| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Digital Case Study 3 - TAP

Page history last edited by daniel i 14 years, 5 months ago

 

Digital Case Study #3: 300-500 words - POST AS COMMENTS on this WIKI

 

Most of you used TAP (if not, get up there and try it)  -

 

Provide some analysis on TAP based on the following -

 

  • What is your honest opinion on in-gallery technology?
  • Did TAP work in this space and with the exhibition themes?
  • Is this a successful way of a museum interacting with visitors? Why/Why not?
  • What was your favorite content stop? Why?
  • What museums are successfully using in-gallery technology - who and what?
  • How would you integrate TAP in to 100 Acres?

 

This is all due November 10.

 

AND post a comment to the following blog post - summarizing the TAP experience, here: http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/2009/10/08/exhibition-easter-eggs-in-october/

Comments (29)

Bonnie Cate said

at 8:58 pm on Nov 2, 2009

When it comes to in-gallery technology, I personally have never been much of a fan...until I tried TAP. I have taken audio tours before, but found them to be quite boring, even distracting, and rarely worth my time. I have also never really taken the time to use in-gallery computer kiosks in depth, because they are usually either occupied or I have no interest in them. I think that in-gallery technology can, however, greatly enhance the gallery experience for visitors, but only if it is well-designed. That being said, I think that TAP is a great example of what I consider to be an example of “good” gallery technology. Not only is TAP simple to use, it's "information a la carte" format is great for people with short attention spans, or who may want to skip over certain bits of information. (And, let’s face it, the iTouch device IS pretty cool). The content of TAP blends perfectly with the exhibition themes and gives the user a much more in-depth experience within the gallery. Since TAP users wear headphones to listen to the content from the iTouch device, they can become somewhat “detached” from other gallery visitors- it’s almost as if they are in their own world within the gallery. So in a way, it’s just the visitor, TAP, and the art (an experience that I found to be personally enjoyable).

Bonnie Cate said

at 8:59 pm on Nov 2, 2009

I also think that TAP is a great example of how a museum can interact with visitors. The random “surveys” within the TAP tour are fun, and the computer kiosk at the end of the exhibit is a great way to gain feedback from the public. I think that the fact that visitors can pick and choose what information they want to explore within the exhibit is a key feature – this way, they don’t have to stick to a “prescribed” tour. Even the audio and video information within the tour is presented in such a way that pretty much anyone can understand it. This, to me, suggests that the museum carefully considered the visitor when putting the TAP tour together.


Bonnie Cate said

at 9:00 pm on Nov 2, 2009

My personal favorite content stops were the commentaries from the exhibit designers. It was so interesting to find out why the rooms were painted a certain color and why certain pieces were placed in specific lighting. These are things that are rarely, if ever, revealed to the public so it was great to get a “behind the scenes” peek into the design process.

One museum that is making good use of a similar handheld device is the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society in southern Illinois. The museum won a 2009 MUSE award for it's iTouch tours not only for it's graphics, but also for "breaking new ground in the difficult work of combining a traditional walking audio tour with an AV tour," according to the MUSE awards judges. A short sample of the iTouch tour can be seen here: http://www.sacreative.com/itouch/.

Bonnie Cate said

at 9:00 pm on Nov 2, 2009

The TAP tour used in the "Sacred Spain" Exhibit could be used in a variety of ways within the context of the 100 Acres Art and Nature Park. Visitors could use the iTouch device to locate various types of wildlife and plant life within the park, and learn about them by listening to narratives or informative clips or looking at visual images on the screen. The TAP tour could also be used as a way for the visitor to learn more about the art installations and artists in the park. The possibilities are endless! (Of course the "Easter Eggs" could be featured as well!)

Angie Vinci said

at 3:24 pm on Nov 3, 2009

My actual opinion on in-gallery technology is not favorable. I have a problem with incorporating technology into museums because it takes away the experience I want to get from visiting the museum. I enjoy the quiet area and quiet time for contemplation. There is so much technology in everyday life that it gets overwhelming. However, this class has made this opinion shift a little. I think the option of using technology is a good idea. Also, I did like the TAP iPod device. I thought it was neat and creative, and a good way to get the information about the artwork across. However, I was absent the day the class visited the gallery.

