Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
“Run mummy run”:
communicative tensions in digital museum
installations that elicit visitor contributions
Areti Galani
Int...
Can interactivity antagonise
participation and
how can accessible technology
lead to inaccessible
participation paradigms?
Will a doodle ever become
a ‘contribution’ and when
does a contribution become
part of the ‘narrative’?
Great North Run
 Largest half marathon in the world
 One of the longest running half
marathons – started in 1981
 Inclu...
Design Brief
 different forms of participation
 what it means to be part of the Run
 personal reflection and contributi...
9 meters of ‘interactive’ table
2 large display screens with keypads
13 single-touch touch screens
9 sets of Anoto pen...
1 participatory website
2 types of participatory content
 participatory seed content and moderated VGC
2 contribution routes
 website and table
4 contribution formats
 photographs and typed text (website)
 drawings and h...
 93 days: July-October 2010
 c.60,000 in-gallery users (including viewers)
 13,000 contributions
 55 online contributions – all published
 c.13,000 in-gallery contributions – c.1,100 published
Mini exit interviews
20 x 5-10min exit interviews day
before run
▫ Families and runners
▫ Observed interaction
▫ Informal...
Interviews
10 in depth interviews with
runners
▫ Run & running
▫ Exhibition
▫ Installation
▫ Website
Written contributions analysis
275 written contributions
Can interactivity antagonise participation?
 Space-wise the table was grouped with the other
‘interactives’ in the galler...
How can accessible technology lead to
inaccessible participation paradigms?
 Pen+pad a very familiar technology embedded ...
Will a doodle ever become a ‘contribution’?
 In the eyes of the adults, doodles were the
contributions of the children
 ...
When does a contribution become part of
the ‘narrative’?
 Many interrelated emerging narratives
▫ Insiders and outsiders:...
Please insert participatory
installation here
Exhibition space
Empathetic
Situated
Embedded
Thank you!
areti.galani@ncl.ac.uk
r.clarke@ncl.ac.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

“Run mummy run” - communicative tensions in digital museum installations that elicit visitor contributions by Areti Galani and Rachel Clarke

387 views

Published on

Conference presentation for iSay event: The shape of things, University of Leicester, 31 Jan. - 1 Feb. 2013 (http://isayevents.wordpress.com/shapeofthings/).

Published in: Design, Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

“Run mummy run” - communicative tensions in digital museum installations that elicit visitor contributions by Areti Galani and Rachel Clarke

  1. 1. “Run mummy run”: communicative tensions in digital museum installations that elicit visitor contributions Areti Galani International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies Rachel Clarke Digital Interaction Group @ Culture Lab
  2. 2. Can interactivity antagonise participation and how can accessible technology lead to inaccessible participation paradigms?
  3. 3. Will a doodle ever become a ‘contribution’ and when does a contribution become part of the ‘narrative’?
  4. 4. Great North Run  Largest half marathon in the world  One of the longest running half marathons – started in 1981  Inclusive – pitched at all abilities  50,000 runners each year
  5. 5. Design Brief  different forms of participation  what it means to be part of the Run  personal reflection and contribution
  6. 6. 9 meters of ‘interactive’ table 2 large display screens with keypads 13 single-touch touch screens 9 sets of Anoto pens and pads
  7. 7. 1 participatory website
  8. 8. 2 types of participatory content  participatory seed content and moderated VGC
  9. 9. 2 contribution routes  website and table 4 contribution formats  photographs and typed text (website)  drawings and hand-written text (table) 4 ways to view own content  own pad page, touch screens, big screens, website 3 ways to view other people’s content  touch screens, big screens, website
  10. 10.  93 days: July-October 2010  c.60,000 in-gallery users (including viewers)  13,000 contributions
  11. 11.  55 online contributions – all published  c.13,000 in-gallery contributions – c.1,100 published
  12. 12. Mini exit interviews 20 x 5-10min exit interviews day before run ▫ Families and runners ▫ Observed interaction ▫ Informal ▫ Background & experience of the run ▫ Experience of the exhibition and the installation
  13. 13. Interviews 10 in depth interviews with runners ▫ Run & running ▫ Exhibition ▫ Installation ▫ Website
  14. 14. Written contributions analysis 275 written contributions
  15. 15. Can interactivity antagonise participation?  Space-wise the table was grouped with the other ‘interactives’ in the gallery  At the edge of the ‘kids’ section’  Concern (among adults) re: failing to operate the technology in public
  16. 16. How can accessible technology lead to inaccessible participation paradigms?  Pen+pad a very familiar technology embedded in an unfamiliar set-up ▫ Curiosity/urgency to interact preceded desire to contribute ▫ Pen-happy visitors ▫ Opportunistic contributions – loads of! ▫ Repeat contributions – people wanted to give it another try ▫ Overload of interactions at busy times that led the system to crash
  17. 17. Will a doodle ever become a ‘contribution’?  In the eyes of the adults, doodles were the contributions of the children  Moderation adjusted according to volume
  18. 18. When does a contribution become part of the ‘narrative’?  Many interrelated emerging narratives ▫ Insiders and outsiders: taking part in the run/archive ▫ Public expression of support for friends/family runners ▫ Returning the favour to the audience ▫ Personal reflection  Temporary co-existence with museum narratives of celebration
  19. 19. Please insert participatory installation here Exhibition space
  20. 20. Empathetic Situated Embedded
  21. 21. Thank you! areti.galani@ncl.ac.uk r.clarke@ncl.ac.uk

×