Content uploaded by Merel van der Vaart
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Merel van der Vaart on Aug 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Towards an Integrative Approach to Interactive
Museum Installations
Christie A. Ray & Merel van der Vaart
Allard Pierson Museum - NewMediaLab
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
c.a.ray@uva.nl, m.j.vandervaart@uva.nl
Abstract—Museum visits are quickly becoming more
personalized and interactive with the help of technology.
However, the introduction of technology could also result in
drawing attention away from museum collections towards
(technological) interpretation devices. How does the introduction
of technology into the museum affect the relationship between
visitor and object? More importantly, perhaps, how can
museums ensure that incorporating technology into their
exhibition spaces will improve their visitors’ experience?
In this short paper, we discuss how User Interface design,
visualization quality and integration of the used technology can
affect the visitor’s experience. As a case study, we have selected
the Etruscanning installation, which employs physical interaction
to allow the user to explore a virtually reconstructed Etruscan
tomb and its contents. Applying feedback from experts and
museum visitors alike, we discuss how attention for the three key
features mentioned above make for an installation that
complements the content of the museum, supports usability in a
museum context, and meets visitor expectations of quality
visualizations.
Keywords— Interactive Installation, Museum Experience, Virtual
Contextualization, User Interface, Visualization, Virtual Replica,
Personalization.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Allard Pierson Museum (APM) is the museum of
archaeology of the University of Amsterdam, in the
Netherlands, with collections representing ancient Egyptian,
Near-Eastern, Roman, Etruscan and Greek cultures. Among the
objects on display in the museum are many tools and utensils
that were once used in daily life and, in accordance with its
mission to highlight the meaning of ancient civilizations for
contemporary European culture [1], the museum aims to
engage visitors with the daily lives of the people who once
used these items centuries, or indeed millennia ago.
As the museum is in the early stages of planning a large
redevelopment project, one of the main concerns has been to
create a flexible and interactive exhibition format to facilitate a
dynamic collection presentation to which the physical museum
objects and the layered narratives surrounding them will be
central.1 While redesigning the museum concept and
1One of the basic elements of the new museum concept will be the
introduction of a permanent dedicated laboratory space within the museum
developing exhibition spaces that are attractive, engaging and
capable of offering layered content, the museum is reflecting
on the role technology will inevitably play in this. By installing
different types of technology in temporary exhibitions and our
dedicated NewMediaLab and extensively evaluating them with
the museum’s existing audiences, we have gathered, and
continue to gather, valuable information on the way technology
impacts the museum experience of our visitors. Using the
Etruscanning installation as a case study, this paper will discuss
how User Interface design, visualization quality and integration
of the used technology in the exhibition space can impact the
museum experience.
II. IMPLEMENTING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE MUSEUM SPACE
The APM believes technology’s main function should not
be to impress visitors. Technology has to be seen as a tool that
can help individual visitors to contextualize the museum
objects and can enhance the (personalized) storytelling on the
collection.
In her summary of a seven year research project focusing
on the way visitors allocate their time during a museum visit,
Beverly Serrell found that under 27% of visitors stopped at
more than half of the exhibition elements and that the average
sweep rate (pace at which visitors move through a gallery) was
200 to 400 ft2/min, or 60.96 to 121.92 m2/min [2]. In
combination with Bitgood’s argument that “the resources of
attention have a limited capacity and are depleted over time
with effort expended,” [3] we can conclude that visitors have
limited time and attention available for their museum visit and,
in most cases, will interact with less than half of the elements
on display. With this in mind, the museum wishes to develop
an integrated technology solution that will help visitors engage
with physical objects and their associated narratives.
Long term competition with other leisure destinations,
when it comes to the use of technology, would be neigh
impossible and strain available resources. What is more, the
endless challenge to stay up-to-date with the latest technology
would be contrary to the museum’s aspiration of developing a
flexible and sustainable solution for the display of the
gallery where ongoing research and experiments with new technologies,
approaches on archaeology, heritage and media studies will be established.
701
978-1-4799-3170-5/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
permanent collections. Additionally, it would prohibit the
museum from developing a long-term strategy and aggregating
internal expertise on the use of technology in object-rich
museum environments. Rather than aiming for the so-called
wow-effect, the museum believes technology should be one of
many tools to help visitors reach what Beverly Serrell calls an
epiphany experience [2]. In other words, technology can offer
the “appropriate and carefully planned help in the gallery to
have as many mini-epiphany ‘a-ha’moments on the spot as
possible” [2, pp. 110].
