensus has emerged more

recently that the institution needs to offer more ways for visitors to connect with the artwork, and

that the question will often be asked as to whether technology has a place in a given exhibition

(Martin).

With the Daily Life in Ancient Greece exhibition, an interactive was planned from the

beginning, as a number of touch-screen devices had been included in other reinstalled Classical

galleries, like Myths and Legends of the Trojan War and Dionysus and the Symposium. Many

staff members felt that these components would prove an effective learning tool that would also

peak visitors’ interests (Martin; Tessier). Additionally, the incorporation of the digital feature

from an early stage in the design process ensured adequate time for refining the concept through

multiple conversations and a formative evaluation process with visitors (O’Donoghue). The

timeframe around the interactive permitted staff “the freedom to create something [they] felt was

an effective and meaningful addition to the gallery and its objects” (O’Donoghue). Given the

considerations involved in creating the exhibition, it appears highly advantageous that so much

time was allotted to design and perfect the multimedia feature to ensure a more polished final

product that would be more attuned to audience preferences.

Additionally, the new gallery layout also appears promising in terms of the MFA’s focus

on visitor experience and outlook, as a more accessible organization of the pieces seems a

pragmatic way to orient audiences in the gallery. Instead of creating an exhibition around overly

academic and esoteric categories unfamiliar to the casual viewer, the Museum is considering its

audience in the way it is approaching the overall design of the reinstalled Greek galleries. This

importance of incorporating the “outside” perspectives of the visitors is an important part of

46

making art museums and their collections more inviting and inclusive for the public they serve

(Pekarik, “Recasting the Visitors” 56).

As for the interactive component of the exhibition, a ceramic vase depicting a wedding

ceremony was selected as a centerpiece for the section on marriage, and the touch screen device

has been created to allow visitors to explore and understand this object in particular. The vase

was chosen as the basis for the digital multimedia element due to the near-universal relatability

of its subject (marriage) to the Museum’s audience and the imposing nature of its physical size,

as well as the striking and complex nature of its visuals (Martin; Tessier). The digital application

will be installed on an iPad in the gallery, an accessible but physically unobtrusive design choice

that will ensure the device is readily available to those who desire to use it (O’Donoghue).

However, it will not dominate the physical space in such a way that it risks encroaching on or

detracting from the experience of those who would prefer to forgo it (Alexander).

Learning Objectives for Interactive

The Museum’s reasoning for its new touch screen interactive to be featured in the

upcoming Daily Life in Ancient Greece exhibition remain consistent with their overall

philosophy around technology of this kind in the gallery environment. Namely, the goal remains

to compel closer examination of the artwork on display (Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017), as its

was for similar touch-screen interactives like those in the other newly reinstalled Greek galleries

(Martin). Additionally, there is a desire to use the multimedia component as a training device to

teach users how to read the imagery of Greek vases, gaining greater insight and understanding

into their role as story-telling devices (Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017; Martin). Adam Tessier,

47

the Museum’s Head of Interpretation, explains that part of the rationale for use of the wedding

vase as the subject of the planned interactive was that its imagery was particularly complex, and

that if visitors could learn to decipher the intricate visual narrative through use of the interactive,

other ceramics in the gallery would prove simple to understand by comparison (Tessier).

There may be some question as to whether the Museum is approaching this goal based

largely on what they want to teach the audience and how they wish the interactive to be used.

However, previous experiences by education staff teaching in galleries with Classical collections

has indicated that audiences find objects like Greek vases more engaging and intriguing once

they understand the storytelling purpose of these objects (Martin). Moreover, organizing an

exhibition, and creating a multimedia component, around themes familiar to most visitors

exemplifies an interpretive strategy where the design team is attempting to “[build] on the

knowledge that people already have and expand on what they know and relate to” in order to

connect audiences with the pieces (Tessier). This approach of incorporating prior knowledge of

the audience shows a willingness to build content and galleries with visitor interests and

perspectives in mind, even if the narrative is largely conceived internally.

