Discover the captivating blend of art and technology in our exploration of enhancing the gallery experience. We examine the impact of technology on art galleries, considering the needs of diverse visitors. From apps to websites, physical software to paper guides, we evaluate the pros and cons of various digital tools. Our survey reveals valuable insights into visitor preferences, while prototypes showcase iterative design improvements. We discuss the importance of linking apps and websites, consistent aesthetics, and incorporating popular tools like Smartify. Join us in uncovering the evolving landscape of art galleries, as we strive to create a more immersive and personalized experience for all visitors.
PACT Analysis
People - Generally expecting older visitors, tourist and art student to visit,
Activities - School trips, touring,
Contexts- events, opening of a new exhibt, closing of a exhibit for maintenance,
Technologies - an app, website, physical software at the gallery, paper guides, or hired human guides.
Pros and Cons
(+ pros, - cons, = neutral)
Apps
+ environment friendly
+ the guide can be personalized depending on the end user.
+ language can be easily changed for foreign tourist.
- not as accessible for older visitors and people without mobile devices
- it's annoying to download apps for everything
Website
+ could have it be accessed through a QR code scan, meaning separate exhibits could have individual scannable pages.
+ would be able to do most of the things an app would be required to
+ language can be easily changed for foreign tourists.
- would probably need to create an account to have personalization, which could also be annoying to an extent
- not as accessible for older visitors and people without electronic devices
Physical Software
+ no need to have devices to use (i.e., good for the poor and old)
+ can be specifically customized for the gallery.
- a limited amount of people would be able to provide input to physical
software at once
- consumes power
- harder to use for tourists who speak different languages
Paper Guide
+ no need to have devices to use (i.e., good for the poor and old)
+ the guide can be personalized depending on the end user.
+ reliable; once you have one, it's not going to go away for no reason like any of the other things.
- not very environmentally friendly
- harder to use for tourists who speak different languages
Human Guide
+ easiest to use for old people
+ can more easily answer questions
= might be able to speak other languages
- would need paid
- would need breaks and other worker rights
Personas/Scenario
Ralph is a 34-year-old software engineer who lives in a big house, but it looks empty inside. Ralph decides that he would like to fill up some of the empty space with a little modern art as it has always been an interest of his. Ralph looks for local art galleries near him and finds one online. He goes on the website and decides he would like to look for himself. The next day Ralph goes to the gallery. Ralph entered the art gallery and found himself in the reception area where he was offered a paper guide with a map of the gallery and was informed about smartify (an app that would give audio tours of the gallery). Since Ralph is a software engineer, he is very good with technology and decides to download the app and see what it's like. After seeing what the app is like Ralph followed along the main hall, he saw displays on the wall that had QR codes he could scan to go to the gallery website. When he did this it (website stuff). On the website Ralph noticed that there was an AR section, this meant that he could scan the artworks on his phone and learn more about them. As Ralph went into the main art area, he was amazed by all the modern pieces. After he had seen all the artworks in the main area, he took the elevator up to the first floor and found even more outstanding art. Ralph decided he would come back another day to purchase one of the pieces, on his way out he returned the paper guide.
Data Gathering
The survey was conducted with 19 participants to gather insights on their preferences and behaviors regarding art museums and galleries. When asked about the frequency of their visits to art galleries, the majority of respondents (6 people) indicated that they never go, while 4 people mentioned going occasionally, and another 4 people stated they go sometimes. One person reported rare visits, and another individual indicated a combination of occasional, sometimes, and rare visits. Interestingly, 2 participants expressed a higher frequency of gallery visits, rating it as frequent.
Regarding interest in visiting art galleries, the responses varied. Two participants showed no interest, while one person expressed slight interest. Three respondents displayed moderate interest, and two individuals indicated a fair level of interest. One person showed some interest, whereas three participants were quite interested. Furthermore, two individuals were very interested, one person expressed extreme interest, two participants were highly interested, and two others stated they were extremely interested in visiting art galleries.
The survey also explored participants' interest in visiting art galleries with a group. The results showed a range of responses, with five participants expressing no interest in group visits, five individuals showing slight interest, four participants displaying moderate interest, three people indicating a fair level of interest, and two individuals expressing quite an interest in visiting art galleries with a group.
Regarding the use of guides, the survey examined both digital and paper formats. Six respondents expressed a strong likelihood of not using a digital guide on a website, while three participants indicated they were unlikely to use it. On the other hand, four individuals stated they were somewhat likely to use a digital guide, and five participants expressed a likelihood of using it. One person showed a strong likelihood of using a digital guide.
In terms of paper guides, the responses were relatively balanced. Three participants expressed a strong likelihood of not using a paper guide, four individuals indicated they were unlikely to use it, and four participants stated they were somewhat likely to use it. Another four respondents expressed a likelihood of using a paper guide, and four individuals showed a strong likelihood of using it.
The survey also explored participants' inclination to hire a tour guide. The results showed that 11 respondents were very unlikely to hire a tour guide, three participants were unlikely to do so, two individuals expressed a moderate likelihood, and one person indicated a slight likelihood. Additionally, two participants stated they were likely to hire a tour guide
Finally, the survey introduced the "Smartify" app, which provides audio tours and exhibit information through scanning. Regarding the likelihood of downloading and using this app, six participants rated it as very unlikely, three individuals were unlikely, four participants expressed a somewhat likelihood, three individuals indicated a likelihood, and three respondents were moderately likely to download and use the app.
The survey also asked about the interest in using an augmented reality (AR) feature on the museum's website, which shows models of some exhibits. The results indicated that three participants were very unlikely to use this feature, four individuals were unlikely, three respondents expressed a moderate likelihood, two participants were somewhat likely, and seven people showed a strong likelihood of using the AR feature.
Overall, the survey provides insights into participants' art gallery visitation patterns, interest levels, preferences for group visits, usage of guides (digital and paper), likelihood of hiring a tour guide, and interest in digital tools such as the "Smartify" apAp and AR features on museum websites.
Overall, the survey provides insights into participants' art gallery visitation patterns, interest levels, preferences for group visits, usage of guides (digital and paper), likelihood of hiring a tour guide, and interest in digital tools such as the "Smartify" apAp and AR features on museum websites.
Early Prototypes
Prototypes
Finalized Leaflet Design
Finalized Website Design
Evaluation
It would have been better if we put the QR code for the website on the leaflet. Another thing we could have done is have Smartify be linked to website. Throughout the prototypes we made a lot of changes, such as the fonts, colors, backgrounds and images. Every time we made a new prototype, we improved on all these aspects. The survey could have been better if we got more responses as we would then have more variety in answers. It would have been slightly better if we had the design aesthetic on the leaflet be like that of the website to have a more consistent design overall. Something else we could have done is mentioned Smartify on the leaflet. Overall, we each contributed something to the project and worked well as a team.
Thanks for you valuable time!
(Copying and Pasting is strictly prohibited, however you can use it for your knowledge)
This Belongs to (HCI Group 36 Parvat, Fabion, Benjamin, Michael, Rahulkrishna.)
Well done
ReplyDelete