What Constitutes a Good Museum Web Exhibition? The User Perspective

GUNHILD HAMMERAAS

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science, Cultural Heritage Studies Glasgow Caledonian University September 2006

Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout the months of research and writing I have received various forms of support from many people and for this I am forever grateful.

My first thanks goes to the twenty five individuals who participated in my research. The feedback they provided has been of invaluable importance, and despite having to spend three to four hours on my project after their full working days I did not receive a single complaint. I hope to be equally lucky the next time I go hunting for research participants.

I would also like to thank Deichmanske Library Majorstuen, the Norwegian University Library of Life Sciences, Bioforsk - Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, and Gjennestad College of Horticulture for letting me use their rooms and computer facilities for my focus group sessions. Thank you also to Bent Rønningen who supplied me with head phones, and Kristin Gjesdal and my parents Åshild and Bonsak Hammeraas who helped me locate several of the focus group participants.

A special thank you goes to my dear boyfriend Dwayne Martins who has been a great support through my highs and lows in this research project. Thank you also for the enormous amount of time you spent reading through and commenting upon my written work. I do not know what I would have done without your help and encouragement.

I would like to acknowledge the importance and appreciation of the advice received from my supervisor Professor Fiona McLean, and thank my fellow classmates for plenty of discussions and support in moments of frustration. Lastly, thank you to the Heyerdahl Institute in Norway for economical support for the entire MSc Cultural Heritage Studies degree.

MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006

ii

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study investigates into which Web exhibition elements Web users believe constitute a good museum Web exhibition. The amount of literature concerning Web exhibitions is limited and the literature focusing on the Web users’ perspectives is even scarcer. To create a good quality Web exhibition that will be used and appreciated by the public it is important to understand the needs and expectations of the Web users. Twenty five adult Web users of various ages and backgrounds participated in this study. They were divided into four focus groups and presented with three selected Web exhibitions which they were to investigate. Before doing this, the participants shared their previous experiences with, knowledge about, and expectations towards such exhibitions. After investigating the Web exhibitions they discussed which exhibition aspects they perceived as good and bad, and suggested improvements. Notes from the participants and transcripts of the audio recorded discussions provided the data for the study. Based upon an analysis of these, a list of recommendations for the creation of good quality future museum Web exhibitions was developed.

Key findings show that having an appealing front page is crucial. Navigation possibilities should be easy to comprehend and the Web users should be able to navigate through the Web exhibition according to personal interests. The layout of the Web exhibition should be consistent throughout; utilising multimedia. Interactivity should be incorporated, and the design should be in accordance with the needs and expectations of the intended target group. The Web exhibition should provide a section explaining the context of the exhibition theme as well as the context of the Web exhibition itself. It should also refer to the information sources for the exhibition contents as this ascertains the Web exhibition’s credibility.

MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006

iii

Declaration

DECLARATION I declare that this dissertation is substantially my own work. Where reference has been made to the work of others the extent to which that work has been used has been duly acknowledged in the text and the bibliography. The length of this dissertation, excluding bibliography and appendices, does not exceed 15, 000 words.

Gunhild Hammeraas

Date

MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, Glasgow Caledonian University

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

iv

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

II

ABSTRACT

III

DECLARATION

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

V

1 INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 USER EVALUATION 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1.4 FOCUS GROUPS AND WEB EXHIBITIONS

2 3 3 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

6

2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.2 THE INTERNET AND WORLD WIDE WEB 2.2.1 DEVELOPMENT 2.2.2 TERMINOLOGY 2.2.3 FEATURES AND QUALITIES 2.3 MUSEUMS’ USE OF INTERNET AND THE WWW 2.3.1 REASONS FOR HAVING A WEB PRESENCE 2.3.2 IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING A WEB PRESENCE 2.4 WEB EXHIBITIONS 2.4.1 WEB EXHIBITIONS VS. MUSEUM COLLECTIONS ON THE WEB 2.4.2 WEB EXHIBITIONS VS. GALLERY EXHIBITIONS 2.4.3 WEB EXHIBITIONS TODAY 2.5 WEB EXHIBITION VISITORS 2.5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF MUSEUM WEB SITE AND WEB EXHIBITION VISITORS 2.5.2 WEB VISITORS’ USE OF MUSEUM WEB SITES AND WEB EXHIBITIONS 2.5.3 USER EXPECTATIONS REGARDING MUSEUM WEB SITES AND WEB EXHIBITIONS 2.5.4 DETERMINING WHAT WEB EXHIBITION USERS ARE INTERESTED IN 2.6 MUSEUM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF WEB EXHIBITIONS 2.6.1 DEVELOPMENT 2.6.2 EVALUATION 2.7 CONCLUSION

