Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits!

: Enhancing
visitor curiosity through augmented artefacts

Luigina Ciolfi Liam J. Bannon

Interaction Design Centre Interaction Design Centre
Computer Science Building Computer Science Building
University of Limerick University of Limerick
Ireland Ireland
+353 61 213530 +353 61 202632
[Link]@[Link] [Link]@[Link]

ABSTRACT going work in the Hunt Museum. This is still work-in-

In this paper, we describe the current work being progress, and thus what follows is an interim report,
conducted at the Interaction Design Centre on the and presents our reflections on the process to date. The
design and development of a novel interactive museum frame of this paper is formative, rather than evaluative,
exhibition. The particular context and cultural setting of and it aims to discuss the process of design rather than
the museum calls for a careful approach to the completed designs. We have been evolving what we
introduction of technology in such a context. We term a number of ‘design sensitivities’, based on an
present some of the findings from our early field extensive data corpus collected during nearly 8 months
studies, and discuss how we are attempting to take these of field studies. The focus of these observational studies
findings into account in our ongoing design processes. is on the features of the museum environment, the
artefacts, and the public interaction with the objects in
Keywords the different museum spaces.
Museum technologies, engagement, design process, role
of artefacts.
THE SHAPE PROJECT AND THE HUNT MUSEUM
INTRODUCTION This research is being conducted within the EU-
1
This paper provides an outline of some of the work Disappearing Computer SHAPE project (Situating
being done by researchers at the University of Limerick Hybrid Assemblies in Public Environments). The
Interaction Design Centre (UL IDC) on the EU project focus is on creating hybrid public environments
Disappearing Computer SHAPE (Situating Hybrid that allow visitors to actively interact with features of
Assemblies in Public Environments) project. Our focus both physical and digital spaces. SHAPE is specifically
here is on issues in designing innovative interactive investigating these issues of hybridity and assembly in
experiences for visitors to the Hunt Museum located in the context of public spaces such as museums and
Limerick, Ireland. exploratoria. “Living Exhibitions”, where our
The introduction of technology into museums and explorations are exhibited for public experimentation
exhibitions is a difficult and delicate matter, as the and evaluation, are planned at selected European
museum is a rather complex entity from the point of museums which have agreed to participate.
view of experience, interaction and exhibition design The SHAPE team at the UL IDC is currently working
(Falk & Dierking, 1995), e.g. educational issues, with the Hunt Museum on a SHAPE Living Exhibition
curatorial necessities, pleasuarable visitor experiences, planned for the Summer of 2003. We are currently
etc need to be merged. A number of distinct developing design scenarios for a number of exhibits to
communities, with different disciplinary backgrounds be located within a specific room at the Museum. These
and thus “cultures”, are involved in the process: scenarios are based our analysis of field study data
pedagogical and curatorial concerns have to be displaying human behaviour within the museum
understood and supported by exhibition, information environment, and, specifically, the way visitors
and interaction designers and technology developers.
We need to understand the ecology of artefacts, spaces 1
and practices with a view to trying to create some Members of the SHAPE Consortium are: the Royal
changes or interventions in that context. How to take Institute of Technology-KTH (Sweden; Coordinating
into account these different perspectives is not an easy Partner), King’s College London (UK), the University
question to answer. In what follows we describe our of Nottingham (UK) and the University of Limerick
evolving approach to this topic in the context of our on- (Ireland).
 ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

approach and make sense of particular exhibits and walls throughout the Museum. The panels are either
specific objects in the Museum. related to the Hunt family and the process of acquisition
The Hunt Collection is an internationally important of the collection, or to a specific section of it (e.g., glass,
collection of original works of art and antiquities. It is a earthenware, bronze, etc.).
personal one, formed by a couple (John and Gertrude Whereas the nature and structure of the collection
Hunt) who judged each piece that they collected responds to Victorian criteria of classification and
according to the standard of its design, craftsmanship display (Newhouse, 1995), the Hunt Museum differs
and artistic merit. These criteria they applied to objects from most museums of this kind in that it has some
of all ages - from the Neolithic to the twentieth century. extremely interesting features that integrate the “classic”
Since 1997, the collection is arranged on three floors of content of the exhibition with elements of direct,
the historic "Custom House" in Limerick City Centre.
“hands-on”, engagement for the visitors. We discuss
these features in later sections as we turn to our
observational studies.