Angie Vinci said

at 3:24 pm on Nov 3, 2009

I think that using in-gallery technology is a helpful way for interacting with visitors, and I really liked that there was a message from Maxwell Anderson inviting and welcoming their visitors at the beginning. That was a good way of personalizing the iPod device for the visitors and interacting with them as well. On the iPod media, my favorite stops were the ones with the question polls. I liked that they asked questions, and then there were results that followed them.

Elizabeth Basile said

at 12:20 am on Nov 5, 2009

In-gallery technology is a useful tool to make a gallery experience more private. I find the headsets and audio useful to tuning out nearby chatter and distractions. It is not something I often seek out but when it is made available I like to take advantage of the privacy. I think that TAP did work in the space and illuminated lots of interesting details about the objects I viewed. It is a successful way to engage the visitors as evidenced by the many people wandering the exhibit in headphones. The technology has become common in a museum. My favorite content stop was at the Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos. I loved the dramatic bible reading and decoding of imagery throughout the exhibit. An exhibit of this nature is perfect for an application that allows the visitor to further explore the intricate symbolism found in religious artwork. I did find it frustrating not to have an obvious escape from audio I had selected that did not capture my attention. Despite touching the screen in hopes of a return button I was unsuccessful and trapped until that section of audio was completed. Clearly DAM is successful using in-gallery technology and is able to make it a priority. The Warhol Museum provides a number to call for more information. It utilizes the technology everyone carries around and eliminates the need for renting headphones and handheld device. A major drawback is that it encourages cell phone usage in galleries, which could be problematic. A site like 100 Acres would be ideal for implementing TAP on a call-in service or downloaded iPhone application. The intrusion of a cell user would be diminished by the space of the park and the need for keeping track of devices eliminated.

Becca Lambert said

at 10:16 pm on Nov 6, 2009

Overall, I like in-gallery technology. I find that it allows a more well rounded visitor experience because it encourages an interaction that visitors don’t always get to have, especially art museums. I think TAP worked in the exhibition space and I enjoyed using it, but I found that there was a bit of a problem with the exhibition labels that then made TAP a little frustrating to use. I feel that the exhibit labels in Sacred Spain could have been placed better or at least closer to the object itself. For instance, the label for the sculpture of the dead Christ with moveable arms is located on a wall behind the object’s current location, in the middle of the room. When using TAP, I thought I was entering the code for this sculpture, but what I was really entering was the code for the painting located to the left of the museum labels. I think if the museum labels were less disjointed in this exhibit, TAP would work a little better. Overall, I think this is a good way for the museum to interact with visitors because I think the expert videos and other information provided through TAP helps to put objects displayed in context. I think sometimes visitors observe objects and appreciate them for their esthetic values, but don’t think about the purpose of the object or in the context of which it was used. My favorite content stop involved the painting which has a large amount of flowers depicted in it. I thought the audio which discusses the different types of flowers to be fun.

Becca Lambert said

at 10:17 pm on Nov 6, 2009

I think the Denver Art Museum is clearly using in-gallery technology well. In Bruce Wyman’s lecture, he gave many examples of the successful use of in-gallery technology. One of which was the ability for visitors to explore artwork up close using a zoom tool which could be moved with the finger to different parts of a painting. To integrate TAP into 100 Acres, I think the IMA should create a tour that gives visitors an opportunity to gain behind-the-scene knowledge about each individual installation as well as create a connection to similar artwork inside the IMA. I think TAP has the ability to form a relationship between the IMA and the Art and Nature Park, so as they are not two separate entities.


Anna Musun-Miller said

at 11:54 am on Nov 9, 2009

I will readily admit it—I hate audio tours. I don’t like taking them myself and I don’t like being in a gallery space with other people who have bought them. Whenever I have the misfortune to be in the latter situation, it’s as if I am surrounded by audio stop zombies. They all move in a pack (or, to continue the zombie metaphor, a vexation, which is in fact <a href= http://wondermark.com/566/>the proper collective noun for zombies</a>) and are entirely unaware of the fact that other people might be in the space already looking at something, until, heaven forbid, those other people begin actually having a conversation and they hear a murmuring underneath the sound of Zahi Hawass being pumped through their $7 headphones. My personal vitriol aside, I generally find in-gallery technology to be distracting and, especially in the case of audio tours, isolating, and considering that I consider museum visits to be social experiences, anything that gets in the way of my having a conversation with my companion is a bad thing. On the other hand, anything that assists us in looking up information that we might be interested in at the moment that we are interested in it is a great help, and when technology is able to provide the fuel for further conversation, I consider it to be a substantial contributor to the experience. In short, I love technology in the galleries when it serves my purposes and despise it otherwise. That said, I recognize the fact that the challenge that comes with the multitude of opportunities that technology provides is having enough options but not too many, and having precisely the options that will please the largest number of visitors.

