Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Unstructured Interview with Swarupa

Broad topic: Interpretive priorities @ the DIA and their use of technology.
Technology should augment the gallery experience. If it can already be done in a "non techie" way, why bother?

Ideal characterists of technologies in gallery:
(1) Should encourage social experiences, e.g.: get people talking to each other in the gallery, not "silo" them away to their PDA's.
(2) Should place focus on artifacts and add something that couldn't be provided before the tech was there
(3) Should faciliate experience (emotional, social, intellectural, learning/critical). Does it help you think more critically about something, or is it just a cool interaction that serves no interpretive purpose?
(4) Should provide a way for people to "talk back" to the museum and the way it frames artifacts
(5) Should allow people to connect ideas explored in the gallery with the outside world and their own lives - connections to communities, culture, books, music, art history, etc. Does it teach you how to learn more?

Relates story about poor children in Detroit school system. They're not going to have iPhones. But this audience is a key constituency of DIA's visitors. Highlights importance that tech chosen has to be intutitive and account for this kind of visitor. Is language of labels, signage, etc. in a technology device accessible? Are the choices the technology gives the visitor sensible?