III. INTERPRETING MUSEUM OBJECTS
As Ludmilla Jordanova has pointed out, historical artifacts
and museum objects can be important sources for
understanding past cultures. Her suggestion that “the
appearances of things themselves constitute rich historical
evidence, which merits careful evaluation” [4] underlines the
importance of museum objects as information transmitters in
their own right. Where art museums might have a long
tradition of encouraging visitors to closely look at the objects
on display, such practice is not as common in archaeological
museums. Here, many objects are not on display to celebrate
their innate beauty, but they tell a tale of the people who
crafted them, used them, buried them with their dead. Traces of
wear and tear (or lack of), of restoration practices and
excavation histories can be ‘read’ from the object. One could
argue, therefore, that archaeological objects lend themselves
particularly well for close-looking practices, although for
visitors to recognize and interpret these traces more guidance
might be needed than for recognizing beauty and
craftsmanship.
In the case of the APM, even objects that once had a
ubiquitous nature, tools and utensils, pose interpretation
challenges to our visitors. Firstly, the shape or specific function
of an object might be unfamiliar to visitors as once common
activities no longer take place in modern society. Secondly, the
physical appearance of many objects has changed since the
moment of their production and original use; some are
damaged, others are fragmentary, and most show signs of
degradation. To facilitate interpretation of objects, the
individual visitor is dependent on aides, such as text labels,
audio/visual content, or digital interactive installations.
IV. INTEGRATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION
A particularly strong form of interpretation assistance for
artifacts that were once part of daily life is contextualization.
By placing an object (back) into the environment in which it
was once created and used, we provide visitors with clear clues
about the role of the object in the society it originated from.
The Etruscanning installation2, discussed below, virtually re-
contextualized a variety of objects that were found in a famous
Etruscan grave; the Regolini-Galassi tomb. Etruscanning is a
European project (Culture 2007 framework) that explores
2 From here on described as the installation.
visualization techniques, including digital acquisition and
restoration, 3D reconstruction, and communication of Etruscan
tombs through virtual reality (VR) and user interaction. The
resulting installation has been on display in several European
museums.
Results of the installation evaluation reflected upon in this
paper are those that were primarily carried out within the
APM3 and included a combination of observation,
questionnaires, visitor interviews and an A-B study [5] [6].
While these evaluation efforts were designed for different
purposes, such as evaluating level of interaction and immersion
or the added value of integrating such an installation into an
exhibition, cross-analysis of the combined results have given
us a greater understanding of the multiple facets of the visitor
experience of the installation [5] [7].
Through our evaluation of the installation, we have
identified three key aspects that have a significant impact on
the museum experience for the visitor and their ability to
contextualize the museum collections in relation to digital
installations; the design of the user interface, the quality of the
visualizations presented in the installation, and the integration
of the installation with the museum collections.
A. Intuitive User Interface Design
The user interface (UI) is the point of contact between the
user and the content. The design of the UI can either guide a
user to the content s/he is interested in accessing, or prevent a
user from finding and accessing this content. Offering a wider
choice of content and personalizing the museum experience
within the UI should in theory improve user engagement.
However as Kuflik et al. have pointed out, a personalized UI
might also be less intuitive and more challenging in its use [8].
This is especially important in the museum context, where
visitors will only put in the effort to engage with the content if
they anticipate high value for their efforts [2] [3]. Therefore, a
personalized, but more complex UI might limit visitor access to
the content, despite more content being available.
Over the course of the Etruscanning project, two versions
of the Regolini-Galassi tomb on-site interactive installation,
both using Kinect technology, were developed and evaluated.
In the first version, the user stood on a map of the tomb that
was placed on the floor in front of the projection of the
virtually reconstructed tomb. Upon this floor map, the user
could stand on one of seven hotspots, each corresponding with
a room within the tomb, prompting the start of a short story and
visualization about a random object from inside that room. In
the second version of the installation, the user was given more
control over the selection of content and as a result the UI
design was significantly altered. Instead of using hotspots
marked on the floor map of the tomb the user could freely
move through the virtual tomb. This could be done by standing
over the ‘explore’ icon placed on the floor in front of the
projection and using a defined vocabulary of physical gestures
3 Evaluation activities were also conducted at the Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden, in Leiden, and at Archeovirtual 2012, in Paestum, and may be
used for comparison with APM results.
702
Fig 8: A visitor interacting with the second version of Etruscanning in the
APM. (Courtesey of Christie A. Ray, Allard Pierson Museum)
to maneuver within the virtual tomb space (fig 8). After
stepping onto the ‘select’ icon the user could request more
information in the form of a short story about several objects
located nearby, selecting them from a column on the right,
using prescribed hand gestures.