OBSERVATIONS
Gaining a thorough understanding of the way visitors
move through the exhibitions and interact around the
objects on display is a crucial element in designing
effective museum installations (Ciolfi et al. 2001). More
generally, it is crucial to understand the way visitor
interpret the museum and the story it tells through
artefacts and information resources (Hooper-Greenhil,
1992).
Figure 1. The Hunt Museum, Limerick. In the specific context of the Hunt Museum, we were
particularly interested in how visitors explore various
The whole collection is presented in a way that assemblages of drawers and cases in the museum and
highlights the personality of the owners: for example, a how such exhibits engage people. Another focus of our
wall panel in the Museum, near several artefacts, shows investigation was gaining an understanding of the
a photograph of the Hunt Family’s home kitchen. It is structure, nature and content of the exhibits, the
possible to locate these precious Museum objects in informational material available, the role of human
their original ‘everyday’ place in the Hunt home. A guides and the related educational activities the
remarkable example is the “Plat Del Dia” (“The Dish of Museum organises for groups of children and adults.
the Day”) by Pablo Picasso, a small oil on cardboard We conducted an extensive set of field studies in the
that Picasso painted for a Restaurant in Barcelona to Museum including informal observations, interviews
advertise daily specials, and that was used for the same with experts, curators and docents, and video
purposes in the Hunt family’s kitchen! observations of visitors focused on specific parts of the
The information available to the visitors in the collection. Following this phase of study, some relevant
proximity of the displays is minimal: simple labels to features of the museum emerged as crucial in shaping
indicate the nature, the provenance, and the period, are the visitors experience of the Hunt Collection. We are
placed near an object or a group of objects. This is presenting three most notable examples in the following
intentionally done by the museum management as they sections.
wish to encourage personal discovery, also allowing for
mediation of information by person-to-person The Cabinets of Curiosities
communication with human experts in their very We studied how visitors move through and approach the
exhibits, noting which areas and features of the museum
engaging “Docent program”.
were favoured by the visitors, and where interesting
The Docents are volunteers who, according to their time
interactions occurred. We found much of interest in the
and availability, are available in different parts of the
areas where “cabinets of curiosities” were located (See
Museum, and can provide visitors information about
Fig. 2).
specific objects or sections of the Museum, their
These cabinets can be viewed as an “assembly” of
features, history, and also stories about how these
objects/artefacts - prompting complex dynamics of
objects became part of the Hunt family collection. The
understanding and sharing knowledge amongst the
Docents are also in charge of guiding small groups of
visitors of the museum (Pearce, 1994). The cabinets
visitors through the Museum and assist other museum
contain several kinds of artefacts (from decorative arts
personnel during hands-on activities and educational
pieces, to archaeological findings, drawings, tapestries,
workshops. etc.) arranged in a way that reminds of that in which
As well as the human help and guidance provided by John and Gertrude Hunt originally displayed them in
the Docents, panels presenting more general their own house.
information about the collection are displayed on the
 ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

Visitors are free to open the cabinet’s drawers in the responses associated with the experience and a growing
sequence they prefer and explore their content. They are interest in, and appreciation of, the exhibit itself.
allowed to take a very close look at the objects as the
only protection is a thick glass panel on top of each The Archaeology Workshop
drawer. The Archaeology Workshop is one of the “hands-on”
activities the Museum Education Department organises
for children and adults. This activity is particularly
targeted at primary school classes.

Figure 2. Visitors exploring the Cabinet

of Curiosities in the Study Collection
room.