6 7 7 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 20

3 METHODOLOGY

21

3.1 INSTRUMENTATION 3.2 SAMPLING 3.2.1 WEB EXHIBITIONS 3.2.2 FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS 3.3 PREPARATIONS 3.4 PROCEDURES AND DATA COLLECTION

21 22 22 24 25 26

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

v

Table of contents 3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 3.6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 3.6.1 VALIDITY 3.6.2 RELIABILITY

28 29 29 30

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

31

4.1 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF WEB EXHIBITIONS 4.2 EXPECTATIONS REGARDING CONTENT AND DESIGN 4.3 PRESENTATION DESIGN 4.3.1 TEXT 4.3.2 ILLUSTRATIONS 4.3.3 VIDEO AND SOUND 4.3.4 ORAL HISTORY AND PERSONAL TESTIMONIES 4.3.5 FRONT PAGE 4.4 INFORMATION DESIGN 4.4.1 MENU AND PRINCIPAL OF STRUCTURE 4.4.2 HIERARCHY OF INFORMATION 4.4.3 NAVIGATION POSSIBILITIES 4.5 INTERACTION DESIGN 4.6 INFORMATION CONTENT 4.6.1 THEME 4.6.2 CONTEXT 4.6.3 INFORMATION SOURCES AND CREDIBILITY 4.6.4 LAST UPDATED 4.7 TECHNICAL ISSUES 4.8 WHAT IS A WEB EXHIBITION?

31 32 33 33 36 38 39 41 42 42 43 44 45 48 48 48 49 50 51 53

5 CONCLUSION

54

5.1 KEY FINDINGS 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2.1 DESIGN ELEMENTS AND MULTIMEDIA 5.2.2 NAVIGATION 5.2.3 INFORMATION CONTENT 5.2.4 TECHNICAL ISSUES 5.2.5 INTERACTIVITY 5.2.6 OVERALL DESIGN 5.3 FUTURE RESEARCH

54 55 55 56 57 58 58 58 59

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF WEB EXHIBITIONS AND FEATURES

67

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS

70

APPENDIX 3: EXCERPT FROM FOCUS GROUP SESSION

72

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

vi

Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION Since the 1990s museums’ use of the Internet as a means of communicating with the public has increased (Bearman and Trant 1999, Pierroux 1999). Today most museums are represented on the Web (Cunliffe et al 2001) and several museums offer what is more or less known as Web exhibitions. A Web exhibition can be understood as an exhibition that takes place on the Web rather than in a physical gallery space. Just like gallery exhibitions Web exhibitions present a selection of objects as well as interpretations of these. This can be done through a variety and mix of different media elements, for example text, sound and images. Some museums also present their entire collections on the Web; often as searchable databases. These are however not Web exhibitions as Web exhibitions only include a selected number of artefacts. In a Web exhibition these artefacts also appear in a certain context; a story (Kalfatovic 2002, Hollekim 2001). The nature of Web exhibitions is elaborated upon in chapter 2, literature review.

As presenting exhibitions on the Web is a fairly new phenomenon museums in general have limited experience with regards to creating such exhibitions. Literature concerning the subject is almost non-existing and in order to create Web exhibitions museum professionals usually have to turn to literature discussing the creation of Web applications in general, or utilise their knowledge regarding the construction of gallery exhibitions. Some museums may choose to acquire help from professional Web application developers (Soren 2005). These, however, also have limited knowledge about creating Web exhibitions as they normally base their Web application development on design and presentation principles concerning Web applications in general. It cannot be stated with certainty that solutions applicable to other Web applications work equally well regarding Web exhibitions. Thus, there is a need for an

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

1

Introduction investigation into which elements actually constitute a good Web exhibition. Such an investigation will provide Web exhibition developers with more reliable information concerning the creation of Web exhibitions. This research project sets out to generate such information. This is done by investigating what Web users experience as positive and negative aspects regarding a selection of Web exhibitions. As this project especially considers the Web exhibition genre its results will be able to offer future Web exhibition developers information regarding Web exhibition design that is more reliable than the general design and presentation principles they have based their work upon previously.