Impact of Prior Efforts (Maya Ceramic and Others) on Design and Goals

Inevitably, previous efforts with interactive technology have shaped this endeavor in a

number of ways; including its objectives, the features it offers visitors for exploring the vase

around which it is built, and its placement in the exhibition. Like this newest project, the Maya

ceramics touch screen device was also designed to focus attention on the details of the artwork

and the information they conveyed about the culture and people from which the object originated

48

(Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017). Additionally, the Maya touch screen’s “Rollout” feature,

utilized by almost ninety-one percent of its users to view the ceramics’ imagery (Lynn and

Courtney 14), has become a centerpiece of the new interactive’s presentation of the image on the

wedding vase (Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017). The shortcomings discovered during the

evaluation of the earlier installation have also informed the planning and implementation process

for the upcoming Greek exhibition. Specifically, the interactive for the newest Greek exhibition

will be placed contiguously with its accompanying object, and both will be positioned

prominently near the entrance to the gallery, readily accessible and apparent to visitors

(O’Donoghue). This is opposed to confining it to a less visible location within the space, which

research from the Maya exhibition indicated might negatively impact the device’s use (Lynn and

Courtney 39).

More recent efforts have also validated the drive to incorporate digital media as a

singularly effective learning device into exhibitions with detailed and intricate artwork. In the

Museum’s Chinese Song Dynasty gallery, an interactive was recently installed that allows users

to “unroll” a virtual copy of an ancient scroll, whose length (fifty to sixty feet) makes it

impossible for the Museum to display physically in its entirety (Tessier). Through the

multimedia element, visitors were able to spend more time looking at a complete version of this

important artifact. When interviewed by evaluation staff, those who had used the interactive

were able to recall more specific details about the object and its features than those who had not,

and unlike previous evaluations, both groups were asked the same broad questions about their

recollections regarding the scroll (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). The results from the study

of this touch screen offers a compelling endorsement for the MFA regarding the potential for this

49

technology to provide a unique opportunity to instruct and engross visitors in visual history of

previously inaccessible artwork and serve a singular purpose in certain exhibitions.

Formative Evaluation Process: Assessing Three Models

The evaluation team conducted an extensive formative evaluation process for the Daily

Life in Ancient Greece exhibition’s main touch screen interactive, centered around the wedding

vase, though questions were also asked about images of other more limited displays that would

pertain to pieces depicting other aspects of Greek daily life as represented on the art. Working

prototypes of three different models were designed to be tested by visitors: “The Conversation”

(Fig. 3), “The Game” (Fig. 4), and “Click and Learn” (Fig. 5), all oriented around the rolled-out

viewpoint of image featured across the circumference of the object. Each figure depicted in the

images below (Fig. 3, 4, 5) corresponds with a particular role in the ceremony. Their titles are as

follows (from left to right): Bridesmaid One, Symbol of Aphrodite (Goose), Bridesmaid Two,

Wedding Planner, Bride, Groom, and Mother of the Groom. The identity of final figure on the

far right behind the alter-like structure was not specified, and she was not incorporated into any

of the three activity models.

“The Conversation” (Fig. 3) challenges users to locate different characters, such as the

groom or wedding planner, by touching the different figures depicted across the rolled-out image

(Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 8). When a character is identified correctly, users are

notified, with highlighted figure having been rightly recognized as a bridesmaid, and information

is given on the nature of the character’s involvement in the wedding ceremony (Courtney et al.

“Greek Daily Life” 8). If a user selects the wrong figure, they will be told to attempt another

50

guess. Regardless, as they proceed through the activity they will accumulate information on the

different characters and discover more about what each one’s purpose in the scene is.

Figure 3: “The Conversation” Greek Daily Life Interactive: Prototype Test Results. MFA,

2017.

“The Game” (Fig. 4) asks participants guess each figure’s identity in the scene by

dragging a selection of labels, representing the title of each individual featured in the piece, from

the bottom of the screen (Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 8). Once users have positioned

every label they discover how many were correctly placed, and freely explore different

characters’ backgrounds by selecting different figures after completing the activity. Users were

also given information on how their performance compares to other visitors, though this feature

was divisive and found to invoke a mixed reaction from some (Courtney et al. “Greek Daily

Life” 12).

51

Figure 4: “The Game” Greek Daily Life Interactive: Prototype Test Results. MFA, 2017.

Finally, the “Click and Learn” design (Fig. 5) invites users to simply select individual

characters within the scene and gain information on them, and involves no set activity or game. It

is arguably the most open and visitor directed of the three models, as the course of the interaction

with the content would be dictated by the users to a greater degree than with either of the

previous models that were tested, with only selected information being presented. However, it

also lacks a more involved, goal-oriented task to drive the experience, making for a multimedia

interface potentially more passive in nature for the users.

52

Figure 5: “Click and Learn” Greek Daily Life Interactive: Prototype Test Results. MFA,

2017.

