The Research on interactive exhibits, organised by the ScienceCenterNetzwerk, was held at the Technisches Museum Wien on May 25 and 26, 2009.
Download the Programme.

Just some notes on some lectures given on May 25.

The symposium opened with Ian Russell, from Interactive Science, who brought his practical experience proposing some considerations on Interactivity: «Where does “interactivity” start? Pressing buttons, hands-on? Or does interactivity imply possibilities for variation by the visitor? What are research definitions of interactivity?». He proposed to shift from “interaction” to “exploratory behaviour” as a key-model to understand and evaluate exhibits, and to improve their design. Exploratory behaviour is «nature’s way of learning», as can be observed both in animals (ex. cats) and humans, mainly children: «In every man there’s an inner child», Russell said. «Exploration is a journey, not the destination». One relevant point when designing interactive exhibits is to find the right setting between exploration and explanation. Every interactive exhibit implies some rules of engagement, which are perceived by the visitor; sometimes the exhibit requires more exploration, sometimes it requires more explanation.
The slider model for exploration and explanation presented by Russell raised some discussion – but in fact Russell does not read the extremes as alternative, and believes they are both necessary.

James Bradburne captured the attention of the audience presenting some of his past and most recent projects, providing a vivid proof of how interactivity and engagement can be reached in every kind of exhibition – from paintings to fashion – as long as one reads interactivity in terms of: hands-on, minds-on and hearts-on. Interaction belongs to the visitor, rather than to the exhibit itself. He contextualized the 1960s notion of hands on exhibits, as being related to a specific (hidden) cultural assumption, where society was seen as made of individuals, learning was read as primarly individual and individuals were seen as guiding their learning independently. Yet, today an experimental approach is needed. Challenging similar assumptions can lead to the design of engaging environments and displays, having a cultural impact on the visitor.
He presented diverse examples, like the Mine Games, at Vancouver in 1993, or the NeMo, in Amsterdam, 1997, as well as recent projects he developed at Palazzo Strozzi, Florence’s largest temporary exhibition space, of which he is currently the Director General.

In the afternoon, Kristen Ellenbogen, from the Science Museum Minnesota, reflected on «How does design influence interactivity? How does design support an exhibit’s usability / accessability? Can design substitute for extensive instructions, making exhibits self-explanatory? How important is the aesthethic component?». Kirsten, Ph.D in Science Education, among other experiences, was the project director of the Center for Informal Learning & Schools at King’s College London and she served as a founding officer of the Informal Learning Environments Research SIG-American Education Research Association. She is currently the director of the Evaluation and Research in Learning, and in 2009 is becoming president of the Visitor Studies Association, in USA.
After clarifying the terms she used – exhibit (single component), exhibition (the entire show), design (the whole process of designing an exhibition) – she focused on designing interactive exhibits for learning – where learning is fundamentally interactive and interactivity means an exchange between the exhibit and the learner. Though, as she said, it is difficult to measure interactivity, as well as it is impossible to predict who is entering the museum, interactivity can attract visitors, engage them longer. The facets of learning design should engage with are knowledge, talk and identity – for each of these she underlined specific requirements as well as pitfalls. Design for knowledge requires a main message, the introduction of a concept, the concept being reinforced and a familiar representation.

One of the main topic of designing for talk is supporting social interaction, a goal which can be reached, for example, through multi-sided, multi-user and multi-modal exhibits (the image shown by Ellenbogen under Supporting Social Interaction was meant as a bad example: just one/two seat and one computer, while the whole family would like to enjoy together the exhibit). Finally, design should also improve the development of identity – which is «more than words».
Ellenbogen concluded her speech reminding that design should be “universal”: in the US, she said, a high percentage of people suffers of permanent or temporary disability; the challenge, then, is not to develop specific designs for specific targets, but to design exhibits which can be accessible for all.

During the symposium, Sue Allen, from the Exploratorium of San Francisco, presented Designing with Multiple Interactive Features, a work she and Joshua Gutwill conducted, funded by the National Science Foundation (USA).
The presentation – via examples – focused on five common pitfalls that usually affect exhibits’ interactivity with visitors.

.