1.1 User evaluation If consumers do not like a product they will not buy it. Because of this user evaluation has become a well-established approach towards acquiring information about the success of a product in most product orientated businesses (Kelly 2001, Bryman 2004). This way of thinking can easily be transferred to museums as they also offer a range of products. These products include gallery exhibitions, guided tours, information leaflets and cafeteria facilities. If visitors are not satisfied with what they encounter they might not return and through negative comments they might also prevent others from visiting. It is easy to see that ensuring visitor satisfaction is important. Web exhibitions constitute yet another museum product and thus it is important to ensure visitor satisfaction also in relation to these. If a Web exhibition does not appeal to the Web user the Web user will most probably leave the exhibition and browse the Web for something else to engage in (Kalfatovic 2002). In such instances the museum will loose an opportunity to communicate the exhibition message; a message the museum found important enough to create a Web exhibition about. To ensure overall visitor satisfaction museums in general have become quite good at and accustomed to conducting visitor surveys within the gallery space itself. Other times they might get a group of visitors to

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

2

Introduction take part in the process of developing a product; providing the museum with user feedback. However, with regards to Web exhibitions this approach has been almost non-existent. As museums have limited knowledge regarding what constitutes a good Web exhibition it is of importance that they start evaluating their Web exhibitions from the Web users’ point of view.

1.2 Research question This dissertation will investigate into what Web users experience as positive and negative aspects regarding Web exhibitions. The topic was chosen because ultimately any Web exhibition is aimed towards a set of Web users. Thus, in order to ensure the development of good quality Web exhibitions, museums should take the Web users’ views into consideration in the development process. Web user feedback is of vital importance for the production of a good quality product. Based on this the research question is: Which elements do Web users believe constitute a good museum Web exhibition? The researcher seeks to understand whether or not Web users share some common views regarding this, and what these views might be.

1.3 Aims and objectives With regards to the research question the principal aims of this research project are: •

to investigate what Web users expect to encounter when visiting Web exhibitions.

•

to investigate what Web users perceive as being positive and negative aspects of Web exhibition, and why.

The objectives of this research project are: •

to analyse and discuss opinions regarding museum Web exhibitions from a selection of Web users.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

3

Introduction •

to obtain examples of aspects related to museum Web exhibitions that Web users believe influence the quality of such Web exhibitions.

•

based upon the feedback from the Web users, to create a list of recommendations regarding how to design good quality museum Web exhibitions that respond to the needs and expectations of the users of such exhibitions.

1.4 Focus groups and Web exhibitions To acquire an understanding of Web users’ views about Web exhibitions the researcher chose to obtain data by conducting focus groups. The focus groups constituted of Web users from both genders as well as different ages and backgrounds. A total of twenty five Web users participated, divided into four focus groups. In order to obtain information from as many different Web users as possible each focus group participant was purposely selected by the researcher. Each focus group was divided up into three sections. In the first section the researcher asked the focus group participants about their previous knowledge about and their expectations towards Web exhibitions. In the second section the participants were presented with three Web exhibitions that previously had been selected by the researcher. The participants got 1,5 hours to investigate these. Based upon a set of questions provided by the researcher the focus group participants in the third section discussed their experiences from investigating these exhibitions. They also commented upon positive and negative aspects regarding these. The Web exhibitions chosen for this research project presented three different topics: the Stone Age, Borregaardsamfunnet – a working class society during the inter-war years, and market life in West Africa. In addition the exhibitions included a wide variety of design aspects and an assortment of navigation possibilities. This gave the focus group participants something to compare and helped initiate and maintain the discussion.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

4

Introduction The literature review chapter, chapter 2, provides an overview of the existing literature relevant to the creation and design of Web exhibitions. The selection of focus group participants and Web exhibitions is elaborated upon in chapter 3, methodology. Following the focus group sessions the researcher transcribed and analysed the feedback from the research participants. Findings from this are presented in chapter 4, results and discussion. Chapter 5, conclusions, presents a list of aspects that the Web users deemed important for the creation of a good quality Web exhibition. The researcher hopes that this list will be of use to future museum Web exhibition developers in their aim towards creating museum Web exhibitions that appeal and respond to the expectations of a Web audience.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

5

Literature review

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction As Web exhibitions is a fairly new phenomenon the amount of relevant literature is limited. Research specifically concerning Web exhibitions is scarce and most is based on one or a few case studies. Many projects also cover Web applications in general or museums’ use of ‘new technologies’. It is questionable whether findings from these investigations also are applicable to and valid for Web exhibitions. Only a few projects consider the user’s perspective. Papers presented at Museums and the Web, an annual conference for museum professionals and softand hardware developers to discuss their latest experiences regarding using Web and other new technologies in a museum context, mostly also present individual or small scale studies. A similar tendency is found in journal articles.