Fifty individuals were selected for the study through member outreach and on-site

intercepts by researchers (Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 2). A diverse range of age groups

was accounted for in the interviews, but familiar patterns with the representation also emerged.

As with the Maya interactive evaluation, eighteen to twenty four year-olds composed the largest

group of interview subjects (Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 3; Courtney and Lynn 10), who

conventional wisdom would suspect to be the most responsive and eager participants in testing

an interactive multi-media display, as these elements are often aimed at attracting the younger,

more digitally savvy attuned audiences to classical art exhibitions (Whitcomb, “Interactivity:

Thinking Beyond 355”). However, again similar to previous evaluations, the next largest age

groups represented were fifty-five to sixty-four and sixty-five to seventy-four, respectively

(Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 3; Courtney and Lynn 10). This confirms that findings from

53

previous interactive assessments and research suggesting multimedia is predominantly oriented

towards accommodating younger visitors (Stogner 385, 392) are not particularly relevant in the

case of the MFA.

Evaluation Results: How They Impacted the Final Product

The results from the formative evaluation informed the final product substantially, and

the Museum’s considerations around the feedback generated provide insights into what they

hope to achieve with its installation. Of the three prototype activities that the staff tested, “The

Game” proved the most preferred with forty-five percent of those interviewed feeling it was the

most enjoyable of the models, while “The Conversation” was second with thirty-five percent and

“Click and Learn” last with twenty percent (Fig. 6) (Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 15).

Figure 6: “Preferred Version” Greek Daily Life Interactive: Prototype Test Results. MFA,

2017.

The Conversation

35%

The Game 45%

Click and Learn 20%

Preferred Version of Interactive

54

The education and interactive design team has used the results of the formative

evaluation to refine and perfect the interactive. The visitor feedback on the three interactive

models indicated a partiality to more directed interactive experiences, and has influenced the

nature of the final display. Between those who preferred “The Conversation” and “The Game”,

eighty percent of participants favored an interactive with some type of challenge or guided task,

rather than the straightforward but less constrained “Click and Learn” model, which visitors

found more passive and less engaging (Courtney et al. “Greek Daily Life” 13, 28). This result

substantiates arguments that interactives with a focused concept and coherent design are more

effective (Spock 370), and that the best interactives offer more, not less constraints, and well-

deigned scaffolded experiences that “motivate and focus participation” (Simon). The importance

of a more cohesive and controlled activity with a more goal-oriented design also has educational

benefits for users in terms of how they process the interpretive story the technology promotes.

Research shows that contiguous narrative and structure play significant roles in visitor learning

and meaning-making, and users may be more frustrated or disinterested in a more aimless and

unstructured interactive that lacks a clear progression (Wong). This will lead them to abandon

the activity more quickly (Wong) and presumably gain less from the experience.

More than that, this is indicative of an emerging trend for both museums and their

audiences. Increasingly, games are being recognized for their ability to promote and further

educational objectives through their thought-provoking mechanics and a wide appeal across

many different age groups (Edwards and Schaller 97-99). Incorporation of these kinds of

activities within the museum environment can help institutions achieve specific educational

outcomes, are they already being utilized in a number of formal and informal learning contexts,

however, as with any successful interactive, they require thoughtful conceptualization of goals in

55

order to produce effective results (Edwards and Schaller 98-99, 105). The success of these

experiences at appealing to a variety of audiences can certainly be observed in the course of the

MFA’s testing of the different touch screen designs for the Greek exhibition. This outcome has

ensured that the final product will feature some game-like elements (Courtney et al. “Greek

Daily Life” 28-29), which, based on existing research, will likely prove an effective means of

engaging and holding visitor interest.

However, while “The Game” was the most favored in terms of the activity it offered,

sixty-three percent of participants felt that “The Conversation” did the best at encouraging the

user to look more closely at the actual object and its imagery (Fig. 7) (Courtney et al. “Greek

Daily Life” 28). Since this was the foremost goal the Museum hopes to achieve the interactive

(Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017), the final model will also include components of the

“Conversation”.

Figure 7: “Version Which Would Most Encourage Looking at the Actual Object” Greek

Daily Life Interactive: Prototype Test Results. MFA, 2017.

