Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits : Enhancing visitor...

7
Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits: Enhancing visitor curiosity through augmented artefacts Luigina Ciolfi Interaction Design Centre Computer Science Building University of Limerick Ireland +353 61 213530 [email protected] Liam J. Bannon Interaction Design Centre Computer Science Building University of Limerick Ireland +353 61 202632 [email protected] ABSTRACT In this paper, we describe the current work being conducted at the Interaction Design Centre on the design and development of a novel interactive museum exhibition. The particular context and cultural setting of the museum calls for a careful approach to the introduction of technology in such a context. We present some of the findings from our early field studies, and discuss how we are attempting to take these findings into account in our ongoing design processes. Keywords Museum technologies, engagement, design process, role of artefacts. INTRODUCTION This paper provides an outline of some of the work being done by researchers at the University of Limerick Interaction Design Centre (UL IDC) on the EU Disappearing Computer SHAPE (Situating Hybrid Assemblies in Public Environments) project. Our focus here is on issues in designing innovative interactive experiences for visitors to the Hunt Museum located in Limerick, Ireland. The introduction of technology into museums and exhibitions is a difficult and delicate matter, as the museum is a rather complex entity from the point of view of experience, interaction and exhibition design (Falk & Dierking, 1995), e.g. educational issues, curatorial necessities, pleasuarable visitor experiences, etc need to be merged. A number of distinct communities, with different disciplinary backgrounds and thus “cultures”, are involved in the process: pedagogical and curatorial concerns have to be understood and supported by exhibition, information and interaction designers and technology developers. We need to understand the ecology of artefacts, spaces and practices with a view to trying to create some changes or interventions in that context. How to take into account these different perspectives is not an easy question to answer. In what follows we describe our evolving approach to this topic in the context of our on- going work in the Hunt Museum. This is still work-in- progress, and thus what follows is an interim report, and presents our reflections on the process to date. The frame of this paper is formative, rather than evaluative, and it aims to discuss the process of design rather than completed designs. We have been evolving what we term a number of ‘design sensitivities’, based on an extensive data corpus collected during nearly 8 months of field studies. The focus of these observational studies is on the features of the museum environment, the artefacts, and the public interaction with the objects in the different museum spaces. THE SHAPE PROJECT AND THE HUNT MUSEUM This research is being conducted within the EU- Disappearing Computer SHAPE 1 project (Situating Hybrid Assemblies in Public Environments). The project focus is on creating hybrid public environments that allow visitors to actively interact with features of both physical and digital spaces. SHAPE is specifically investigating these issues of hybridity and assembly in the context of public spaces such as museums and exploratoria. “Living Exhibitions”, where our explorations are exhibited for public experimentation and evaluation, are planned at selected European museums which have agreed to participate. The SHAPE team at the UL IDC is currently working with the Hunt Museum on a SHAPE Living Exhibition planned for the Summer of 2003. We are currently developing design scenarios for a number of exhibits to be located within a specific room at the Museum. These scenarios are based our analysis of field study data displaying human behaviour within the museum environment, and, specifically, the way visitors 1 Members of the SHAPE Consortium are: the Royal Institute of Technology-KTH (Sweden; Coordinating Partner), King’s College London (UK), the University of Nottingham (UK) and the University of Limerick (Ireland).

Transcript of Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits : Enhancing visitor...

Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits!: Enhancingvisitor curiosity through augmented artefacts

Luigina CiolfiInteraction Design Centre

Computer Science BuildingUniversity of Limerick

Ireland+353 61 213530

[email protected]

Liam J. BannonInteraction Design Centre

Computer Science BuildingUniversity of Limerick

Ireland+353 61 202632

[email protected]

ABSTRACTIn this paper, we describe the current work beingconducted at the Interaction Design Centre on thedesign and development of a novel interactive museumexhibition. The particular context and cultural setting ofthe museum calls for a careful approach to theintroduction of technology in such a context. Wepresent some of the findings from our early fieldstudies, and discuss how we are attempting to take thesefindings into account in our ongoing design processes.

KeywordsMuseum technologies, engagement, design process, roleof artefacts.