Through evaluation of both versions of the installation, it
became clear that the first version of the application was
preferred by users because of the simple approach to
interaction. Eight out of ten interviewees agreed that
interaction was easy, saying it was “easy to direct yourself
through the tomb” and that “control by walking” made
interaction easy. These results were confirmed through
questionnaires, with twenty (out of twenty-one) respondents
indicating interaction as easy. Due to the simple UI design
visitors achieved interaction without much effort. The second
version of the application requires more time and effort from
users to familiarize themselves with the gesture vocabulary
before they can access the available content. While we are still
evaluating the extent of the impact that the UI redesign has had
on user interaction with the second version, we expect that the
complex design of the UI, a result of the enhanced interactivity,
could prohibit users from accessing the content available in the
installation. Indeed, limited feedback from users has already
indicated the challenging nature of the new approach to
interaction and the complex appearance of the UI, prompting
further evaluation and comparison with the earlier version of
the installation.
Through this preliminary evaluation on the second version
and initial expert meetings, it was found that providing simple
instructional panels in close proximity to the installation can
provide visitors with the additional information needed to
comprehend a complex UI, preparing them for interacting with
the installation and the museum content within. However, the
museum visitors’ occasional indifference for reading panels of
text, in one study Bitgood recorded only 12.3% of visitors read
the only text label present in the gallery where the observations
took place [9], supports the suggestion for using a simple UI in
lieu of additional instructional texts.
B. Visualization Quality
After extensive research on the effectiveness of text labels
in museum exhibitions, Bitgood concluded that “visitor
attention is primarily on three-dimensional visual experiences”
[3]. This suggests that VR installations could be a good
addition to the museum offer. However, the gaming and
entertainment industries have been moving forward with
increasingly higher quality visualizations, building up the
public’s general expectation for high quality VR visualizations.
Museums will be held up to the standards created in these
sectors. Providing visualizations that do not meet the standards
of the public, for example due to limited available resources,
can distract the museum visitors from engaging with the virtual
contextualization and the informative content being presented
in the interactive installation.
This was demonstrated in the results of qualitative
evaluation between the first and second versions of the
installation, where the quality of the visualizations was
improved upon significantly between the two versions. The
first version of the installation presented the virtually
reconstructed tomb with objects that had not yet been subject to
the complete process of virtual restoration. In interviews and
questionnaires, users would more often comment on the quality
of the visualization rather than any of the informative content
included within the storytelling. In the second version of the
installation, the objects within the tomb had undergone
complete virtual restoration and additional atmospheric
elements were added to further the virtual contextualization of
the ancient tomb, such as ambient lighting and expressive
soundscapes. Users of the second version have responded
positively to the improved graphics, expressing their approval
and amazement, rather than disappointment, at the quality of
the visualizations.
C. Integrating Technological Installations into the Physical
Museum and Exhibition Space
From our experience evaluating the integration of the
installation into several different museum spaces, we have
found that the physical placement of the installation and its
surroundings had an impact on the overall museum experience
for the visitors. When the first version of the installation was
presented to the public for the first time, it was integrated into
two parallel thematic exhibitions on Etruscans in two museums
in the Netherlands; the APM, and the Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden (RMO), in Leiden. Although the same installation
was presented in both locations, the placement of the
installation within the physical space of the exhibition had
some fundamental differences. In the APM, the installation
was presented in a small but separated room on the main visitor
path, in close proximity to a selection of the real objects from
the tomb. Alternatively, in the RMO, the exhibition space has a
more open design and the installation was presented in a
section of a large room that also contained displays of objects
and an introduction video that was projected onto a large
screen.
Visitors who had experienced the installation at the RMO
were often quick to comment that the quality of the projected
visualization was diminished by the lighting necessary for
displaying the collections, while the audio from the
introduction video would likewise conflict with the audio from
the installation. By comparison, feedback from the APM users
703
did not mention any conflict with the sound or lighting, as the
installation space in the APM was much darker and clearly
separated from the space containing the introduction video,
which created a more immersive space for the museum visitors
to experience the installation.
The integration of interactive technological installations
within the exhibition space is important for the museum
experience. When virtual contextualization is one of the goals
of an on-site installation, as it was for the Etruscanning project,
the proximity of the installation to the actual objects being
virtually contextualized is similarly important. By placing the
actual objects that were originally found in the Regolini-
Galassi tomb in close proximity to the installation, visitors had
the opportunity to make the connection between the objects on
display and the virtual representations of the same objects
being presented in the interactive installation. However, it is
not yet clear whether or not museum visitors recognize the
virtually restored digital representations of the original objects
as such, or if they merely consider them to be similar to the
physical objects; future evaluation efforts will be devoted to
this, building on existing research regarding the meaning of
digital replicas [10] [11].