The Conversation

63%

The Game 21%

Click and Learn 16%

Version Which Would Most Encouage Looking at the Actual Object

56

This makes sense from the Museum’s perspective, what with its collections being central to their

educational agenda and approach, and in cases like this one, interactives can offer another means

to focus visitor attention on the objects, functioning as “additive methods that supplement

traditional didactic content presentation” (Simon). Incorporation of the visitor perspective is

important to the interactive design process and must be balanced, to a certain degree, with

internal considerations around the institutional mission. As has been recommended for projects

like this, the MFA has clear goals for its interactive pertaining to mission-based outcomes

(Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 154; Adams et al. 160). Specifically, the Museum

has identified increasing time spent with objects by visitors as a primary focus, and are refining

their concept to meet those goals (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 154). At the

same time, there is a desire to consult visitors and adapt digital components to external

preferences, without compromising the cultural nature and focus of these collections, which is

also crucial to this process (Economou, “A World of Interactive Exhibits” 154-155). The

Museum’s survey data shows, that combining elements of “The Game” and “The Conversation”

will create a reasonably compelling and unique digital component that adheres to their strategy

of emphasizing objects while creating new means for audiences to connect with the exhibitions.

Benefits to the MFA’s Interactive Evaluation Approach

The Museum’s growing emphasis on evaluation of interactives is an advantageous

development for ensuring more polished interactive features relevant to the objects and gallery

narratives, as such research is becoming increasingly necessary to ensure continued

57

improvements in how institutions connect with their visitors (Hsi 186). The MFA’s approach to

evaluation in both past and current efforts to design and test digital media elements relies on a

combination of methodologies that together have produced meaningful results. Allowing

adequate time for formative evaluation through incorporation of an multimedia component into

the early stages of the design process ensures it can be properly assessed and refined, generating

a more effective final product that more successfully conforms to the interpretive agenda

(O’Donoghue). Unlike other cases in the Museum’s history of multimedia interactivity, the

Greek Daily Life touch screen device was outlined as a priority early so that it could be

sufficiently tested before its installation in the final exhibition (O’Donoghue), which is

imperative for ensuring its value and positive contribution to the gallery environment and

something that more institutions should endeavor to include in their design processes (Adams et

al. 167).

Moreover, the Museum’s evaluation protocol for after an exhibition’s opening is

appropriately multifaceted and comprehensive. The evaluation team is expected to use various

methods, such as observation and interviews to assess the effectiveness of the interactive once

the exhibition opens to the public, to determine whether the interactive is achieving its

previously outlined goals. The staff can observe visitors in the galley and roughly determine the

amount of time they appear to spend looking at the actual object while using an interactive

(Tessier). This gives evaluators a reasonable, if imprecise, sense of the audience’s engagement

with the physical collections (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). Interviews will also play a

role, to garner information on particular issues or questions around the multimedia element the

staff wishes to address, along with more direct visitor feedback. Questions could be asked to

determine whether the interactive allows for more detailed recollection of the art, as was the case

58

with the Song Dynasty scroll study (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). Additional methods

may be employed and further inquiries conducted, but the important point is that, as with past

projects of this nature, the use of multiple approaches will ensure a more complete data set from

which trends are easier to discern, providing a more complete understanding of the interacitve’s

effects on the visitor experience (Hsi 182; Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). The Museum’s

past efforts to evaluate interactivity in their galleries and current endeavors to implement it in the

Daily Life in Ancient Greece exhibition are reassuring and offer a great deal of hope that they

will effectively balance their internal narrative with visitor preferences and input surrounding the

objects and interpretive delivery of the content.

Finally, the MFA utilizes its evaluation results on a purely internal basis to inform future

projects (Martin). This allows them to sidestep a concerning trend that can, at times, taint the

conclusions of other organizations’ assessment figures. Many museums today, driven by the

need to provide newer generations of existing and prospective donors who desire measurable

results of their contributions’ positive effects (Gelles) use evaluation results as marketing tool for

demonstrating positive outcomes of interactive technology (Alexander et al.). Institutions may

rush to prove the success of a digital feature at the expense of gaining a more nuanced

understanding of an interactive’s effects (Alexander et al.; Loesser 26-27). This is not the case

with the MFA, and their use of data measuring certain ways in which digital media impacts

visitors’ experiences has a more purely constructive and pragmatic purpose.

Suggested Enhancements to the Process

However, examination of the Museum’s process has also shown room for improvement

in the way the MFA approaches evaluation of technology. First, it would perhaps be

59

advantageous to have more than one round of formative testing, as research has shown that

conducting evaluation at several stages in the design process can further refine and perfect an

interactive element (Economou, “The Evaluation of Museum Multimedia Applications” 397).