A consequence of the limited amount of research on Web exhibitions is that few books discuss this subject. They mostly cover issues related to Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) in general and only dedicate a few paragraphs to Web exhibitions. Still, some practical books on how to create good Web exhibitions exist.

This review presents some of the existing discussions regarding Web exhibitions. First, a historical introduction to the Internet and WWW is given; followed by a discussion regarding why museums make use of these technologies. The next section presents the Web exhibitions genre; succeeded by an investigation of who the Web exhibition visitors might be. The last section discusses how museums develop and evaluate their Web exhibitions.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

6

Literature review

2.2 The Internet and World Wide Web 2.2.1 Development Today most individuals are well acquainted with the Internet and WWW. These technologies seem like a natural part of society, but it has not always been that way. The Internet was conceived in 1979 when the ARPA computer network, devised as a military communication system, was opened up and developed into a system for communication between networks in academic and research communities (Pierroux 1998). Since then the number of connected networks and computers has increased dramatically. From 2000-2005 the World’s Internet usage increased with 183,4%, and 31 March 2006 a total of 1,022,863,307 computers worldwide were connected. More people are connected in North America and Europe than in the rest of the World (Internet World Stats 2006). Today most schools and libraries in these continents are connected to the Internet, enabling more people than only those owning a personal computer to access Web applications.

2.2.2 Terminology When discussing Internet and WWW most people tend to mix up the two technologies. ‘Internet’ is actually the name of a standard used for connecting computers and smaller networks into one shared network (Fagerjord 2006: 17). This dissertation also uses ‘Internet’ to describe the totality of these computers and networks. ‘WWW’ describes the standard used to transmit documents via the Internet (Fagerjord 2006: 17). It is thus an Internet service used for communication. Since the early 1990s WWW has been the most dominating standard. Web applications are information entities designed specifically for the WWW standard. Most Web exhibitions are communicated through this standard. They encompass several Web pages, which is everything the Web user sees on her computer screen at one specific time.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

7

Literature review

2.2.3 Features and qualities Every new technology has its own inherent qualities. The Web is characterised by incorporating many forms of media into one medium, such as text, sounds, images, video, radio and television. This convergence of different media is known as multimedia (Fagerjord 2006: 20, Erichsen 2003). Through multimedia the Web can juxtapose and connect ideas in different ways (Dierking and Falk 1998). For navigational purposes hyperlinks can be utilised. These offer multiple pathways through the Web’s available information (Perlin 1998). When activating hyperlinks users interact with the Web. Simultaneously they produce their own route through the information (Thomas and Mintz 1998), often known as “surfing” (Gradwohl and Feldman 1998). This differs from traditional media where users have few possibilities for navigation and control. The Web can also offer opportunities for users to interact with each other (Erichsen 2003: 321, Mintz 1998, Perlin 1998).

Because the Internet consists of an increasing number of computers the amount of information that can be published is immeasurable. More information can be available at one time through Internet and Web technologies than possible in any other traditional media (Mintz 1998). It can also be tailored to specific interests (Gradwohl and Feldman 1998) with various degrees of depth of information (Dierking and Falk 1998). Anybody with a computer connected to the Internet can economically communicate and easily update information (Mintz 1998). The Internet and WWW are flexible technologies that encourage stronger user interaction than other traditional media. This flexibility presents opportunities for new ways of storytelling (Mintz 1998, Dierking and Falk 1998).

2.3 Museums’ use of Internet and the WWW The museum sector started embracing the Internet from 1993 (Bearman and Trant 1999). The following years the first museum Web sites were developed, mostly consisting of text and a Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

8

Literature review few images (Pierroux 1999: 88). Gradually museum staff became more familiarized with the technology and they quickly developed a deeper interest in having a Web presence (Pierroux 1999: 88). Today most museums are presented on the Web (Cunliffe et al 2001). Many have a Web site of their own, or they publish information on other pages (CHIN 2005). The size, content and design of museum Web sites vary substantially between museums. This may be related to the museums’ internal knowledge regarding Web publishing. Infrastructure and awareness concerning Information and Communications Technology (ICT) often vary between large and small museums and between rural and urban museums. Large or urban museums usually have more resources for Web publishing (SMC 2004: 10). The main development, however, is that museum Web sites are becoming richer in content and increasingly more complex in design and interface (Pierroux 1998).