Physically integrating interactive on-site installations with
the exhibition space is important, but ideally their informative
content also complements the content presented in the
exhibition. The installation achieved this with great success in
large part because it was developed especially for, and in
parallel with, the Etruscan exhibitions in the APM and RMO.
Through comparative evaluation with visitors to the
exhibitions, we were able to show that visitors recognized the
installation for providing the clearest contextualization for the
Etruscan objects in the exhibition, while the exhibition content
was found to provide the clearest information about the
Etruscan civilization [5]. This ultimately showed that the
interactive installation was integrated into the exhibition, not
only in the physical space, but also through complementary
content that provided museum visitors with a more complete
contextualizing experience. Interestingly, placement, lighting,
proximity to object and density of visual stimuli have all been
listed as important factors for text labels in capturing visitor
attention [12]. This might suggest that research on the
effectiveness of technological installations in museums should
not only take into account existing research in the field of
human-computer interaction, but should also look at existing
studies on the use of various interpretation devices in a
museum context.
V. CONCLUSION
Considering visitors experience serious constraints of time
and attention when visiting a museum, it is important that any
technological installations that are present are clearly
integrated in the museum offer and curatorial practice. One
way in which installations can be a successful aid for visitors’
interpreting, particularly archaeological, museum objects is by
providing (virtual) contextualization of artifacts, tools and
utensils. The successful use of digital re-contextualization can
enhance visitor engagement and improve the museum
experience. Through studies and focus groups, the APM has
identified three aspects that can significantly impact visitor
engagement. Firstly, a simple and intuitive user interface
design with limited opportunities for interaction is more
successful than a complicated user interface that gives visitors
more freedom to explore and personalize their experience.
Secondly, visitors expect high visualization quality in museum
installations, just as they would from gaming and entertainment
industries. Finally, in order for visitors to see a relationship
between the virtual experience and physical museum objects, a
clear integration of their experience with the exhibition context
and physical objects is paramount.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank the Allard Pierson Museum and the
Etruscanning project partners Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche, Visual Dimension BVBA, Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden, Provinciaal Gallo-Romeins Museum Tongeren for
facilitating the project and evaluation efforts.
REFERENCES
[1] Allard Pierson Museum, "Jaarverslag Allard Pierson Museum2012,"
unpublished.
[2] B. Serrell, "Paying attention: the duration and allocation of visitors' time
in museum exhibitions," Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 108-125, 1997.
[3] S. Bitgood, "The role of attention in designing effective interpretive
labels," Journal of Interpretation Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 31-45,
2000.
[4] L. Jordanova, The Look of the Past: Visual and Material Evidence in
Historical Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.
2.
[5] S. Pescarin, M. Wallergård, W. Hupperetz, A. Pagano & C. Ray,
“Archeovirtual 2011: An evaluation approach to virtual museums.”
Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM), 18th International
Conference, 2-5 September 2012, pp. 25-32, 2012.
[6] C. Ray, “Virtual Reconstructions in the Museum: Evaluating User
Experiences of a Virtual Museum Application in an Exhibition,” in
Etruscanning: Digital Encounters with the Regolini-Galassi Tomb,
Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum, pp. 97-109, 2013.
[7] S. Pescarin, W. Hupperetz, A. Pagano, C. Ray & M. Wallergård,
“Evaluating Virtual Museums: Archeovirtual Case Study,” in Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), 2012, 27
March 2012
[8] T. Kuflik, O. Stock, M. Zancanaro, A. Gorfinkel, S. Jbara, S. Kats, J.
Sheidin, et al. “A visitor’s guide in an active museum,” Journal on
Computing and Cultural Heritage, vol 3, no. 3, pp. 1–25, 2011.
[9] S. Bitgood, & D. Patterson, “The effects of gallery changes on visitor
reading and object viewing time,” Environment and Behavior, 25(6), pp.
761-781, November 1993.
[10] B.L. Taylor, “Reconsidering digital surrogates: toward a viewer-
orientated model of the gallery experience” in Museum Materialities:
Objects, Engagements, Interpretations, S.H. Dudley, Ed. London:
Routledge, 2010, pp. 175-184.
[11] F. Cameron, “Beyond the cult of the replicant: museums and historical
digital objects – traditional concerns, new discourses,” in Theorizing
Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, F. Cameron and S.
Kenderdine, Eds. London: The MIT Press, 2007, pp. 49-75.
[12] S. Bitgood, “The ABCs of label design,” Visitor studies: Theory,
research, and practice, pp. 115-129, 1990.
704