INTRODUCTIONThis paper provides an outline of some of the workbeing done by researchers at the University of LimerickInteraction Design Centre (UL IDC) on the EUDisappearing Computer SHAPE (Situating HybridAssemblies in Public Environments) project. Our focushere is on issues in designing innovative interactiveexperiences for visitors to the Hunt Museum located inLimerick, Ireland.The introduction of technology into museums andexhibitions is a difficult and delicate matter, as themuseum is a rather complex entity from the point ofview of experience, interaction and exhibition design(Falk & Dierking, 1995), e.g. educational issues,curatorial necessities, pleasuarable visitor experiences,etc need to be merged. A number of distinctcommunities, with different disciplinary backgroundsand thus “cultures”, are involved in the process:pedagogical and curatorial concerns have to beunderstood and supported by exhibition, informationand interaction designers and technology developers.We need to understand the ecology of artefacts, spacesand practices with a view to trying to create somechanges or interventions in that context. How to takeinto account these different perspectives is not an easyquestion to answer. In what follows we describe ourevolving approach to this topic in the context of our on-

going work in the Hunt Museum. This is still work-in-progress, and thus what follows is an interim report,and presents our reflections on the process to date. Theframe of this paper is formative, rather than evaluative,and it aims to discuss the process of design rather thancompleted designs. We have been evolving what weterm a number of ‘design sensitivities’, based on anextensive data corpus collected during nearly 8 monthsof field studies. The focus of these observational studiesis on the features of the museum environment, theartefacts, and the public interaction with the objects inthe different museum spaces.

THE SHAPE PROJECT AND THE HUNT MUSEUMThis research is being conducted within the EU-Disappearing Computer SHAPE1 project (SituatingHybrid Assemblies in Public Environments). Theproject focus is on creating hybrid public environmentsthat allow visitors to actively interact with features ofboth physical and digital spaces. SHAPE is specificallyinvestigating these issues of hybridity and assembly inthe context of public spaces such as museums andexploratoria. “Living Exhibitions”, where ourexplorations are exhibited for public experimentationand evaluation, are planned at selected Europeanmuseums which have agreed to participate.The SHAPE team at the UL IDC is currently workingwith the Hunt Museum on a SHAPE Living Exhibitionplanned for the Summer of 2003. We are currentlydeveloping design scenarios for a number of exhibits tobe located within a specific room at the Museum. Thesescenarios are based our analysis of field study datadisplaying human behaviour within the museumenvironment, and, specifically, the way visitors

1 Members of the SHAPE Consortium are: the Royal

Institute of Technology-KTH (Sweden; CoordinatingPartner), King’s College London (UK), the Universityof Nottingham (UK) and the University of Limerick(Ireland).

ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

approach and make sense of particular exhibits andspecific objects in the Museum.The Hunt Collection is an internationally importantcollection of original works of art and antiquities. It is apersonal one, formed by a couple (John and GertrudeHunt) who judged each piece that they collectedaccording to the standard of its design, craftsmanshipand artistic merit. These criteria they applied to objectsof all ages - from the Neolithic to the twentieth century.Since 1997, the collection is arranged on three floors ofthe historic "Custom House" in Limerick City Centre.

The whole collection is presented in a way thathighlights the personality of the owners: for example, awall panel in the Museum, near several artefacts, showsa photograph of the Hunt Family’s home kitchen. It ispossible to locate these precious Museum objects intheir original ‘everyday’ place in the Hunt home. Aremarkable example is the “Plat Del Dia” (“The Dish ofthe Day”) by Pablo Picasso, a small oil on cardboardthat Picasso painted for a Restaurant in Barcelona toadvertise daily specials, and that was used for the samepurposes in the Hunt family’s kitchen!The information available to the visitors in theproximity of the displays is minimal: simple labels toindicate the nature, the provenance, and the period, areplaced near an object or a group of objects. This isintentionally done by the museum management as theywish to encourage personal discovery, also allowing formediation of information by person-to-personcommunication with human experts in their veryengaging “Docent program”.The Docents are volunteers who, according to their timeand availability, are available in different parts of theMuseum, and can provide visitors information aboutspecific objects or sections of the Museum, theirfeatures, history, and also stories about how theseobjects became part of the Hunt family collection. TheDocents are also in charge of guiding small groups ofvisitors through the Museum and assist other museumpersonnel during hands-on activities and educationalworkshops.As well as the human help and guidance provided bythe Docents, panels presenting more generalinformation about the collection are displayed on the

walls throughout the Museum. The panels are eitherrelated to the Hunt family and the process of acquisitionof the collection, or to a specific section of it (e.g., glass,earthenware, bronze, etc.).Whereas the nature and structure of the collectionresponds to Victorian criteria of classification anddisplay (Newhouse, 1995), the Hunt Museum differsfrom most museums of this kind in that it has someextremely interesting features that integrate the “classic”content of the exhibition with elements of direct,“hands-on”, engagement for the visitors. We discussthese features in later sections as we turn to ourobservational studies.

