Interactivity: Moving Beyond Terminology

Abstract

Museum professionals strive to provide meaningful experiences for visitors. Meaningful experiences are those that provide choice and control in the exploration of ideas, concepts, and objects. In many cases, these experiences occur through an interactive component. Although a number of studies have focused on interactives in museums, the field would benefit from an intensive look at how visitors perceive of and learn from these experiences. Discussion about this topic has been sidetracked by conversations about the terminology that describes this type of experience. Drawing upon studies conducted in this area, this paper looks at the role of interactives in museums by exploring three broad themes: clarity of purpose and underlying assumptions; design factors; and social engagement and learning. In conclusion, suggestions are offered for ways that these studies might inform the development of interactive experiences.

The To-and-Fro of Sense Making

“…This was found in one of our own studies [Hornecker and Stifter 2006] where visitors explained they would rather explore the museum than read long text pages, and wanted to experience things they cannot elsewhere. Adams et al [2004] discuss similar outcomes from visitor interviews in a Natural History Museum, which ranked computer-based interactives at lowest preference in a list of exhibit formats. That is, visitors want the unique and special in the experience.…”

“…It is common to see information terminals and large touch-sensitive tables offering copious amounts of background information or providing access to simulations and educational games related to the exhibition contents, not mentioning the ubiquitous audio guides. Yet it is questionable whether visitors actually want to read large amounts of text on site (cp., [Hornecker and Stifter 2006] and [Adams et al 2004]). There is also concern about visitors being distracted from the actual artefacts on display [Bannon et al 2005;Macleoad 2013;Martin 2000;Pujol-Tost 2011;Schwarzer 2001;vom Lehn and Heath 2003] as well as a gradual rediscovery of the role of the material object and multi-sensorial, embodied experience [Dudley 2010;Bedford 2014].…”

“…For museums that have authentic objects in the centre of experience, the question is how to augment exhibits so that visitors focus their attention on these objects, increasing understanding and appreciation [Adams et al 2004;Ciolfi and Bannon 2002;Economou 2010;Kelly et al 2004;Macleod 2013] and how to encourage them to make connections [vom Lehn et al 2007]. Furthermore, if an interactive experience is set in an evocative and rich setting that is meaningful in its own right (and not in a standard gallery case), the design should be place-sensitive and integrate into the setting [Ciolfi and McLoughlin 2011].…”

“…Museum professionals usually regard the enhancement of object understanding as the primary aim of any technology [Adams et al 2004;Pujol-Tost 2011], creating a conflict between exhibit objects and technology. Screen-based technologies have been found to work as "attention-grabbers" at a risk of detracting from the original artefacts on display [Martin 2000;Pujol-Tost 2011;Schwarzer 2001;vom Lehn and Heath 2003]; mobile devices and large screens suffer similar issues.…”

“…There is also concern about visitors being distracted from the actual artefacts on display [Bannon et al 2005;Macleoad 2013;Martin 2000;Pujol-Tost 2011;Schwarzer 2001;vom Lehn and Heath 2003] as well as a gradual rediscovery of the role of the material object and multi-sensorial, embodied experience [Dudley 2010;Bedford 2014]. Museums that have original objects on display, will typically value interactive installations as successful if these increase visitors' appreciation of and focus on these objects [Adams et al 2004]. Moreover, museum research indicates that visitors are more likely to understand the meaning of objects when it is displayed in context [Perry 2012].…”