Anna Musun-Miller said

at 11:54 am on Nov 9, 2009

I did like TAP, much to my surprise. I think its success lies largely in the fact that I had the opportunity to choose precisely when and what I wanted to consume. While I usually dislike audio tours, I found myself starting plenty of audio stops based on their titles, although admittedly I did not finish listening to most of them. I did thoroughly enjoy the polls and the video content. There was something much less sterile about looking at the object in a different context and seeing people interact with it, or seeing it at different times in its existence, that went beyond what listening could do for me. I thought that TAP was the most effective use of technology in a gallery that I have experienced to date, like a tour with your own personal docent that you don’t mind telling “I’m not interested in that; what about this?”

My favorite stop was the one concerning the moveable Jesus. I just loved watching the object in its original context being carried through the streets. The touch of other humans made the piece more real to me than most of the other artworks, and I think similar video of other pieces “in situ” would have the same effect for people like me who are more interested in the cultural significance of art than in its formal qualities.

I think that TAP does have a certain level of limitation when it comes to the park, just because of the distribution of equipment to visitors. However, if there were a downloadable TAP app available, individuals who already own iPhones could use the application in the park, and I think that videos of works being installed could be interesting content in that context.

Angie Vinci said

at 2:52 pm on Nov 9, 2009

It is evident that the Denver Art Museum is integrating in-gallery technology well into their museum. The reason why this museum does it well, is because they use all of the media source, for example, flick, twitter, and facebook. My favorite example Bruce discussed was the use of the rotary telephone feeback stop. It was a different way to receive feeback, yet it was still individualized.
One way that TAP could be used for 100 acres, is by have a game app that would allow the visitors to interact with nature as wellas, with other visitors. In addition, having some sort of explanation for the visitor on the artwork and land would be interesting and helpful for the visitor. The only problem is definitely protecting the fragile devices from theft, and or, damage.

mmonical said

at 1:19 am on Nov 10, 2009

I like in-gallery technology because it can be more interesting than labels and can provide otherwise unavailable, in-depth information. However, sometimes this information is not necessarily what I am interested in. Technology in galleries can also allow for user interaction, but again, this isn’t always done well. I liked the polls that TAP offered, because for some reason I really like to take part in these, but the pictures of artworks that you could zoom in on weren’t that appealing to me. I liked that TAP was used in the Sacred Spain exhibit because it was kind of contradictory, but in a good way. The combination of classical art and cutting edge technology is unusual but a really great concept, and I think it will become widespread. On the whole I thought TAP was successful, but I did notice that I was only focusing on the artwork that had a stop on TAP, so I really didn’t see the whole exhibit. This made me want to go back again, though, to experience the whole exhibit without TAP, so this may not be a bad thing if it is encouraging repeat visits. TAP gives another voice (or voices) to the exhibit that visitors would otherwise not experience, and it provides us with names and faces, so the museum begins to become “our museum” instead of a cold entity. I liked the content stop on the Crown of the Andes because I really liked the piece and I wanted more information about it, and I also liked the discussion between the horticulturalist and the curator about the floral wreath on The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception with a Floral Wreath because it was interesting to hear more than one viewpoint.

mmonical said

at 1:19 am on Nov 10, 2009

The Museum of Arts and Design in New York has several cell phone tours for different exhibits, and they post the stop numbers online along with a picture of the objects/works so you can experience the exhibit even if you aren’t at the museum. I like this idea, but I wish they had done a few things differently. I think it would be neat (and very time consuming and costly, but still neat) to have an interactive screen where the artwork can be viewed while listening to the tour and not just a small picture of the art. I also liked that they used student voices and opinions for some of the stops, but they were very difficult to understand. Since the artists for 100 Acres are still living, I think it would be great to have audio/video clips of them discussing their artwork on TAP.