OBSERVATIONSGaining a thorough understanding of the way visitorsmove through the exhibitions and interact around theobjects on display is a crucial element in designingeffective museum installations (Ciolfi et al. 2001). Moregenerally, it is crucial to understand the way visitorinterpret the museum and the story it tells throughartefacts and information resources (Hooper-Greenhil,1992). In the specific context of the Hunt Museum, we wereparticularly interested in how visitors explore variousassemblages of drawers and cases in the museum andhow such exhibits engage people. Another focus of ourinvestigation was gaining an understanding of thestructure, nature and content of the exhibits, theinformational material available, the role of humanguides and the related educational activities theMuseum organises for groups of children and adults.We conducted an extensive set of field studies in theMuseum including informal observations, interviewswith experts, curators and docents, and videoobservations of visitors focused on specific parts of thecollection. Following this phase of study, some relevantfeatures of the museum emerged as crucial in shapingthe visitors experience of the Hunt Collection. We arepresenting three most notable examples in the followingsections.

The Cabinets of CuriositiesWe studied how visitors move through and approach theexhibits, noting which areas and features of the museumwere favoured by the visitors, and where interestinginteractions occurred. We found much of interest in theareas where “cabinets of curiosities” were located (SeeFig. 2).These cabinets can be viewed as an “assembly” ofobjects/artefacts - prompting complex dynamics ofunderstanding and sharing knowledge amongst thevisitors of the museum (Pearce, 1994). The cabinetscontain several kinds of artefacts (from decorative artspieces, to archaeological findings, drawings, tapestries,etc.) arranged in a way that reminds of that in whichJohn and Gertrude Hunt originally displayed them intheir own house.

Figure 1. The Hunt Museum, Limerick.

ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

Visitors are free to open the cabinet’s drawers in thesequence they prefer and explore their content. They areallowed to take a very close look at the objects as theonly protection is a thick glass panel on top of eachdrawer.

Visitors are surprised by the fact that the traditionalcultural “rules” of behaviour in a museum do not applyto the Study Collection room, as it is possible for themto touch and open the drawers, and to get closer to theircontents. Sometimes, people do not actually realise theyare allowed to do so. However, when visitors find outabout this possibility, they engage in observations,interaction and discussion around the cabinet exhibit.After conducting observations of people interactingaround the cabinets, the analysis of video footagerevealed a lot of communication around the objects,with the visitors striving to collaboratively make senseof the exhibits. Interpreting objects and collectionsmeans not only understanding specific aspects or detailsbelonging to each object, but to make sense of thewhole arrangement in which they are displayed and ofthe connections among the different parts of the “story”.As well as the variety of objects on display, the Cabinetof Curiosities has another appeal to the visitors. Thedrawers, chests and boxes stimulate curiosity andexploration. These containers, usually accessible onlyby their owners (and usually in private settings ratherthan museums), suggest the presence of secrets, ofstrange objects, sheltered from the eyes of the public(Elsner & Cardinal, 1994, Bachelard, 1969).Uncovering the secrects and discovering the precious,hidden content is perceived as very rewarding by thevisitors, considering also that the touching of exhibits isoften forbidden in “traditional” museums. Curiosity andexpectation act as facilitators of the process of makingsense of the objects, and of learning through activediscovery (Shuh, 1994). Through stimulating theircuriosity, the cabinets and drawers encourage childrenand adults to both act and reflect, and involve thevisitors in an engaging experience. The interactionsaround the drawers reveal interesting patterns ofcollaborative understanding of the objects, emotional

responses associated with the experience and a growinginterest in, and appreciation of, the exhibit itself.

The Archaeology WorkshopThe Archaeology Workshop is one of the “hands-on”activities the Museum Education Department organisesfor children and adults. This activity is particularlytargeted at primary school classes.

