Museum+&+Digital+Media+Interaction

Museums & Digital Media Interaction Dan Magerr  I read two digital media museum based articles that I found to be very enlightening. These articles have supportive foundational information of what museums could be like in the future. They are both testing uses of digital media in ways of visitor interaction, learning, and are looking for positive visitor results. At the same time they do have differences in visitor interaction techniques.

 The first article I read was, //Leaving a Trace: Supporting Museum Visitor Interaction and Interpretation with Digital Media Annotation Systems// by Reed Stevens and Sandra Toro Martell. It delves into two digital media annotation systems that visitors interact with. The annotated systems are VideoTraces and ArtTraces in which visitors interact with verbally. “In these annotations, the visitor describes, interprets questions, explains, and notices aspects of the exhibits. Traces become elements of conversations between visitors and between museums and their stakeholder,” (Stevens & Martell, 25). VideoTraces work with video images or moving images while ArtTraces work with still images. With these two systems the authors are hoping for new forms of interaction with visitors that will provide connections between museums and schools for a unique learning and or research experience. This ultimately creates a new tool for museums because visitors interact with the digital media while the traces provide feedback and further information from other visitors which create an exclusive learning experience.

 The other article I read was, //Media in performance: Interactive spaces for dance, theater, circus and museum exhibits,// by Flavia Sparacino, Glorianna Davenport, and Alex Pentland. This article has both similar and contrasting ideas compared to Stevens & Martell article. One of the main challenges of museums is how to have the visitors really interact with the actual exhibit but not be unfocused and or bored with the exhibit readable content. “Traditional storytelling aids for museums have been panels and labels with text placed along the visitors’ path. Yet the majority of visitors express uneasiness with written information. Usually time spent reading labels interrupts the pace of the experience and requires a shift of attention from observing and contemplating to reading and understanding,”(Sparacino, Davenport, & Pentland, 499). Also this article aims at bringing the exhibits and elements to life. To do this some museums have identified ways to help visitors become engaged during their exhibit experience. They have “Information Overlay in Smart Rooms (adding technology to the museum space) and Specialized Interactive Narrative with Smart Clothes (adding technology to the visitor),”(Sparacino, Davenport, & Pentland, 499). These technologies are based on having a digital narrator during the tours that create less effort for reading exhibit material and making the whole learning experience easier. Also another really cool aspect is the Wearable’s where visitors can have digital glasses and keyboards attached somewhere to their clothing. It works by the Wearable recognizing where it is in the museums and then gives you the information. Ultimately this is a digital technology take over where the technology does most of the work by narrating information to the visitor while the visitor is just along for the ride.

 As stated before these articles both compare and contrast from each other in different ways. The biggest similarity I found from these articles is that they are really pushing for more visitor interaction between the exhibits and information. They both want a smooth transition of learning from the visitor identifying the exhibit and then learning the information without being distracted by the burden of having to read the subject content. They want visitors to really enjoy the museum experience by providing cool technology while letting the digital media do most of the work that creates easier learning. These articles are different by the ways they use their digital media technologies. Stevens and Martell use a more visitor input interactive media. It almost compares to a blog where visitors can give their feedback, ask questions, and learn new facts from each other. The Sparacino, Davenport, & Pentland article has a more unique digital media technology where visitors can actually where the media while the media narrates to them. These two articles also compare because they are trying to bring a new learning experience to the table by getting schools and students involved in doing interactive research. They also differ because Sparacino, Davenport, & Pentland is more of a futurist artsy exhibit expression while Stevens and Martell is more of a peer to peer interactive, maybe not directly, but visitors express their ideas to create an abundance of different ideas almost like a graphic organizer of information.

__Leaving a Trace: Supporting Museum Visitor Interaction and Interpretation with Digital Media __ __Annotation Systems,__ Reed Stevens, Sandra Toro Martell, //__The Journal of Museum__ __Education__//Vol. 28, No. 2, Sociocultural Perspectives on Museums Part 2 (Spring - Summer, 2003), pp. 25-31, Published by: Left Coast Press, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40479286

Sparacino, Flavia, Glorianna Davenport, and Alex Pentland. “Media in performance: Interactive spaces for dance, theater, circus, and museum exhibits.” //IBM Systems Journal// 39.3&4 (2000): 479-. http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/393/part1/sparacino.html.