Naturally, there are time commitments, and the study carried out by the Museum’s staff was

already very extensive, but, going forward, expanding on this concept could provide only greater

opportunities for improvements to the final product and the ability to address unexpected issues

or results (Allen and Gutwill 211).

This might even be extended to include future exhibitions’ conceptual design processes.

Visitors could be consulted early in the planning phase about their interests and preferences for

the content and information they are interested in gaining from an interactive, and not just the

mechanics of the activity (Pekarik and Mogel 469-477). Such research could provide an

interesting opportunity to deepen visitor involvement with and investment in the MFA’s

offerings. This would still require balancing such input with internal expertise and narrative so

that the Museum’s scholarly authority remains present in the design of future digital components

(Anderson 297). However, further experiments in audience consultation during gallery planning

processes may yield unanticipated insights into visitors’ desires and goals, and help the staff

produce more engaging exhibitions and features (Pekarik and Mogel 478-479).

Additionally, there is the question around whether or not the interactive imparts the

understanding of the objects to the extent that the Museum hopes for. Specifically, it is not clear

how they will conclusively demonstrate that audiences come away from the experience

understanding how to read the imagery of these ceramics, a central objective for the project

(Martin; Tessier). Different approaches have been suggested as to how this will might be

determined, including observing visitors, after use of the device, and how long they spend with

60

similar objects in the gallery, implying that more time spent with other pieces indicates a greater

understanding of their imagery and its significance (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). It may

be that, in the short-term, the ability of visitors to recall specific details, as was the case with the

Song Dynasty scroll, from the artwork proves increased engagement and greater understanding

or appreciation of its meaning (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017; Tessier). However, it may be

also be prudent, in the course of conducting interviews or summative evaluation, to provide

subjects with additional images of similar artifacts and scenes, asking questions that compel

them to explore the artwork and ascertain whether the feel more confident about what they

believe is being displayed or communicated.

The only other area of evaluative endeavor that the Museum might consider investing

greater means and time into is more long-term investigation. As has been noted, there a great

deal of research that indicates how learning and meaning-making takes place both during and

following a museum visit over an extended period of time, but there is a severe lack of data that

indicates what kind of impression or impact interactive experiences make over the long-term

(Falk et al. “Interactives and Visitor Learning” 172). The MFA finds this process a difficult one

to validate for a few reasons. Though members of the evaluation staff are intrigued by the idea of

conducting long-term investigations into the effects of interactivity, there is concern that the

results would be too scant and few would recall enough about the experience to provide data

from which substantial patterns could be derived or conclusions drawn (Martin). As it is, the

Museum simply views such an endeavor as too resource-intensive for studying a minor

interaction with a single multimedia device, usually encompassing only a few minutes, and feels

it would not yield useful information or results (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017). However, as

the MFA moves further into the development and application of digital media for its galleries,

61

this type of research might be useful and illuminating. Opportunities could be created for the

institution to provide deeper understanding on the subject of technology and the visitor

experience. This would help to substantiate continued investment in the digital features that are

shown to augment the impression objects or collections have on visitors.

Conclusion: Valuable Features in a Larger Educational Mission

Technology has become a mainstay in modern society, and its relevance to contemporary

and future museum audiences will only continue to grow. In particular, usage of and familiarity

with smartphones and touch screen devices has increased dramatically in the last decade,

especially among younger demographics (Smith), and they are now largely viewed as a necessity

for many people. These developments also offer new possibilities for the way different audiences

experiencing learning in the museum environment. The implementation of more interactive

digital experiences extend existing principles of free-choice learning that have long existed for

informal educational environments (Falk and Dierking, “Living in a Learning Society” 335), and

expanded the means by which visitors with different learning preferences can connect with

gallery content (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017).

For art museums, multimedia interactives in exhibition environments must serve the

collections-based learning model around which these institutions build their missions, and

present new and exciting means for visitors to connect with objects. Interactive elements, when

applied correctly, can more deeply engage visitors with physical objects (Adams et al. 158), and

allow for the potential cultivation of new interest and understanding in the art and its cultural

history (Martin). Art museums have recurrently underscored the mission-based approach

concerning the importance of technology serving a substantial educational purpose in their

62

exhibitions (Alexander; Blake 3; O’Donoghue). Additionally, technology has not or should it

become the overriding method of interpretation by which museums engage visitors with their

collections. Endeavors must be made to ensure digital components does not dominate gallery

experiences, as many still prefer more traditional inputs, such as labels or lectures, through

which to connect with artwork (Simon), and audiences should also be able to utilize museum

exhibitions to retreat from the distractions and sometimes hectic nature of their increasingly

digital everyday lives (Chung et al.). Fortuitously, many institutions already recognize this and

factor these considerations into how they approach interactivity, so as not to make certain

audiences feel excluded from the exhibition learning process (Alexander), as well as to ensure

the physical devices do not physically overshadow other components, objects, and features of the

gallery space (O’Donoghue).