Shelley Orlowski said

at 12:16 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I am not a big fan of in-gallery technology. I find that quite often, in-gallery technology does nothing to add to the experience, and sometimes hinders the experience by causing the visitor to linger at a piece for quite some time. I understand that in-gallery technology is to give the visitor more information that can be gained by simply reading the labels or merely looking at the piece, however, audio tours are isolating and museum experiences a much more valuable when they are a social experience. Knowing that I am not generally an advocate for audiotours, it may not come as a surprise that I have mixed feelings about TAP. TAP does some things well, like giving the visitor a variety of ways to experience the content in audio, video, and enhanced images. I genuinely appreciate the fact that the TAP creators acknowledge that giving the visitor options is a great way to give the visitor a much more enriching experience. With that said, this is also sort of what I didn't like about TAP. It seemed that there were not that many stops throughout the gallery, but when there was a stop, the visitor is presented with around 15 minutes of content for one piece. I don't have that long of an attention span, especially with religious works, so I found myself becoming frustrated with the length. Also, the narrators voice was banausic... I understand how when an exhibit is the life-work of a curator, that they want to put themself into every part of it. However, I don't see why it wouldn't have been just as effective to have the curator write the script and have someone a little peppier narrate.

Shelley Orlowski said

at 12:31 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I have to say that I'm still not sure if TAP or any audio tour is a good way to interact with the visitor, because I don't know if you are actually interacting with the visitor. At least in a real tour, if the visitor has a question or wants to know more about one piece in particular, the docent can either give them that knowledge or figure out a way to give them that information at a later time. With an audio tour, there is no interaction, just lecturing. Even though some can argue that TAP's polls througout the exhibit are a way to get visitor feedback, I think it's merely a one way interaction. The visitor isn't allowed to get what they need and want, instead they are just giving the museum data. My favorite stops on TAP were the easter eggs. I have to say that while facts about the art can be interesting, I don't think I'm alone in wanting behind the scenes looks at how museums make what visitors experience. That's why so many visitors love visble storage when it's done well. I think that people are fundamentally voyeuristic, and finding secret stops makes them feel like they know more than other people.

Although I haven't been to the Denver Art Museum, I think that what Bruce described sounds like it would be quite successful. For me, the best museum using technology that I've visited is the Museum of Science in Boston. Their interactives are focused on the knowledge so that the visitor doesn't even notice that they're using technology. They are also utilizing the best thing ever: texting a curator. If you want more information about something that isn't presented in the gallery, text the curator. It's like ChaCha for museums. I did it just to find out how quickly I would get an answer, and I have to say, it was wonderful. I got an answer quickly, so I was still in that area of the museum when I received my answer.

Shelley Orlowski said

at 12:36 pm on Nov 10, 2009

With the park, I would say that TAP should give the visitor more options so they have to come back over and over again. I'm weary of the Iphone app, because it segregates the population that doesn't have iphones, but I'm sure there are ways to work around this. I like the idea of giving the visitor ways of experiencing the art that isn't all about the art. Give them 10 different kinds of music to listen to while they're walking around. Have videos of the artists talking about the nature around the park as well as why they created the park. Really though, I think that having an audio tour is distracting, and if the visitor is out in nature, they should just be enjoying their surroundings, not clouding their ears with more noise.

Krystle Buschner said

at 1:03 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I am not a fan of standard audio tours because it preoccupies the visitor from the exhibit. Visitors who do choose to rent an audio tour seem to pay more attention to the artifacts highlighted and “skim” over the rest.
The TAP tour, as an audio/visual supplement worked well in the exhibit. Typical audio tours are just that-audio clips. The TAP tour was visually stimulating which matched the artwork in the exhibit. This is a successful way for the museum to interact with visitors and create user-generated content through the use of polls. Plus using the iPod Touch as the platform was a very contemporary idea and it would appeal to diverse audiences.
My favorite content stop had to be in the first room at the polychrome sculpture. There was a video from the Getty Museum about how to make a Spanish polychrome sculpture and I was mesmerized. Even though the video was around twelve minutes long I was fascinated and watched the whole thing. The other aspect I enjoyed about TAP was being able to hear the exhibit designer’s talk about each room. It’s usually uncommon to have that voice be heard.
I am unsure as to what museums are successfully using in-gallery technology but I thought that the Denver Art Museum did some spectacular things. The bubble interactive was clever and would be more successful after some tweaking, but it appealed to a younger crowd. The Oceanic Art video was subtle yet effective and seemed to make up for the lack of context. The best part of the video was that the object stayed in one spot while it morphed into other images. It was easy to follow and visually engaging.