Visitors are surprised by the fact that the traditional

cultural “rules” of behaviour in a museum do not apply Figure 3. The "Bronze Age" sandbox
to the Study Collection room, as it is possible for them used for the Archaeology Workshop.
to touch and open the drawers, and to get closer to their
contents. Sometimes, people do not actually realise they After visiting the Hunt Archaeology section, guided by
are allowed to do so. However, when visitors find out a museum docent, the children are brought to a specific
about this possibility, they engage in observations, educational area of the Museum where a number of
interaction and discussion around the cabinet exhibit. sandboxes are located (See Fig. 3). These boxes are
After conducting observations of people interacting used by Museum staff to hide objects, which can then
around the cabinets, the analysis of video footage be unearthed by the children, thus simulating, in a crude
revealed a lot of communication around the objects, form, some aspects of a real archaelogical “dig”. The
with the visitors striving to collaboratively make sense class is divided into three groups, and each group is
of the exhibits. Interpreting objects and collections required to unearth artefacts from a specific sandbox
means not only understanding specific aspects or details (there are three different sandboxes containing,
belonging to each object, but to make sense of the respectively, Stone Age, Bronze Age and Medieval
whole arrangement in which they are displayed and of replica artefacts).
the connections among the different parts of the “story”. The children are shown how to “dig” using a set of
As well as the variety of objects on display, the Cabinet tools, and encouraged to document their findings
of Curiosities has another appeal to the visitors. The through drawings, sketches and written descriptions.
drawers, chests and boxes stimulate curiosity and When all the objects are found, each group has to
exploration. These containers, usually accessible only identify the period of the dig, guessing as to which
by their owners (and usually in private settings rather historical phase their findings belong.
than museums), suggest the presence of secrets, of From our observations, children enjoy “playing the
strange objects, sheltered from the eyes of the public archaeologist”: they are shown how to skim the sand
(Elsner & Cardinal, 1994, Bachelard, 1969). with trowels to search for objects, and how to clean the
Uncovering the secrects and discovering the precious, dust away from the objects with brushes, and they
hidden content is perceived as very rewarding by the usually apply these instructions very carefully. Finding
visitors, considering also that the touching of exhibits is hidden objects is a very enagaging experience. The
often forbidden in “traditional” museums. Curiosity and orchestration of the experience is also very effective -
expectation act as facilitators of the process of making involving children in all the phases of the workshop:
sense of the objects, and of learning through active digging, discovering and documenting.
discovery (Shuh, 1994). Through stimulating their Collaboration and discussion naturally occur among the
curiosity, the cabinets and drawers encourage children children, even if each of them is provided with a
and adults to both act and reflect, and involve the specific area of the pit for digging. Comparing objects,
visitors in an engaging experience. The interactions instructing each other on how to use the trowel and the
around the drawers reveal interesting patterns of brush, guessing the nature of their findings are the main
collaborative understanding of the objects, emotional topics of discussion.
 ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

The children are also involved in placing back the The social aspect of the experience also plays a
objects in the pits after the final discussion session, and significant role: the pleasure of discussing and enjoying
they greatly enjoy this phase of the activity as they can objects together is strongly felt by the participants at the
in some way influence the experience for the future session. The participants experience a real sense of
participants. discovery and excitement (e.g. “Are they ‘actual’
Another important feature of this activity is the insight it Bronze Age artefacts?”), and communicate this
gives the students into how objects might be found, and emotional involvment to their companions and to the
an awareness of the long path from discovery of some Hunt personnel leading the session.
pottery shards to the exhibit of some cleaned, re-
assembled pottery bowl in a exhibition case in the Shaping design sensitivities
Museum. In the archaeology workshop children are able We now wish to move from observation and analysis
to understand the way parts of the collection might have towards the design of novel and engaging augmented
been found and then assembled. reality environments within the Museum context. This
The Archaeology workshop is a highly effective is a difficult assignment, as this environment is
educational activity, judging from student and teacher extremely complex:
evaluations, and the obvious engagement of the students • artefacts have implications for the shaping of the
during the sessions. It is also a simple, compact, and emotional experience;
understandable activity for all concerned • the museum’s cultural rules and constraints play a
(Csiszentmihaly & Hermanson, 1994). role in terms of the range of interaction possibilities
that are given to the visitor
Handling Sessions • the multiplicity of artefacts involved and their
Handling sessions are a hands-on activity for adults also mutual relationships require a flexible method of
organised by the Museum Education department. The designing interaction.
participants can handle the ‘real’ Museum objects
distributed to them under the supervision of the Hunt Thus it is not easy to collect a traditional set of
Museum education officers (See Fig. 4). The ‘requirements’ that we can then implement. Likewise,
participants experience great pleasure in exploring the general design guidelines or heuristics are insufficiently
surfaces and materials of the objects, feeling their detailed to help us in our task. However, our Hunt
weight and manipulating them in the way they must Museum observations have provided us with a set of
have been handled by their past owners. Verbal design sensitivities that are presently shaping the
accounts from the observation sessions show how the process of scenario and technology development,
participants collaboratively create stories featuring the hopefully without oversimplifying the Hunt Museum
objects, and their past owners, their possible use and the experience (Ciolfi & Bannon, 2002b).
physical locations where they might be placed and used. In order to keep the user’s interest and engagement
high, we must envision ways to support different ‘layers
of activity’: this could provide participants with the
ability to engage in a progressive sequence of actions
(both alone and with others) to provide successive
surprises and discoveries. For example, more and varied
information on assemblies of objects and their mutual
relationships is provided to those who want to explore
further aspects of the exhibit.
The SHAPE “Living Exhibition” should support visitors
in discovering features of the exhibits both individually
and collaboratively. Thus the interactivity we support
should not be limited to that between an individual and
an exhibit, but we should consider the different degrees
and combinations of verbal and gestural interaction
Figure 4. A Handling Session involving amongst individuals around the artefacts. The
school teachers. installation should, if possible, provide some kind of
added-value associated with collaborative interaction
The people perform a variety of gestures around and on around the drawers.
the objects as they discuss them. These reveal Children should be allowed to take part in the activity
interesting recurrent patterns of behaviour associated and to take notes or sketches around the exhibition. The
with specific physical features of the artefacts: fingering installation should also give children the possibility to
the details of the surface, testing its function, looking lead the process of discovery and to show things to their
for hidden details on the bottom or the back of the companions.
objects and exploring cavities and inner surfaces (Ciolfi We must also consider possible ways of encouraging
& Bannon, 2002a). interaction with, and around, the exhibition, and
specifically collaborative interaction. The
 ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