Evaluation is another key component of this process, allowing institutions to better

understand and perfect the technological features they utilize to better serve their educational

mission. As digital media becomes more common, comprehensive assessment of its effects on

the visitor experience has become a necessity to ensure that museums generate meaningful

interactive features that add substantive value to the gallery learning process (Hsi 179).

Assessment should be conducted both during the design process and after these devices are

installed, and is essential for validating their inclusion in exhibitions and improving their impact.

Research has shown that “systematic testing and rigorous investigation…can help to make

interactive multimedia effective interpretation tools which enrich the experience of museum

audiences” (Economou, “The Evaluation of Museum Multimedia Applications” 404). Different

methods of study have, and continue to be utilized, some more ubiquitously than others, ensuring

institutions gain practical understanding of how different forms of interactive technology

63

contribute to, benefit, or at times fail to meet different organizations’ goals for the education and

engagement of their visitors with objects and artwork. Art museums serve the public through

offering vital cultural content and learning experiences in the form of connecting their audiences

with artifacts and artwork. In order to properly utilize technological features and ensure that they

continue to compliment and underscore and the value of object-based learning that these

institutions’ educational agendas are centered around, art museum must continue to conduct

research to better understand how visitors react to digital multimedia elements in the galleries

and how this contributes to their overall missions (Marty 135).

In the specific case of the MFA, there is much to be encouraged about in terms of how

the Museum continues to refine their approach to interactivity in order to address many of these

previously discussed issues, and create a roadmap for future endeavors in this field. The

installation and utilization of interactive media is performed in the service a larger educational

objective: connecting visitors with physical objects (Courtney, Interview, 6 Jul. 2017).

Increasingly, multimedia devices are employed only after careful consideration of how they

might serve a given gallery’s narrative, representing a clear focus and intention that allows these

features to enhance visitors’ learning experience (O’Donoghue; Adams et al. 160).

The MFA also views the relationship between interactivity and the visitors in a

constructive way. Technology is one of many design elements that can appeal to different

learning styles (Courtney, Interview, 25 Sep. 2017), not an all-encompassing strategy that takes

priority over the objects, other interpretive approaches, or the physical space of the exhibition

(O’Donoghue). Greater efforts are now taken by the Museum to ensure that the technology

serves a singular and valuable role in an exhibition that would otherwise be untenable, ensuring

that, for the most part, its role is a consequential, rather than frivolous, one (Martin; Falk and

64

Dierking, “Living in a Learning Society” 28). The supplementary role ensures that the

interactives, like the touch screen device for the new Greek exhibition, will serve a

complimentary role to the physical objects. Lastly, the Museum evaluative efforts offer further

evidence of their commitment to both refining their approaches to interactivity and giving their

public a voice in the development process.

Through the variety of methods employed in their evaluative exercises, the Museum

demonstrates a willingness to empower visitors to contribute an external perspective to digital

components. In doing so, the Museum can create more visitor-centered gallery experiences

through those components, as well as more adequately enhance and refine the interactives before

their final installation. Assessment is imperative for honing concepts, like multimedia

interactives, especially during the development process, and ensuring their viability with users

and address potential pitfalls (Adams et al. 167; Allan and Gutwill 211), and the MFA has

certainly made efforts to incorporate this consideration into their exhibition design approach.

There are improvements to this process that can be made so that visitor interests can be better-

addressed and digital components, and the content they feature, further tailored to the audiences

that use them and experience the exhibitions. However, in summary, the Museum is on the right

path in its endeavors to use technology in the Daily Life in Ancient Greece gallery space as a

conduit to its collections. The MFA embraces digital media as a supplementary part of a

multifaceted educational agenda, designed to expand the appeal of the institution without

compromising its character. Furthermore, the Museum evaluates the impact of this technology at

multiple stages in the design process to ensure they are captivating but meaningful additions to

the exhibition and collections it serves.

