I refined the steps a bit and also reordered them, putting the platform selection at the end, as I finalized the paper. I recorded it and will post it online with the slides as soon as I have a chance to edit the two together. I’d love to have your feedback on the evolving concept, and on how we can, as Laura said, better integrate the interpretation with the overall experience design.

Early decisions depend on the kind of museum too, art museums are easier than those of history or science.

For the latter, one needs to consider Viewsheds. What can the visitor see at any given place that they might want interpreted? From there you can add content that is contextual.

One needs to consider in complex displays of artifacts, how that little interpreted thing can be found by the visitor on the device, hint or directional images with the object highlighted are useful.

In a browser interface, decide if you want an “open” interface” (busy screen but quickly accessible) or a closed interface (menu driven.)

Decide if visitors are text or graphically oriented. My designs have worked in both directions. eg. Gallery list to object; and Museum map to object

Identify modes of use (for a custom browser only) since the raw Apple interface has a linear information hierarchy. One mode is TOURS, another mode is PASSIVE, another is ACTIVE, another is PICKS.

In a science museum, get the gadget to control something. The ARIF controlled robots, mechanical devices, media shows etc.

For goodness sake, why hasn’t anyone done again what SIguide did with drawing oriented messaging/sketchbook? We could make class posters, people could be assigned a square in a gridded painting to draw and perform a digital cadaver exquis.

Think of feature relevant to your content. In a science center, do group experiments with light and chemistry, the accelerators can now “pour” chemical from one device into another.

–S

We have a service on the AmericanArt.si.edu website and Twitter (@askjoanofart), called Ask Joan of Art, where people can ask any question about American art and get an answer from a researcher at the Museum. I’d love to put simple note pads and pencils in the galleries, so visitors could leave us their questions and comments whenever they come to mind. We could then use these to inform or even to be part of the interpretation available in gallery and online. Our cellphone tour system solicit voice comments from visitors, and I hope we’ll be adding these to audio tours of the Museum soon. We are also in the process of extending commenting throughout our website.

This goes back to the very good point that Koven Smith makes: people are now used to being able to comment on just about anything through their computers and personal devices. Why should they have to leave their web 2.0 lives at the door when they enter the museum? And what about our responsibility to the much larger number of people who visit us online but will likely never make it to the physical building?

Also, discoverability. A 2d code as part of exhibit labels for more info?