technologically augmented exhibit should provide clues, Ishii & Ullmer, 1997), and also explicit design
triggers and adequate affordances to make visible which principles for tactile interaction on interactive objects
actions the visitors are allowed to perform on each have been developed (Challis & Edwards, 2000).
component of the installation. The "Living Exhibition" However, the object itself is usually not considered as
should support the group visit experience with the locus of information nor the focus of attention.
appropriate feedback that all the members of the group Rather, objects are essentially tools for interacting with
can appreciate. The possibility for the visitors to engage a computer system, and they are intended to act as a
in direct face-to-face interaction around the exhibit must physical representation of surface interface elements
also be insured, as discussing the objects together is an such as icons and pointers.
essential part of the group experience around the Our approach is distinct, as we are interested in objects
exhibit. This means that devices as head-mounted as both material and symbolic devices in their own
displays or headphones are not appropriate for such an right, with a history, context of use, etc, both mediating
installation. and being the object of interaction. We are interested in
The exhibition should offer insights on the life of the exploring these issues, both from a theoretical
objects before they become part of the collection, thus perspective and in order to inform the design of such
providing some historical context for the present artefacts.
collection. This would encourage visitors to go back to We believe that one somewhat neglected aspect of the
the actual objects on display and look at them in a study of artefacts is their potential for stimulating
different way, allowing them to see different things as creativity and imagination in the user. We intend to
they visit a section again. conduct a theoretical investigation on these issues as
The SHAPE Living Exhibition should provide an added part of the design process in the immediate future, for it
value to the museum visit both for casual visitors and a is particularly critical to fully appreciate the particular
more expert audience, and should integrate seamlessly role that the Hunt artefacts already have, and we wish to
with the current information services, e.g. the Docents support and enhance this aspect through the Living
and informational material. Exhibition.
The SHAPE exhibition should allow visitors to leave a Specifically, in developing the design scenario for the
trace of their visit and their interaction with the objects, Hunt Museum, we intend to further investigate the
something which might in turn shape and influence the cognitive and interactional nature of objects in the
experience of other, later, visitors to the Museum. context of the Hunt Museum, and to reflect on the ways
As well as the design of specific interactive experiences they could be designed as media - connecting the
concerning artefacts and their display, we must also be physical locale of the museum and the virtual world of
concerned with the orchestration of the overall visitor information.
experience, in order to create a sense of engagement for
the visitors and a seamless transition between the GENERAL THEMES AND OPEN QUESTIONS
existing collections and the “Living Exhibition” (Ciolfi In exploring the design space we have been developing
& Bannon, 2002a). various use scenarios (Carroll, 1995), building on
sketches (see Fig. 5) and storyboards (see Fig. 6). These
CHALLENGING DESIGN helped the design group in visualising possible
From the field studies and the consequent analysis, it assemblies of different exhibition components, and in
clearly appears that traditional museum technologies as clarifying some of the distinct properties of the
touch-screen terminals and audioguides cannot be technologically augmented exhibit that we wished to
possibly be used in the design and installation of the create.
"Living Exhibition". These devices are too limited to
respond to the demands emerged from the series of
design sentitivities, both on the technical and cognitive
level. The design sensitivities themselves call for an
innovative installation that takes inspiration from the
current museum exhibits, but offers new possibilities to
the visitors as direct involvement and interaction with
the artefacts, triggers to encourage collaborative
behaviour, possibility for the users to reconifgure the
exhibition.
Ultimately, the Exhibition itself and the objects on
display should be the interface that allows visitors to
access digital content. Through direct manipulation and
interaction, many of the goals and features expressed by
the design sensitivities can be achieved. Figure 5. A sketch informing the process of
Several current research projects involve the design of scenario development.
graspable interfaces and the use of physical icons
instead of graphical user interfaces (see for example
 ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