2.3.1 Reasons for having a Web presence In 1998 Palmyre Pierroux investigated how art museums utilised WWW. She found that most museums used the Web to publish practical visitor information concerning opening hours, gallery exhibitions and such. Some also incorporated information aimed towards Web visitors, such as Web exhibitions or possibilities to search digitalised collections databases. The rationale behind Web publication was usually to increase visitor awareness regarding the existence of the museum and its services, aiming to attract more gallery visitors. The museums thus considered the Web presence a valuable marketing tool (Pierroux 1998). As this is a somewhat old study questions regarding how well these findings match museums’ rationale for having a Web presence today can be raised.

Other studies related to museums’ Web presence highlight the possibilities lying ahead. Perlin (1998) claims that by merely focusing on Web applications aimed at attracting gallery

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

9

Literature review visitors, museums overlook individuals who are unable to physically make it there. Perlin sees the Web as a natural place for presenting information relevant to distant audiences. As presenting information on the Web is inexpensive, maintaining a Web presence would provide a good opportunity, especially for small museums, to reach larger audiences (Perlin 1998). This view was also stated in 1995 by the then Director of the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of American Art, Elizabeth Broun (Noack 1995 in Witcomb 2003). The Web also provides possibilities for reaching multiple users (Witcomb 2003) and information can be tailored to various target groups. Perlin (1998) also envisions possibilities for providing access to museum artefacts not displayed in the physical gallery space, as well as presenting more information about each object (Perlin 1998). Increasing access to the museums’ artefacts and knowledge is in keeping with the definition of a museum: … an institution in service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment (ICOM 2005). The Web is also used to publish material relevant for educational bodies (Pierroux 1998, McElearney 2004).

2.3.2 Implications of having a Web presence Museums have historically been perceived as solid, autonomous institutions providing true knowledge. Having a Web presence questions this autonomy. Compared to museums’ hierarchical structure, reason and order, the Web is chaotic (Witcomb 2003). While some museum professionals see this as a threat (McDavid 1997) others perceive it as an opportunity for museums to overcome the ‘unassailable voice’ (Witcomb 2003). This is the authoritative voice traditionally used by museums when interpreting their collections; suppressing other interpretations (Walsh 1997). The Web could be utilised to change the perception of museums

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

10

Literature review as mausoleums. By presenting objects on the Web and making use of its hypertextual qualities Web site visitors could be imbued with the opportunity to choose the information and interpretation found most appealing to themselves (Witcomb 2003). Nevertheless, museums must always provide correct information to choose from. In this sense museums hold on to their institutional authority. As anybody with an Internet connection can publish information on the Web people need trustworthy institutions like museums to present reliable knowledge (Walsh 1997).

2.4 Web exhibitions Due to the novelty of the Web and all its applications a universal use of terminology related to Web exhibitions is difficult to locate. Different concepts have been used to describe this genre of Web applications: Web exhibitions (Pierroux 1998, 1999), online exhibitions (Kalfatovic 2002, Cameron 2001, Gradwohl and Feldman 1998), virtual exhibitions (Silver 1997, Thomas and Boily 1998), electronic exhibitions and digital collections (Keene 1998), virtual museums (Witcomb 2003, Hazan 2001), and Web spaces (CHIN 2005). There is definitely a need for a clearer understanding of the term and how it is used in this dissertation.

2.4.1 Web exhibitions vs. museum collections on the Web Supported by Martin R. Kalfatovic (2002) art sociologist Dag Solhjell states the importance of distinguishing between museum collections on the Web and Web exhibitions (Hollekim 2001). The main difference is that museum collections on the Web mainly are databases used to searching for artefacts in the museums’ collections. They have no organisational structure as such (Hollekim 2001). Web exhibitions, however, present a selection of objects within a structural framework, in the context of a specific story. This provides a tight connection

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

11

Literature review between the artefacts (Kalfatovic 2002). A thematic interface provides extended possibilities for interpretation and meaning-making related to the presented artefacts (Cameron 2001).

