Usability in New Contexts: The Case of a Museum

The study of human computer interaction is ultimately a goal driven discipline. This is understandable, as most traditional human computer interactions involve the achievement of a goal or task. However, in the case of a museum visit, the goals of users are marginalized as pleasure and experience often outweigh the completion of a task. Furthermore, the users are far from the traditional workers that HCI often assumes. This presents an interesting situation whereby traditional HCI breaks down and consequently new methods of analysis must be found. This paper discusses the reasons behind the limitations of traditional HCI in a museum situation and briefly discusses the potential for future work.

Introduction

A new wave of museums

When one thinks of a museum, the Louvre in Paris, the National Gallery in London or the Metropolitan in New York are common institutions that come to mind (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997). Increasingly, however the idea of a museum is shifting away from this more conservative view to one of interaction and experience. The traditional boundaries of ‘art’ and ‘history’ are blurred to include exhibits that include but are not limited to technology, arboreta, planetariums, science and technology centers. There has been some debate within the museum community as to a strict definition of a museum, however some key similarities have been drawn together to define a museum as an institution that is involved in three fundamental areas: Conservation, Research, and Communication (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997). One such institution, located in Melbourne, Australia, is a prime example of this new wave of museums with its technology, arboreta and science exhibits which fits neatly into these three categories as outlined by Ginsburgh & Mairesse (1997).

This modern breed of museum is very receptive to the idea of using technology as a tool to make the visitor experience more fulfilling and rewarding. Several interesting studies have been conducted to determine the role technology can play in this environment and some prototypes produced (Grinter, Aoki, Szymanski, Thornton, Woodruff, & Hurst, 2002; Hsi, 2002). However there are unique challenges associated with applying traditional Human Computer Interaction theories to this novel environment and user base that need to be thoroughly examined before any solid conclusions are drawn regarding the role of technology in a museum.

Museums in general and The Melbourne Museum[1] in particular attracts a wide and diverse range of visitors of all abilities and skills such as tourists, children, families, school groups, students and the elderly that are a far cry from the traditional worker. Essentially, anyone interested in conservation or research on any level is a potential visitor to the museum. Furthermore, unlike traditional goal oriented workers, museum visitors are not usually directed by a clearly defined goal. This poses an interesting and challenging situation when designing technology to serve such unclear or nonexistent goals.

Challenge 1: Designing for a broad user base with blurred user goals

Broad user base

Initial research through group discussions and brainstorming has identified several user groups with special needs and design considerations. These groups need to be carefully considered and understood when designing technology for a Museum.

Blind Individuals	Cannot utilize visual displays. Partially blind individuals may require large font. · Investigate the use of brail. · May enjoy exhibits and technology that provide tactile feedback. · Investigate technology and exhibits that provide auditory information.
Deaf Individuals	Can-not use information presented in audio format. · May need to rely on visual and tactile senses as a basis for information. · Requirement for visual notes to read about exhibits · Visually attractive and informative devices will support this group
Mobility impaired / Very Elderly	Low reaching height Can only use devices that are very ergonomic Arthritic limbs and hands · Any technology will have to be low for wheelchair access and to avoid reaching. · Exhibits and technology will need to be at eye level to avoid unnecessary strain · Any input will need to have simple input and uncomplicated interaction. · Small buttons may pose a challenge to use
Children of all ages	No reading/writing skills yet Limited attention Physically short · Prefer technology and exhibits that present information in pictorial and exciting format. · Will enjoy exciting and intriguing exhibits and technology. · Will require exhibits that are low to the ground and technology that is simple and accessible.
Mentally handicapped	Lower concentration span · May need the exhibits and technology to be fun and simple to understand.
Non-English Speaking Tourists	Cannot understand auditory or visual information presented in English · May require notes about each exhibit to explain what they are about. · Investigate translation, multi language support. · Investigate presenting information in a universal diagrammatic form. · Remain unaware of certain cultural conventions of Australian signs and diagrams.

