Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

N.B.: We lost the audio/video data for participants 5 and 6 reality and task-based testing. The notes under those sections are brief because I've relied on the limited notes I took during moderation. Also, application crashed unusually often with this participant.

I. Reality testing

P refers to participant. M refers to moderator. Quotes are paraphrased, not verbatim. Side notes/observations in round brackets. Initial thoughts in square brackets.

  • P tilted the device horizontally from the get-go instead of using it in vertical mode
  • P spending time browsing through the various options, tapping on them, and tapping back (browse through: home, exhibitions, object code entry)
  • P tilted the device back to vertical orientation when exploring exhibitions further (no particular reason given)
  • P: "Can't seem to go back" (this was a performance issue---P tapped back successfully, but nothing appeared to be happening)
  • P exploring 'Simply Montreal' exhibitions; sees object code label in the space, but doesn't see it in the catalogue list. P notes not wanting to search thru the catalogue manually.
  • P: "Am I supposed to explore this chronologically?"
  • P: "It's very unresponsive." (P sounds annoyed/irritated)
  • P notes collect functionality, thinks it's interesting; but that there's no extra information on the object, and finds that uninteresting (P was looking at a regular, uncoded object found through catalogue without extra information) [expectation of information if it's there]
  • P assumes that the exhibitions catalogue is in a particular order to visit the space, notes that some visitors might not like this
  • P notes that the experience is disjointed, that the device doesn't keep the same pace as space
  • P trying to use the catalogue as a linear tour---skipped a few sections on the device to try and keep up with physical space
  • P accidentally tapped home button, exited application
  • P notes wanting read more about the narrative behind an artifact as opposed to the technical information (tombstone label)
  • P noted object code label and code entry option from home screen; entered code 09 (curling stone)
  • Tapped video text label, didn't work (device didn't register the tap); tried tapping the icon (device registered the tap)
  • Thinks the extended description and video here is more interesting
  • Liked related artifacts functionality
  • While seeing object numbers on the label for other objects, P asks: "Are the object codes just for the black labels with icons?"
  • Uses 'Home' on navigation bar to get to home and then to object code screen (as opposed to tapping back several times)
  • P watching another video (object code 07, ice saw)
  • Notes that the artifact description is the same as the video narrative (didn't look impressed)

II. Task-based testing

P refers to participant. M refers to moderator. Quotes are paraphrased, not verbatim. Side notes/observations in round brackets. Initial thoughts in square brackets.

  • P asks if the guestbook under an exhibition is a general comments box
  • P wanted to read the comments, intended to tap 'Guestbook' (non-actionable header), but mistapped 'Add a note' (which is right below the non-actionable header)
  • Entering a comment; tapped empty box to bring up keyboard; tapped DONE first, then SUBMIT to submit

III. Interview notes

Bullet numbers correspond to the interview question number.

  1. Easy? Easy in the sense that it was intuitive. But things took longer to load than generally experienced on the iPod touch/iPhone. Found initial Exhibitions screen unintuitive where you had to scroll down through every artifact. The artifacts were grouped in collections which was easy, but would've been better to have a menu to jump right to the portion of the exhibition that you were at.
  2. How long to understand? As soon as saw the home screen, and how it was divided up, and understood the top-level categories.
  3. Problems? In terms of collecting, not sure how useful that would be if the devices weren't your own (i.e., renting). Not sure would feel the need to collect or store object for later. Didn't feel there was significant difference between information provided in the physical space and on the device. Appreciated whenever there was a longer description, or if there was a video clip, but for most of them even if there was a longer description not really useful to P (extra stuff not really useful to her). M: "Do you like reading the labels and panels?" Sometimes, year, material, and donor is interesting information, if interested in the work itself. Also, not sure how useful it is to include artifacts that don't have extended descriptions or video clips. Seemed repetitive, when the information was already in the physical space. But may be good for people who don't want to read off the wall, etc.
  4. Improvements? Value adds--something more than what you can already get from reading the panels. Liked function of related artifacts-maybe a different type of taxanomic structure that could lead to other things, like a recommended feature. Really questions necessity of having collection functionality at all--would replace that with something else more experience-centric (i.e., something that could be used during the visit, not after it's over). Don't think that visitors would use collected objects at a later time. Add a museum map. Basic information, phone number and hours. Focus on museum, add more contextual details. Like a matching game, something to engage the visitors. Sees a future for mobile devices providing a more interactive experience, especially good for people who don't visit museums out of their own volition.
  5. Additional features? Focus on interactive games. Art museums are different from historic museums; for exhibits that are genealogically-based, so interesting in terms of tracing history and country of origin---would be interested in seeing contextual information, what artists inspired other artists, etc. Games. Fun. But for P, museum experience is about being in the physical location, instead of interacting with a mobile device. M: "Would you use games or interactive media on the mobile device?" P: "No, and don't usually use audio devices either." Does take a map though. Order of the sections in catalogue seemed to be pretty on, but some parts were spotty. A blueprint of the room, being able to tap where you are in the space. Something less text-heavy, more visual. Freedom to walk through the space the way they saw fit, less linear experience.
  6. Discoveries? Yes, liked reading about the hockey cup and the history and context that offered.
  7. Museums & mobile? Would be cool, actually. If it was free download from museum, would definitely have it (P has an iPhone). Might not use it for everything, but would be nice option to have. If it's a front-desk option (i.e., rental), most likely wouldn't take it, unless it was being advertised with a particular feature. Don't like the idea of standing in the exhibit, and watching a video on the mobile---not useful, and don't like people looking at P while watching. Doesn't like the idea of visitors milling around watching video in the space.
  8. Best video? Liked the widescreen effect. But doesn't seem appropriate to have with others in the space, and the ambient noise. Don't feel like it added value to experience.
  9. N/A.
  10. Overall impression? Don't think it adds enough value to patrons. Most of the information already exists. Video would be better if it were more private, with headphones. But wouldn't pick up the device if available at the front desk.
  11. Revisit when it's done? No.
  • No labels