2.4.2 Web exhibitions vs. gallery exhibitions Another issue related to the definition of a Web exhibition is whether or not it has an equivalent in the gallery space itself. Early Web exhibitions were mostly structured similar to gallery exhibitions, often incorporating a map or a floor plan to help the Web exhibition visitor navigate (Pierroux 1998). The study of the Smithsonian Institution’s Web adaptation of their gallery exhibition ‘Ocean Planet’ shows this approach (Gradwohl and Feldman 1998). One main finding was that direct Web adaptation of a gallery exhibition is troublesome. As the Web promotes non-linearity and encourages user choice a lot of the material from the gallery exhibition had to be rewritten and restructured (Gradwohl and Feldman 1998). Silver (1997) believes that the role of Web exhibitions ultimately is to extend gallery exhibitions (Silver 1997: 848). This is to some extent acknowledged by Gradwohl and Feldman (1998) who appreciate using Web exhibitions to provide more information than in gallery exhibitions. However, they dispute that Web exhibitions should replicate the design of gallery exhibitions. Mintz on the other hand, believes that applications designed for use outside the gallery space should be entirely self-contained (Mintz 1998). Nevertheless, Web exhibitions with no physical counterpart, that resemble gallery exhibitions still exist (MUVA Virtual Museum of Arts 1997, Hazan 2001).

2.4.3 Web exhibitions today Many museums now present Web exhibitions and the number increases. Some organisations, such as the Virtual Museum of Canada (VMC), even specialise in this. Unlike gallery

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

12

Literature review exhibitions, Web exhibitions are accessible around the clock (Thomas and Boily 1998). This offers museums an immeasurable amount of possible Web exhibition visitors.

2.5 Web exhibition visitors Who Web exhibition visitors are is largely unexplored. This might be connected with museums’ lack of resources to carry out investigations (Pierroux 1999) or because such studies are not considered important (Cunliffe et al 2001: 232).

2.5.1 Characteristics of museum Web site and Web exhibition visitors One might presume that Web exhibition visitors have the same characteristics as gallery visitors. This notion has however not been established and more research should be directed towards revealing the true characteristics of Web visitors (Cunliffe et al 2001: 232).

Despite limited research regarding Web exhibition visitors there have been a few investigations regarding museum Web site visitors. In 1997 Futers posted a survey on the Virtual Library Museums Pages (Pierroux 1999). Findings showed that nearly half of the visitors were women and that the average visitor was 40 – 64 years of age. However, as Web sites vary regarding purpose and intended target groups it is likely that visitor profiles will vary accordingly (Cunliffe et al 2001: 233). As visitor surveys conducted via a Web questionnaire normally are self selecting, the respondents might not even form a representative sample of the overall population of Web site visitors (Cunliffe et al 2001: 233). Consequently, few museum Web site visitor characteristics can be stated with certainty. Museums, however, generally comprehend that Web site visitors have a heterogeneous character (Perlin 1998). To some extent museums are also aware that a ‘digital divide’

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

13

Literature review between people in different demographic groups and geographic locations still exists (McDavid 2004).

As the studies presented here concern Web site visitors and not Web exhibition visitors it is questionable whether or not these findings also can be used to describe Web exhibition visitors.

2.5.2 Web visitors’ use of museum Web sites and Web exhibitions One of the most recent surveys regarding museum Web site users was undertaken in 2004 by the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN). The survey aimed to discover why people visit museum Web sites, and how those visits are linked to physical museum visits. Results showed that 36% of the Web site visitors used the Web sites to look for Web exhibitions. This was in great contrast to museum visitors of whom only 6% used museum Web sites to find Web exhibitions. Instead they mainly used the Web sites to plan physical visits (50%). 26% however said that they would look for Web exhibitions as a follow-up to their physical visit (CHIN 2005). This survey reveals that an audience interested in Web exhibitions exists.

A 2000 investigation of the National Museum of Science & Industry, UK, museum Web site builds up under the CHIN survey’s finding that Web users consult museum Web sites when planning a physical museum visit (Streten 2000). In addition Web sites might be used for browsing and learning (Chadwick and Bowerie 1999 in Streten 2000), and for making enquiries (Cunliffe et al 2001). Few people visit museum Web sites because this is more comfortable and flexible than an actual museum visit (Futers 1997 in Pierroux 1999). Despite

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

14

Literature review mentioning some uses of museum Web sites the surveys say nothing about how Web exhibitions are used.