65

Works Cited

Adams, Marianna et al. “Interactivity: Moving Beyond Terminology.” Curator: The Museum

Journal, vol. 47, no. 2, 2004, pp. 155-170. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00115.x/full.

Adams, Marianna, and Theano Moussouri. “Interactive Learning in Museums of Art and

Design.” Interactive Learning in Museums of Art, 17-18 May 2002, Victoria and Albert

Museum, London, England, Victoria and Albert Museum. Web.

http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/documents/legacy_documents/file_upload/5748_file.pdf.

Alexander, Jane. Personal Interview. 13 Sep. 2017.

Alexander, Jane et al. “Removing The Barriers of Gallery One: A New Approach To Integrating

Art, Interpretation, and Technolgy.” MW17: Museums and the Web 2017, 19-22 Apr.

2017, Hilton Cleveland Downtown, Cleveland, OH, Museums and the Web.

https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barriers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-

to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/

Allan, Sue and Joshua Gutwill. “Designing with Multiple Interactives: Five Common Pitfalls.”

Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 47, no. 2, 2004, pp. 199-212.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-

6952.2004.tb00117.x/full.

Anderson, Maxwell L. “The Future of Museums in the Information Age.” Museum Informatics:

People, Information, and Technology in Museums, edited by Paul F. Marty and Katherine

Burton Jones, Routledge, 2008, pp. 293-299.

66

Bernstein, Fred A. “Technology That Serves to Enhance, Not Distract.” The New York Times, 21

Mar. 2013, p. F26. Web. http://digitalmicrofilm1.proquest.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/RollForm.aspx?jobNum=proquest.

Blake, Kathryn E. “Teaching Museum Behaviors in an Interactive Gallery.” From Content to

Play: Family-Oriented Interactive Spaces in Art and History Museums Symposium, 4-5

Jun. 2005, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA. Conference Presentation.

Chung, James et al. Museums & Society 2034: Trends and Potential Futures. Center for the

Future of Museums, 2008. http://www.aam-us.org/docs/center-for-the-future-of-

museums/museumssociety2034.pdf

Courtney, Lynn. Personal interview. 6 Jul. 2017.

---. Personal Interview. 25 Sep. 2017.

Courtney, Lynn et al. “Greek Daily Life Interactive: Prototype Test Results.” April 2017.

PowerPoint presentation.

Detroit Institute of Arts. Pentagram, 2017. https://www.pentagram.com/work/detroit-institute-of-

arts/story.

Economou, Maria. “A World of Interactive Exhibits.” Museum Informatics: People, Information,

and Technology in Museums, edited by Paul F. Marty and Katherine Burton Jones,

Routledge, 2008, pp. 137-155.

---. “The Evaluation of Museum Multimedia Applications: Lessons from Research.” Museums in

a Digital Age, edited by Ross Parry, Routledge, 2010, pp. 391-405.

67

Edwards, Susan E. and David T. Shaller. “The Name of the Game: Museums and Digital

Learning Games.” The Digital Museum: A Think Guide, edited by Herminia Din and

Phyllis Hecht, American Association of Museums, 2007, pp. 97-108.

Ellenbogan, Kirsten., et al. “Understanding the Motivations of Museum Audiences.” Museum

Informatics: People, Information, and Technology in Museums, edited by Paul F. Marty

and Katherine Burton Jones, Routledge, 2008, pp. 187-194.

Falk, John H., et al. “Interactives and Visitor Learning.” Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 47,

no. 2, 2004, pp. 171-198. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00116.x/full.

---. “Living in a Learning Society: Museums and Free-Choice Learning” A Companion to

Museum Studies, edited by Sharon MacDonald, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 323-339.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1002/9780470996836.ch19/summary.

Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking. “Enhancing Visitor Interaction and Learning with Mobile

Technologies.” Digital Technologies and the Museum Expereince: Handheld Guides and

Other Media, edited by Loic Tallon and Kevin Walker, AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 19-33.

Gammon, Ben, and Alexandra Burch. “Designing Mobile Digital Experiences.” Digital

Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media, edited by

Loic Tallon and Kevin Walker, AltaMira Press, 2008, pp.35-60.

Gelles, David. “Wooing A New Generation of Museum Patrons.” The New York Times, 19 Mar.

2014, p. F1. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/wooing-a-new-

generation-of-museum-patrons.html

68

Griffiths, Alison. “Media Technology and Museum Display: A Century of Accommodation and

Conflict.” Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition, edited by David

Thorburn and Henry Jenkins, The MIT Press, 2003, pp. 375-389.