Table 1: Special user requirements, potential issues and possible solutions

Variable and wide ranging goals

Just as the definition of a museum is hard to define (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997) so is the overall goal of a users particular visit. Some individuals may visit a museum for purely social engagement with the community, others may be there for the purposes of research, and others may fall in the middle. Individuals, who visit one particular week for research purposes, may even visit the next week with social intentions. Regardless, any technologies that will be developed will need to take into consideration and overcome this challenge to define a user’s goal and motive, if the technology will be a success.

Technologies have already been incorporated into museums to further enhance user’s visits for some time now (E.g. Grinter, Aoki, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, & Woodruff, 2002; Fleck Frid, Kindberg, O'brien-StrainRajani & Spasojevic, 2002; Bederson, 1995). The implementation of electronic devices such as guidebooks, portable computers and Personal Digital Assistants although often viewed as isolating devices, can also be used for social interaction amongst the visitors. For example: shared listening, following a leader and checking in on different individuals (Grinter, Aoki, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, and Woodruff, 2002) are all technologies that enable social interaction through a seemingly antisocial personal digital assistant.

This social use of technology such as shared listening would most likely involve audio being emitted from the device, which may be disruptive to other members of the museum. The obvious solution, a pair of headphones, would have negative influence on social interaction as individuals would not be able to hear each other and therefore converse. Therefore, the only feasible use of audio emitting devices would be in place where additional noise would not be a problem (Grinter, Aoki, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, and Woodruff, 2002) which is often hard to find in a museum.

The use of devices with audio, such as those mentioned above may also pose other challenges centered around users abilities and disabilities as mentioned in the previous section. Visitors who are auditory disabled may either not be able to hear the audio from the device, or the device may not be compatible with their hearing-aid. A replacement text based device should be made available for individuals with these disabilities. This however, raises another challenge, that the display on these devices may be too small and many of the fine visual details and text many may be rendered unusable by individuals with visual deficiencies. (Reeves, Benford, O’Malley, Fraser, 2005)

Individuals with differing goals will require differing technologies to alter their experience. For example, a social group may be more interested in ‘fun facts’ about exhibits they may use as talking points, while a student may desire hard facts and information to form the basis of a report. One possible solution to this could be through different settings on the technology to present advanced or basic information.

Challenge 2: Evaluating the technological prototype using traditional Human Computer Interaction techniques.

Although it is impossible to tie to a particular date, the field of HCI has been around in some way for at least 25 years (i.e. Shneiderman 1980). During these past two decades, technology and its users have evolved very rapidly (Carroll, 1997). The traditional opinion of technology, as a tool for productivity, work efficiency and strategic advantage has also shifted dramatically over the past years. The idea of a computer as solely a Business Machine, such as an IBM (International Business Machine) almost seems farcical in today’s age of personal computing, mobile computing and user produced content. This shift, partly attributable to the drop in technology cost and decreased software complexity, has allowed home users and small organisations to access almost the same standard of computing available to large corporations with the ability to afford previously expensive infrastructure and training costs.

Along with the shift from the traditional workplace role of technology, a swing in the typical user base has also occurred. The typical user is no longer an employee of an organisation working a 40 hour week to achieve a set goal. A typical user could be a young child researching for a school project at home, an elderly woman emailing her daughter at the local library, a child exploring a museum using a touch-screen, or the typical middle aged able bodied worker we are all so familiar with. It is undeniable that these individuals are all users, yet they have very different goals, motives and abilities.

This convolution of the technology user base has brought with it a shift in many technology related disciplines. Software engineers are no longer solely designing outcome based strategic software, computer manufacturers are no longer only producing beige-boxes or unsightly network routers and mobile phones are no longer exclusively marketed as business tools. However, technological research disciplines such as the field of Human Computer Interaction has been fairly slow to include and produce new methodologies to meet these new users and uses for technology.

Museums in general and The Melbourne Museum in particular attracts a wide and diverse range of visitors of all abilities and skills such as tourists, children, families, school groups, students and the elderly that are a far cry from the traditional worker. Essentially, anyone interested in conservation or research on any level is a potential visitor to the museum. Furthermore, unlike traditional goal oriented workers, museum visitors are not usually directed by a clearly defined goal.