2.5.3 User expectations regarding museum Web sites and Web exhibitions A few investigations of user expectations regarding museum Web sites and Web exhibitions have been conducted. The fact that most of these surveys utilise different categorical descriptions however makes it difficult to get a clear understanding of these expectations (Cunliffe et al 2001: 233). Despite this, most surveys agree that Web site users expect some level of interaction and that they are not satisfied when information is delivered passively (Bearman and Trant 1999). Today people use the Web regularly and have grown accustomed to interactivity. Web Users in 2006 are thus becoming increasingly more sophisticated regarding their expectations towards all Web applications (Carey and Jeffrey 2006).

2.5.4 Determining what Web exhibition users are interested in To better understand what interests Web exhibition users one should investigate specifically into this. For this purpose CHIN developed a method called Content Scope Evaluation (CHIN 2004). Utilising this, museums would create a questionnaire presenting the topics of a Web exhibition. They would then get members from the target audience to comment upon these, rate how important or valuable the topics are, and come up with ideas for additional topics. Museums incorporating this methodology when creating a Web exhibition would obtain useful information regarding whether or not they are meeting the expectations of their target audience. They could then use this information to make the necessary changes. However, for this methodology to work the museums must be clear about who its target groups are. As outlined above it is not always easy to ascertain who the Web exhibition visitors will be.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

15

Literature review Nevertheless, this methodology provides a good first step towards a more user centred development of Web exhibitions.

In order to see whether or not museums do take Web exhibition users’ views, expectations and interests regarding Web exhibitions into consideration one has to investigate how museums actually develop these exhibitions, and how they evaluate them.

2.6 Museum development and evaluation of Web exhibitions 2.6.1 Development Museums still have limited expertise regarding creating Web exhibitions. Consequently several of them hire Web designers to take care of the exhibition’s visual expression and let museum staff develop the content. Others let the museum staff create both. However, few resources provide advice regarding how to do this. Mostly one is referred to books discussing media or Web design in general (Kalfatovic 2002, Erichsen 2003) and it is uncertain if this general advice is optimal for creating Web exhibitions.

In 1997 the organisation Archives & Museum Informatics published a set of questions to consider when developing museum multimedia applications (Trant 1997). However, the list provides no recommendations regarding how to address these questions. Nor is it clarified how the organisation developed the list and why these particular questions were considered relevant. Thus, this list does not provide sufficiently reliable information about creating good Web exhibitions. Similarly, the Handbook for Quality in Cultural Web Sites (Minerva 2003) proposes a set of criteria regarding cultural Web applications in general. However, recommendations specifically related to Web exhibitions are not made. It is not certain that advice regarding general Web applications is best also for developing good Web exhibitions.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

16

Literature review Although a lot of guidelines regarding general design and structure exist (Keene 1998) it is difficult to know which of these guidelines are relevant to the development of Web exhibitions if they have not particularly been derived from explorations of this medium (Cunliffe et al 2001).

A book that aims to provide advice specifically related to Web exhibitions is Martin R. Kalfatovic’s Creating a Winning Online Exhibition: A Guide for Libraries, Archives and Museums (2002). The title reveals that this book should cover relevant information. However, it does not refer to museum Web exhibitions at all; it only concerns exhibitions for libraries and archives. As these institutions collect objects of another character than museum objects the relevance of this book regarding the development of museum Web exhibitions can be questioned. Nevertheless, it might be a good starting point.

The designers of Web exhibitions might be very different from the actual Web exhibition visitors. Ultimately the success of a Web exhibition rests on how the users perceive it (Keene 1998). Consequently, museums should evaluate their Web exhibitions by consulting the users (Cunliffe et al 2001), considering their feedback (Keene 1998).

2.6.2 Evaluation The literature shows few examples of Web exhibition evaluation. Web site evaluation, however, is more common.

The most common way of measuring Web site, including Web exhibition, success is by evaluating quantitative data (Cunliffe et al 2001: 236). Using computer software registering Web site ‘hits’ – number of visits to each particular Web page within a Web site or Web

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

17

Literature review exhibition – produces statistical data showing which Web pages are most popular, navigation routes, length of stay at each page etc. However, no information regarding the users’ feelings towards and experiences with the Web site or Web exhibition is obtained. Log analysis should therefore be backed by research investigating the qualitative aspects of the user experience (Cunliffe et al 2001: 241).