Krystle Buschner said

at 1:03 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I would integrate TAP into 100 Acres as merely an application that could be downloaded on to a visitor’s own iPhone or iPod touch. It would be hard to control iPod Touch rental in such a large area and most would probably be stolen. The amount of content was just right for the exhibit but for a large art and nature park I would add more options for viewers to choose from. Lastly I would include ways for visitors to provide feedback such as using Twitter, sending a text message, or calling a number to leave a message.
Overall the TAP tour is effective and enjoyable. The same technology can be applied to the 100 Acres park, but obviously on a larger scale. I really hope to see a TAP option available for 100 Acres because it is a great resource for information and it would add more to the experience.


Stefanie Clark said

at 1:26 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I have to say that on the whole I’ve never been very positive about this type of in gallery technology. It tends to isolate the visitor into this one way exchange in which the device is giving information and the visitor is passively receiving it. The visitor cuts off all contact with anyone who is not the device, leaving no time or desire for meaningful conversation with another person. I found that was exactly what happened when I used TAP in the gallery. Except for a couple of taps on my shoulder from a friend asking questions I did not engage with anyone in the gallery. Yes, the information was interesting and in many cases useful for understanding the art work, but should this information be at the expense of interaction with someone else? Could I have come to the same understanding through close looking and the ideas of a friend? Very possibly.

Stefanie Clark said

at 1:26 pm on Nov 10, 2009

All of that said I did enjoy the further explanation of themes and informational tidbits that the TAP program offered. I found the information to be interesting and engaging, but I did have someone stopping me to ask questions about the content. I already knew a lot about the exhibit through my work as a docent and to be honest I couldn’t tell whether I was building on content from that or building on what I was seeing. This could mean that others using this program are not gaining as much. My favorite stop was actually in the second room with content discussing the carving of a Virgin statue; it was an interesting and engaging story (although the telling of it was a little long). The only problem is, the statue has been destroyed and is not part of the exhibit. What you are looking at is a painting of that sculpture, and I’m not sure that is made clear in the audio presentation.

Stefanie Clark said

at 1:26 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I think the use of a device such as this to provide additional, optional information is necessary for something like 100 Acres. There is a lot of content, and not a lot of ways to provide it in the part itself without 6’X6’ labels. My final project proposal includes the details for two devices that would provide this sort of content—a website and a hand-held touring map. I feel the map format as well as the sheer size of the park will help break the visitor of being plugged into the device for the entirety of the visit, thereby reducing the problem I see with engaging only with the device and not with another human being there in the park. A problem that I don’t think any museum effectively combats when using devices such as this.

Charles Fox said

at 2:45 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I think in-gallery technology is a great thing, but to a certain degree the pristine "white cube" with no distractions from the art still has a place in my mind. Ideally, I think that a balance of the two can exist--some exhibitions with lots of technology and some that have none at all, or have technology before or after the gallery experience itself. TAP worked well in "Sacred Spain" for the space and with the exhibition themes. Art of all kinds can be tough to tap into for the general public, and the art from Sacred Spain is no exception I think the TAP technology works and is a successful example of a museum interacting with visitors because curators, conservators and other museum professionals are lending their viewpoints about otherwise esoteric works of art in ways that accommodate multiple learning styles and break the somewhat monotonous experience of "look at art----read label---repeat." My favorite content stop was the large statue of Jesus, where Tap provided insight into the interior conservation and reconstruction of the statue. This is the type of behind-the-scenes content that visitors want more of and museums have been all too guarding of until now.

Charles Fox said

at 2:45 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I think creativity is crucial to in-gallery technology. I look back fondly on the way technology was integrated into an exhibition called "Teen Chicago" at the Chicago History Museum that I worked on around 2002-2004. There was an interactive flatscreen game matching teens to their respective bedrooms, and it was very engaging to visitors, along with other various integrations of audio clips into the exhibition. It really brought history and the adolescent experience alive. I think the IMA, SF Moma, and the Denver Art Museum are other examples of museums integrating technology that is not too "in your face" but effective in enriching visitors' experiences. My final project deals with integrating TAP into 100 acres, and briefly I'd like to have extensive video and audio clips of artists' voices as well as museum voices revealing layers of meaning regarding art and relating it to its environment to ensure visitors get the most out of their experience.