Heath, Christian and Dirk vom Lehn. “Interactivity and Collaboration: New Forms of

Participation in Museums, Galleries and Science Centers.” Museums in a Digital Age,

edited by Ross Parry, Routledge, 2010, pp. 266-280.

Hsi, Sherry. “Evaluating Museum Technology: Experiences from the Exploratorium.” The

Digital Museum: A Think Guide, edited by Herminia Din and Phyllis Hecht, American

Association of Museums, 2007, pp. 179-187.

Hunt, Julia K. Emerging Trends with Interactives in Art Museums. Thesis, University of

Washington, 2013. UMI, 1542398.

Ling, Katharine Ting Zhen. Design Preferences for Touch Screens in Museum Galleries. Thesis,

Multimedia University, 2015. ProQuest 10241599.

Loesser, Gracie. Analyzing Visitor Perceptions of Personalization In Art Museum Interactive

Technology. Dissertation, University of Washington, 2016.

Lohr, Steve. “Museums Morph Digitally.” New York Times, 26 Oct. 2014, p. F1. Web.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/arts/artsspecial/the-met-and-other-museums-adapt-

to-the-digital-

age.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Arts&action=keypress&region=Fixed

Left&pgtype=article.

69

Lynn, Paula, and Lynn Courtney. Maya Ceramic Interactive Touch Screen Summative

Evaluation. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2009. Internal report.

Martin, Barbara T. Personal Interview. 11 Oct. 2017.

Marty, Paul F. “Interactive Technologies.” Museum Informatics: People, Information, and

Technology in Museums, edited by Paul F. Marty and Katherine Burton Jones, Routledge,

2008, pp. 131-135.

O’Donoghue, Janet. Personal Interview. 16 Nov. 2017.

Odo, David. Personal Interview. 4 Oct. 2017.

--- “Re: In A Digital World, Are We Losing Sight Of Our Undigitized Past? Forbes.” Received

by Jeffrey Holman, 5 Oct. 2017.

Original Gallery One. The Cleveland Museum of Art, 2016. http://www.clevelandart.org/artlens-

gallery/original-gallery-one.

Pekarik, Andrew J. “Engineering Answers.” Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, 2004,

pp. 145-148. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00113.x/full.

--- “Recasting the Visitors: From Passive Consumers to Active Agents.” Context, vol. 8, no. 2,

2011, pp. 55-62. https://search-proquest-com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/docview/1353087554/fulltext/6DACE895E6FD4AF1PQ/1?accoun

tid=11311.

70

Pekarik, Andrew J., and Barbara Mogel. “Ideas, Objects, or People? A Smithsonian Exhibition

Team Views Visitors Anew.” Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 53, no. 4, 2004, pp.

145-148. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-

6952.2010.00047.x/full.

Simon, Nina. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010. Web.

http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/.

Smith, Aaron. “Record Shares of Americans Now Own Smartphones, Have Home Broadband.”

The PEW Research Center, 11 Jan. 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/ft_17-01-10_internetfactsheets/

Smith, Jeffrey K., and Pablo P.L. Tinio. “Audibly Engaged: Talking the Walk.” Digital

Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media, edited by

Loic Tallon and Kevin Walker, AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 63-78.

Spock, Daniel. “Is It Interactive Yet?” Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, 2004, pp.

369-374. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-

6952.2004.tb00132.x/full.

Stogner, Maggie Burnette. “The Media-Enhanced Museum Experience: Debating the Use of

Media Technology in Cultural Exhibitions.” Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 52, no.

4, 2009, pp. 385-397. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2009.tb00360.x/full.

Sydell, Laura. “Please Touch! Cooper Hewitt Creates A Museum For The Internet Age. All

Things Considered, 12 Dec. 2014.

71

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/12/12/370131943/please-touch-

cooper-hewitt-creates-a-museum-for-the-internet-age.

Tessier, Adam. Personal Interview. 10 Oct. 2017.

Whitcomb, Andrea. “Interactivity: Thinking Beyond.” A Companion to Museum Studies, edited

by Sharon MacDonald, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 353-361.

--- Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum. Routledge, 2003.

Wong, Amelia. “The Whole Story, and then Some: ‘Digital Storytelling’ in Evolving Museum

Practice.” MW2015: Museums and the Web 2015, 8-11 Apr. 2015, Palmer House,

Chicago, IL, Museums and the Web, 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 3 Oct. 2017.