AV in exhibits

[Linda Woodland]

We just began some low-key visitor evaluations regarding our new AV components in one of our permanent galleries at the Higgins - a touch screen quiz, a looping video, and a looping powerpoint. There are some interesting preliminary results - based on visitor tracking, the 3 AV elements are overwhelmingly the most skipped elements of the gallery. Yet, when asked what was the most interesting part of the exhibit the majority of visitors say AV. What should we come away with based on these conflicting responses? Are there any recommended followup evaluations to use to get to the bottom of this? Or should we ignore what visitors say and only look at what they do? Has anyone else had similar findings?

[Robert Kiihne]

That is a really interesting result! Our experience with some kinds of media may be somewhat relevant though may not help. In observations very few visitors will listen to longer sound pieces, but many comment on the looping video and use it more than the instructions on the wall.
We used to have two computer interactives. Visitors gave them good reviews, but oneof them very few visitors actually used and the other did not convey the information we had hoped. I think many visitors put a premium on multimedia even if they do not use it. You could ask about the content of the AV pieces, is there an image visitors see that really strikes a cord?

[Linda Woodland]

Hm, that sounds to be along similar lines as our findings. I think that people are generally bombarded from everywhere with how technology heals all wounds, so when they see it in a museum setting the mere fact that it's there is enough to convey the idea of high tech - and therefore it's good. I think it can almost be likened to checking off an item on a list.
We started asking people if they had the video showing someone getting dressed in armor, combined with the aid of a squire (as shown in the video), could they get dressed in armor? Most people said yes - after confirming that they would get a squire. No extra confirmation needed that they would get the video.

[mstrumpf]

I have one thought that you might want to consider, and that is what do people consider "AV"? We had a question on our teacher feedback forms for school programs asking about what they thought of the use of video in the program. Many times we received responses that there was none and we should not add any, when actually we used powerpoint throughout the program. We have tried rewording the question, but still sometimes get that kind of response.

How does this apply to exhibits? I've seen some really great use of AV and computers in exhibits, but if you asked me about it, I would not have said that I liked the computer thing I did. That's because the good stuff I have seen is not obviously a computer. Good AV could be an interactive or simply changeable "label". So, it may be how the questions are asked, when you ask about AV are your visitors really thinking about the same thing you are?

Now having said that, your results still confuse me. My expectations would be just the opposite from what you found. I would think that many people would spend time with AV and then say that they would prefer to see "real" stuff not realizing how much AV they interacted with. So, if you were expecting something else, your not alone.

As to how to handle it, as Robert Kiihne wrote, try asking about the content. Separate out the means, whether AV or an artifact, from the message, and ask about the message. See if you can treat each form equally in your questions. So, you could ask a question about what did you learn about in the exhibit and then ask then to share what elements were part of that learning.