From the discussion and integration of paper sketches, We are aware that we have only begun to scratch the
we designed a first demonstrator using unobtrusive surface of the problem. Many questions of how to
technology to endow objects with "digital" properties develop useful and engaging interactive sequences have
(see Fig. 7). For example, we placed radio-frequency to be answered. Issues of how to embed
identification (RFID) tags onto two ceramic figurines computational capability into objects have to be
and placed them in a drawer. RFID systems include addressed.
electronic devices called transponders (the tags), and Other issues are related to the museum structural and
reader electronics to communicate with the tags. cultural context. How de we make a seamless fit
These systems communicate via radio signals that carry between the current exhibits and information services
data either unidirectionally or bidirectionally. When a and our interactive ones, or do we try? How de we
transponder enters a read zone, its data is captured by deliver content? However, we do believe that our
the reader and can then be transferred through standard observational work to date has given us insight into
interfaces to a host computer or server for storage or what visitors find engaging, and that our design
action (Hall & Gallagher, 2002). approach is taking seriously the challenge of developing
engaging and appropriate augmented interactive objects
and spaces in the Museum. We hope to assess the
validity of this claim in the coming year, when our
Living Exhibition will be open for public viewing and
critical assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very appreciative of the support from all the
personnel at the Hunt Museum, and particularly to Peter
McNamara and Nora Hickey for their enthusiastic
support of our work.
Thanks to Tony Hall, Kieran Ferris, Krispin Leydon and
Paul Gallagher for their work on scenario and
technology development, and to other EU Disappearing
Computer SHAPE projects participants for useful
Figure 6. A storyboard visualising elements of discussions.
design scenarios.

The tag reader has been hidden inside the chest of REFERENCES
drawers, the figurine did not have any wiring or Bachelard, G. (1969), The Poetics of Space, London:
connection to the reader. When placed on top of the Beacon Press.
chest of drawers, each figurine triggered a different Carroll, J.M. (1995), Scenario Based Design, New
visual description and a sound background to be York: Wiley.
displayed. When both the figurines are placed on top of Challis, B.P., Edwards, A.D.N. (2000), "Design
the chest, a third description appears. This is just the Principles for Tactile Interaction", in Brewster, S.,
beginning of an extended scenario that we are Murray-Smith, R. (Eds.), Haptic Human-
developing, involving several objects and different Computer Interaction, Heidelberg: Springer.
kinds of informative output, that we will be testing with
users to evaluate the most salient features of such an Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. and Fernström, M. (2001),
assembly of technologically enhanced artefacts. “Envisioning and Evaluating Out-of-Storage
Solutions”, Proceedings of ICHIM01-
International Cultural Heritage Informatics
Meeting, Philadelphia: Archives and Museum
Informatics.
Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. (2002a), "Observing, Analysing,
Designing: Towards enhanced interactive museum
exhibits", in Gallwey, T., Waldmann, T., O'
Sullivan, L. (Eds.), Irish Ergonomics Review,
Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society
Annual Conference, University of Limerick, April
2002.
Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. (2002b), "Learning from Museum
Figure 7. The first demonstrator using Visits: Shaping Design Sensitivities", Technical
RFID tags. Report, IDC-University of Limerick, April 2002.
 ECCE11 - Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Catania (Italy), September 2002.

Csizsentmihalyi, M. and Hermanson, K. (1994), Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992), Museums and the Shaping
“Intrinsic motivation in museums: why one does of Knowledge, London: Routledge.
want to learn”, in Hooper-Greenhill, E., (Ed.), The Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997), “Tangible Bits: Towards
Educational Role of the Museum, London: seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and
Routledge. Atoms”, Proceedings of CHI’97, New York: ACM
Elsner, J. & Cardinal, R. (Eds.) (1994), The Cultures of Press.
Collecting, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Newhouse, V. (1995), Towards a New Museum, New
Press. York: Monacelli Press.
Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (1995), The Museum Pearce, S.M. (1994), Interpreting Objects and
Experience, Washington, D.C.: Whalesback. Collections, London: Routledge.
Hall, T. and Gallagher, P. (2002), "RFID Overview", Shuh, J.H. (1994), “Teaching yourself to teach with
Technical Report, IDC-University of Limerick, objects” in Hooper-Greenhill, E., (Ed.) T h e
April 2002. Educational Role of the Museum, London: Routledge.