These fundamental differences pose an interesting and challenging problem to curators and designers of museum technology who are required to design exhibits and technologies for this very wide visitor base with often ill-defined goals. The traditional HCI tools and methodologies, usually centered individuals around goals and motives of a worker, break down and produce meaningless results. For example, methodologies such as, Hick’s law (Hick, 1952) and Fitts’ (Fitts, 1954) law; frameworks for predicting interface speed, are no longer relevant to the majority of these non-working museum visitors users, as their motives are not governed by speed and productivity. GOMS model (Card, Moran & Newell, 1983), a methodology that reduces the user's interactions with a computer to its elementary actions, is based upon the premise that the user has a goal, and is repeating the task, which is not relevant in the museum situation.

The Cognitive Walkthrough, a widely used usability inspection method also has limited application in an environment whereby the user is not interested in seeking a predefined goal, such as in a museum. Task analysis, the backbone of a Cognitive Walkthrough (Wharton, 1994), centers around the idea that one can define the tasks of the user and evaluate them according to how they walk through the steps to get to the desired goal. If there is no goal, there can be no task analysis and therefore no cognitive walkthrough.

Any individual, seeking to design a technology to aid the museum experience will therefore have a great deal of trouble applying existing Human Computer Interaction theories to their device. Clearly, an existing methodology needs to modified, or a new one produced.

Design Proposal and future work

The main focus for future work stems from the fact that it is very hard to apply existing goal oriented human computer interaction theories to non goal oriented work. We therefore suggest that a new evaluation method is produced that does not solely rely upon achievement of a predefined goal, but more upon how a user goes about achieving the goal, in effect focusing upon the journey and not the destination.

This could take the form of a modified cognitive walkthrough, with increased focus upon the walking and not the cognition. One such example could be titled the ‘pleasure walkthrough’ and would revolve around the users affective response and pleasure, while placing limited weighting on the outcome.

Conclusion

Environments whereby users are non goal directed and diverse are fairly common and not limited solely to a museum. Amusement Parks, Zoos, Galleries and Shopping centers are also situations in which goal oriented behavior is often second to experience. Traditional HCI theories and methodologies are somewhat challenged in these situations and perhaps need to be modified if they are to remain relevant to these unique and complex environments. Further research should be conducted to find a new angle in which to understand user interaction and experience with technology when there is limited goal oriented behavior and a diverse user base.

REFERENCES

Bederson, B., 1995, ‘Audio Augmented Reality: A
Prototype Automated Tour Guide’, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A., 1983, ‘The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction’, Published 1983 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Carrol J.M. 1997, ‘Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology as a Science of Design Annual Review of Psychology’, Vol. 48, 1997

Falk, H., & Dierking.. D., 1992, ‘The Museum Experience’, Howells House.

Fitts P 1954, ‘The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 47, no.6, pp.381-391.

Fleck, M., Frid, M., Kindberg, T., O'brien-Strain, E., Rajani, R., & Spasojevic, M. 2002, ‘Remember: A Tool For Capturing Museum Visits’, Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 2498/2002, Pp. 48-55

Ginsburgh, V., & Mairesse, F., 1997, ‘Defining a Museum - Suggestions for an alternative approach Museum’ Management and Curatorship’ 16 pp. 15-33

Grinter, E., Aoki, M., Hurst, A., Szymanski, H., Thornton, D. & Woodruff, A., 2002, ‘Revisiting the Visit: Understanding How Technology Can Shape the Museum’, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work pp.146-155

Hick E., 1952, ‘On the rate of gain of information’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 4 pp.11-26,

Hsi, S., 2002, ‘The Electronic Guidebook: A study of user experiences using mobile web content in a museum setting’ Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education’, Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education.

Melbourne Museum Website, From the World Wide Web at ‘http://melbourne.museum.vic.gov.au/’

Neilson, J., 1994‘Usability inspection methods’ New York : Wiley,.

Reeves, S., Benford, S., O'malley, C. & Fraser, M., 2005, ‘Designing The Spectator Experience’, Proceedings Of The Sigchi Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems

Shneiderman B, 1980, ‘Software psychology: Human factors in computer and information systems’ Winthrop Publishers