After visiting the Hunt Archaeology section, guided bya museum docent, the children are brought to a specificeducational area of the Museum where a number ofsandboxes are located (See Fig. 3). These boxes areused by Museum staff to hide objects, which can thenbe unearthed by the children, thus simulating, in a crudeform, some aspects of a real archaelogical “dig”. Theclass is divided into three groups, and each group isrequired to unearth artefacts from a specific sandbox(there are three different sandboxes containing,respectively, Stone Age, Bronze Age and Medievalreplica artefacts).The children are shown how to “dig” using a set oftools, and encouraged to document their findingsthrough drawings, sketches and written descriptions.When all the objects are found, each group has toidentify the period of the dig, guessing as to whichhistorical phase their findings belong.From our observations, children enjoy “playing thearchaeologist”: they are shown how to skim the sandwith trowels to search for objects, and how to clean thedust away from the objects with brushes, and theyusually apply these instructions very carefully. Findinghidden objects is a very enagaging experience. Theorchestration of the experience is also very effective -involving children in all the phases of the workshop:digging, discovering and documenting.Collaboration and discussion naturally occur among thechildren, even if each of them is provided with aspecific area of the pit for digging. Comparing objects,instructing each other on how to use the trowel and thebrush, guessing the nature of their findings are the maintopics of discussion.

Figure 2. Visitors exploring the Cabinetof Curiosities in the Study Collection

room.

Figure 3. The "Bronze Age" sandboxused for the Archaeology Workshop.

ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

The children are also involved in placing back theobjects in the pits after the final discussion session, andthey greatly enjoy this phase of the activity as they canin some way influence the experience for the futureparticipants.Another important feature of this activity is the insight itgives the students into how objects might be found, andan awareness of the long path from discovery of somepottery shards to the exhibit of some cleaned, re-assembled pottery bowl in a exhibition case in theMuseum. In the archaeology workshop children are ableto understand the way parts of the collection might havebeen found and then assembled.The Archaeology workshop is a highly effectiveeducational activity, judging from student and teacherevaluations, and the obvious engagement of the studentsduring the sessions. It is also a simple, compact, andunderstandable activity for all concerned(Csiszentmihaly & Hermanson, 1994).

Handling SessionsHandling sessions are a hands-on activity for adults alsoorganised by the Museum Education department. Theparticipants can handle the ‘real’ Museum objectsdistributed to them under the supervision of the HuntMuseum education officers (See Fig. 4). Theparticipants experience great pleasure in exploring thesurfaces and materials of the objects, feeling theirweight and manipulating them in the way they musthave been handled by their past owners. Verbalaccounts from the observation sessions show how theparticipants collaboratively create stories featuring theobjects, and their past owners, their possible use and thephysical locations where they might be placed and used.

The people perform a variety of gestures around and onthe objects as they discuss them. These revealinteresting recurrent patterns of behaviour associatedwith specific physical features of the artefacts: fingeringthe details of the surface, testing its function, lookingfor hidden details on the bottom or the back of theobjects and exploring cavities and inner surfaces (Ciolfi& Bannon, 2002a).

The social aspect of the experience also plays asignificant role: the pleasure of discussing and enjoyingobjects together is strongly felt by the participants at thesession. The participants experience a real sense ofdiscovery and excitement (e.g. “Are they ‘actual’Bronze Age artefacts?”), and communicate thisemotional involvment to their companions and to theHunt personnel leading the session.

Shaping design sensitivitiesWe now wish to move from observation and analysistowards the design of novel and engaging augmentedreality environments within the Museum context. Thisis a difficult assignment, as this environment isextremely complex:• artefacts have implications for the shaping of the

emotional experience;• the museum’s cultural rules and constraints play a

role in terms of the range of interaction possibilitiesthat are given to the visitor

• the multiplicity of artefacts involved and theirmutual relationships require a flexible method ofdesigning interaction.

Thus it is not easy to collect a traditional set of‘requirements’ that we can then implement. Likewise,general design guidelines or heuristics are insufficientlydetailed to help us in our task. However, our HuntMuseum observations have provided us with a set ofdesign sensitivities that are presently shaping theprocess of scenario and technology development,hopefully without oversimplifying the Hunt Museumexperience (Ciolfi & Bannon, 2002b).In order to keep the user’s interest and engagementhigh, we must envision ways to support different ‘layersof activity’: this could provide participants with theability to engage in a progressive sequence of actions(both alone and with others) to provide successivesurprises and discoveries. For example, more and variedinformation on assemblies of objects and their mutualrelationships is provided to those who want to explorefurther aspects of the exhibit.The SHAPE “Living Exhibition” should support visitorsin discovering features of the exhibits both individuallyand collaboratively. Thus the interactivity we supportshould not be limited to that between an individual andan exhibit, but we should consider the different degreesand combinations of verbal and gestural interactionamongst individuals around the artefacts. Theinstallation should, if possible, provide some kind ofadded-value associated with collaborative interactionaround the drawers.Children should be allowed to take part in the activityand to take notes or sketches around the exhibition. Theinstallation should also give children the possibility tolead the process of discovery and to show things to theircompanions.We must also consider possible ways of encouraginginteraction with, and around, the exhibition, andspecifically collaborative interaction. The

Figure 4. A Handling Session involvingschool teachers.

ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

technologically augmented exhibit should provide clues,triggers and adequate affordances to make visible whichactions the visitors are allowed to perform on eachcomponent of the installation. The "Living Exhibition"should support the group visit experience withappropriate feedback that all the members of the groupcan appreciate. The possibility for the visitors to engagein direct face-to-face interaction around the exhibit mustalso be insured, as discussing the objects together is anessential part of the group experience around theexhibit. This means that devices as head-mounteddisplays or headphones are not appropriate for such aninstallation.The exhibition should offer insights on the life of theobjects before they become part of the collection, thusproviding some historical context for the presentcollection. This would encourage visitors to go back tothe actual objects on display and look at them in adifferent way, allowing them to see different things asthey visit a section again.The SHAPE Living Exhibition should provide an addedvalue to the museum visit both for casual visitors and amore expert audience, and should integrate seamlesslywith the current information services, e.g. the Docentsand informational material.The SHAPE exhibition should allow visitors to leave atrace of their visit and their interaction with the objects,something which might in turn shape and influence theexperience of other, later, visitors to the Museum.As well as the design of specific interactive experiencesconcerning artefacts and their display, we must also beconcerned with the orchestration of the overall visitorexperience, in order to create a sense of engagement forthe visitors and a seamless transition between theexisting collections and the “Living Exhibition” (Ciolfi& Bannon, 2002a).

CHALLENGING DESIGNFrom the field studies and the consequent analysis, itclearly appears that traditional museum technologies astouch-screen terminals and audioguides cannot bepossibly be used in the design and installation of the"Living Exhibition". These devices are too limited torespond to the demands emerged from the series ofdesign sentitivities, both on the technical and cognitivelevel. The design sensitivities themselves call for aninnovative installation that takes inspiration from thecurrent museum exhibits, but offers new possibilities tothe visitors as direct involvement and interaction withthe artefacts, triggers to encourage collaborativebehaviour, possibility for the users to reconifgure theexhibition. Ultimately, the Exhibition itself and the objects ondisplay should be the interface that allows visitors toaccess digital content. Through direct manipulation andinteraction, many of the goals and features expressed bythe design sensitivities can be achieved.Several current research projects involve the design ofgraspable interfaces and the use of physical iconsinstead of graphical user interfaces (see for example

Ishii & Ullmer, 1997), and also explicit designprinciples for tactile interaction on interactive objectshave been developed (Challis & Edwards, 2000).However, the object itself is usually not considered asthe locus of information nor the focus of attention.Rather, objects are essentially tools for interacting witha computer system, and they are intended to act as aphysical representation of surface interface elementssuch as icons and pointers.Our approach is distinct, as we are interested in objectsas both material and symbolic devices in their ownright, with a history, context of use, etc, both mediatingand being the object of interaction. We are interested inexploring these issues, both from a theoreticalperspective and in order to inform the design of suchartefacts.We believe that one somewhat neglected aspect of thestudy of artefacts is their potential for stimulatingcreativity and imagination in the user. We intend toconduct a theoretical investigation on these issues aspart of the design process in the immediate future, for itis particularly critical to fully appreciate the particularrole that the Hunt artefacts already have, and we wish tosupport and enhance this aspect through the LivingExhibition.Specifically, in developing the design scenario for theHunt Museum, we intend to further investigate thecognitive and interactional nature of objects in thecontext of the Hunt Museum, and to reflect on the waysthey could be designed as media - connecting thephysical locale of the museum and the virtual world ofinformation.

GENERAL THEMES AND OPEN QUESTIONSIn exploring the design space we have been developingvarious use scenarios (Carroll, 1995), building onsketches (see Fig. 5) and storyboards (see Fig. 6). Thesehelped the design group in visualising possibleassemblies of different exhibition components, and inclarifying some of the distinct properties of thetechnologically augmented exhibit that we wished tocreate.

Figure 5. A sketch informing the process ofscenario development.

ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

From the discussion and integration of paper sketches,we designed a first demonstrator using unobtrusivetechnology to endow objects with "digital" properties(see Fig. 7). For example, we placed radio-frequencyidentification (RFID) tags onto two ceramic figurinesand placed them in a drawer. RFID systems includeelectronic devices called transponders (the tags), andreader electronics to communicate with the tags.These systems communicate via radio signals that carrydata either unidirectionally or bidirectionally. When atransponder enters a read zone, its data is captured bythe reader and can then be transferred through standardinterfaces to a host computer or server for storage oraction (Hall & Gallagher, 2002).

The tag reader has been hidden inside the chest ofdrawers, the figurine did not have any wiring orconnection to the reader. When placed on top of thechest of drawers, each figurine triggered a differentvisual description and a sound background to bedisplayed. When both the figurines are placed on top ofthe chest, a third description appears. This is just thebeginning of an extended scenario that we aredeveloping, involving several objects and differentkinds of informative output, that we will be testing withusers to evaluate the most salient features of such anassembly of technologically enhanced artefacts.

We are aware that we have only begun to scratch thesurface of the problem. Many questions of how todevelop useful and engaging interactive sequences haveto be answered. Issues of how to embedcomputational capability into objects have to beaddressed.Other issues are related to the museum structural andcultural context. How de we make a seamless fitbetween the current exhibits and information servicesand our interactive ones, or do we try? How de wedeliver content? However, we do believe that ourobservational work to date has given us insight intowhat visitors find engaging, and that our designapproach is taking seriously the challenge of developingengaging and appropriate augmented interactive objectsand spaces in the Museum. We hope to assess thevalidity of this claim in the coming year, when ourLiving Exhibition will be open for public viewing andcritical assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe are very appreciative of the support from all thepersonnel at the Hunt Museum, and particularly to PeterMcNamara and Nora Hickey for their enthusiasticsupport of our work.Thanks to Tony Hall, Kieran Ferris, Krispin Leydon andPaul Gallagher for their work on scenario andtechnology development, and to other EU DisappearingComputer SHAPE projects participants for usefuldiscussions.

REFERENCESBachelard, G. (1969), The Poetics of Space, London:

Beacon Press.

Carroll, J.M. (1995), Scenario Based Design, NewYork: Wiley.

Challis, B.P., Edwards, A.D.N. (2000), "DesignPrinciples for Tactile Interaction", in Brewster, S.,Murray-Smith, R. (Eds.), Haptic Human-Computer Interaction, Heidelberg: Springer.

Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. and Fernström, M. (2001),“Envisioning and Evaluating Out-of-StorageSolutions”, Proceedings of ICHIM01-International Cultural Heritage InformaticsMeeting, Philadelphia: Archives and MuseumInformatics.

Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. (2002a), "Observing, Analysing,Designing: Towards enhanced interactive museumexhibits", in Gallwey, T., Waldmann, T., O'Sullivan, L. (Eds.), Irish Ergonomics Review,Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics SocietyAnnual Conference, University of Limerick, April2002.

Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. (2002b), "Learning from MuseumVisits: Shaping Design Sensitivities", TechnicalReport, IDC-University of Limerick, April 2002.

Figure 7. The first demonstrator usingRFID tags.

Figure 6. A storyboard visualising elements ofdesign scenarios.

ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

Csizsentmihalyi, M. and Hermanson, K. (1994),“Intrinsic motivation in museums: why one doeswant to learn”, in Hooper-Greenhill, E., (Ed.), TheEducational Role of the Museum, London:Routledge.

Elsner, J. & Cardinal, R. (Eds.) (1994), The Cultures ofCollecting, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (1995), The MuseumExperience, Washington, D.C.: Whalesback.

Hall, T. and Gallagher, P. (2002), "RFID Overview",Technical Report, IDC-University of Limerick,April 2002.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992), Museums and the Shapingof Knowledge, London: Routledge.

Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997), “Tangible Bits: Towardsseamless Interfaces between People, Bits andAtoms”, Proceedings of CHI’97, New York: ACMPress.

Newhouse, V. (1995), Towards a New Museum, NewYork: Monacelli Press.

Pearce, S.M. (1994), Interpreting Objects andCollections, London: Routledge.

Shuh, J.H. (1994), “Teaching yourself to teach withobjects” in Hooper-Greenhill, E., (Ed.) T h eEducational Role of the Museum, London: Routledge.