Sarah King said

at 2:46 pm on Nov 10, 2009

My opinion on in-gallery technology: it can be used effectively, but I don’t think it’s necessary for an effective exhibit. Here are a couple examples of in-gallery technology I enjoyed, both from the Indianapolis Children’s Museum’s “Take Me There: Egypt” exhibit: first, you enter the exhibit through an “airplane flight” to Cairo—stepping into a realistic-looking “airplane.” Out the windows, you can see Egypt beneath you as the plane descends. When you land, the seats vibrate as if you were on the runway. Second, there is a simple display case with various Egyptian instruments inside; you push a button to hear each one played. If you push more than one button at once, the instruments play the same song together, so if you can make your fingers stretch far enough from one button to the next, you can play three or four at the same time. (Yes, I’m twenty-two, and I still liked pressing those buttons.) It wasn’t very complex.

Sarah King said

at 2:47 pm on Nov 10, 2009

TAP is a technological feature not unusual for an exhibit like Sacred Spain. It does offer visitors the chance to be polled and watch videos, but it still a digital tour, such as you see in many other places. I’m not sure how successful TAP is with all the visitors. I think the “speaking portions” of the content, at least, might be hard to listen to for some people, especially if they’re not interested in the topics anyway. There seems to be so much information that if you tried to get through the whole exhibit, reading everything and listening to all the TAP content, you could spend three hours or more. Are there people who want to see everything? Perhaps there aren’t very many, but people might want to get a good overview of the exhibit or the most important things in it without feeling that they need to come back.

Sarah King said

at 2:47 pm on Nov 10, 2009

Integrating TAP into 100 Acres would pose difficulties. Obviously, 100 Acres is an outdoor space—how many ipods would the museum risk losing due to their being dropped or left in the rain by mistake? And if the devices are stolen inside the museum, how much easier would it be for potential thieves outside the building? Apart from the risks, people at 100 Acres are walking, enjoying the outdoors, maybe playing with their children. Personally, if I had to carry an ipod with me as I was walking and had no pocket to put it in—and on top of that, if I had to wear earbuds that kept falling out—I might learn some interesting information, but it would come at a price.

jlskiba said

at 3:40 pm on Nov 10, 2009

Personally, I like in-gallery technology because it allows the audience to have an enhanced personal connection with an exhibit. In-gallery technology is like the b-side of a record, in that it gives you a little more information or content than you would normally get just walking through the galleries. I felt that TAP worked well with the space and exhibition themes, although I would have liked it better if I could find all the labels with the number codes. The exhibit labels needed to be nearer to the objects in the galleries, rather than obscurely placed on the walls. I felt that many of the curator’s dialogues were taken directly from the wall label text, and needed to be shorter. Additionally, there was an incredibly long video from the Getty which needed to be cropped as well. Other than those two issues, I found TAP incredibly easy to use, and the content very informative, especially the behind-the-scenes videos on conservation.

jlskiba said

at 3:40 pm on Nov 10, 2009

I had four favorite stops: 1) The Virgin of Guadalupe, unknown artist, 2)Virgen de la Soledad, by Villalpando, 3) Dead Christ (Cristo yacente)by Barba, and 4) Pacheco’s painting of the Virgin Mary. I liked all of these stops because they possessed an incredible degree of workmanship, and because the TAP content on each of these sites was really interesting. My favorite of these woul d be Virgen de la Soledad because of the unique story behind the altar the painting represents.
I believe that TAP is a successful way to interact with visitors, especially those who want a more immersive experience in Sacred Spain. TAP allows the visitor to hear and see what goes into the design, installation, and conservation work of an exhibit. It allows the visitor to choose what content they wish to access, and when (meaning that they have the power to stop the audio if they choose), which makes it different from your average audio tour. Another museum that is successfully integrating this technology is the Brooklyn Museum of Art, with their wireless cell phone tours on BklynMuse:
http://www.ny.com/cgibin/frame.cgi?url=http://www.brooklynart.org/&frame=/frame/museums.html.

As for integrating TAP into 100 Acres, I see that as an option for group tours, but not for individual visitors; just because there are so many places where the iPod touch/phone could be lost or damaged unless visitors were encouraged to use their own. I think it would be useful in explaining the art and nature aspects of the park, videos, bird calls, pictures of what 100 Acres used to look like, pictures of common plant & animal species in the park, artist information, pictures of installation and development, etc. I would probably integrate it to work with a general user-interface, similar to the one my group developed in our proposal.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.