Since 2001 CHIN has developed various strategies and tools for determining audience engagement with Web exhibitions presented at the Virtual Museum of Canada (VMC) Web site (Carey and Jeffrey 2006). Initially these initiatives mostly utilised quantitative methods. The organisation however realised that this provided insufficient feedback regarding the Web exhibitions’ effectiveness and thus developed a method for measuring qualitative data. By registering domain names CHIN obtained knowledge about which institution the users accessed the VMC exhibitions from, and by investigating words used in Web site searches it received knowledge about what information users were looking for. Nevertheless, this data does not explain how visitors perceive the Web exhibitions. Today the organisation also investigates messages received through feedback mechanisms incorporated within the VMC exhibitions. This provides some insight into visitors’ perceptions of the exhibitions. To improve on this CHIN also distributes follow-up questionnaires to visitors who have made use of the feedback mechanisms (Carey and Jeffrey 2006).

In 2004 CHIN conducted a research project aiming to determine what impacts upon quality in online museum projects, including Web exhibitions, and discover a way to measure this quality (Soren 2004). The organisation gathered and analysed data from eight Web exhibitions and from these created a formula called the Engagement Factor (p.19):

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

18

Literature review Engagement Factor = No. of visits x

length of time a user spends on the Web site

No. of visitors

It is however unclear what the Engagement Factor is supposed to measure. Observed behaviour may indicate how much time is spent on each Web site but does not really explain why (Cunliffe et al 2001). CHIN acknowledges this weakness and concludes that the Engagement Factor should be used in conjunction with other methods, for example user and usability testing (CHIN 2004: 53). To enable a better understanding of quality in Web exhibitions the research project also utilised another method: interviews. Project managers and multimedia developers that had created five of the exhibitions were interviewed about what they believed was important for securing good quality. The users themselves were not asked. Despite acknowledging the need for engaging Web exhibition users in evaluations CHIN left the users by and large out of this research project. Today the organisation is however recruiting people to form part of an ‘advisory board’ providing advice regarding future VMC applications (Carey and Jeffrey 2006). According to Cunliffe et al (2001) it is central that museums incorporate evaluation, particularly involving users, into the development of any product aiming to be usable and user-centred (p. 231). This provides help regarding developing a Web exhibition that is oriented towards user needs. It is thus less likely to cause extensive usability problems (p. 236). An example of user feedback leading to changes in a Web exhibition is found at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where a Web based part of a gallery exhibition was changed because Web visitors complained about having to spend time downloading extra software in order to view the Web exhibition. Consequently, the museum curators developed and published a simplified version of the Web exhibition (Wullum 2001).

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

19

Literature review

2.7 Conclusion This review has shown that there is a substantial lack of research concerning Web exhibitions and how Web exhibition users perceive these exhibitions: what they find appealing and not, and which aspects indicate good quality in such exhibitions. Although some professionals do not believe users should take part in the exhibition development process (Silver 1997) there is today a general belief that including the users’ perspectives is important as it provides valuable information for the exhibition creators (Keene 1998, Dierking and Falk 1998, Cunliffe et al 2001, Soren 2004). This dissertation investigates specifically into what Web exhibition users perceive as good and bad aspects of Web exhibitions. Thus, its findings will provide museum Web exhibition developers with more reliable information regarding how such exhibitions can be designed to best accommodate users’ needs and expectations.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

20

Methodology

3 METHODOLOGY When undertaking a research project researchers may choose between using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Quantitative methodologies are normally used in research projects intending to measure and explain the relationship between a cause and its effects (Golafshani 2003), whilst qualitative methodologies are chosen when the researcher is interested in illuminating and understanding a social phenomenon (Golafshani 2003), or in exploring people’s opinions regarding a specific subject (Bryman 2004). As this research project sets out to investigate into which Web exhibition aspects Web users find positive and negative the researcher found it most suitable to use a qualitative research methodology.

Focus groups eventually became the qualitative methodology chosen. A total of four focus groups were arranged and each group was presented with a selected number of Web exhibitions. The focus group participants were instructed to explore these exhibitions and later comment upon different exhibition aspects. This chapter explains why focus groups were the preferential research method, how the Web exhibitions and focus group participants were selected, and furthermore how the focus groups were administered and carried out. The validity and reliability of the research is also discussed.

3.1 Instrumentation In order to obtain qualitative data regarding Web users’ opinions about Web exhibitions the researcher’s original idea was to select a number of Web users, let them explore a selection of Web exhibitions and, following this, conduct individual interviews with each one of them. However, using focus groups is a method that enables the researcher to obtain a richer set of data as the focus group participants through discussion are able to respond to and bounce

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

21

Methodology ideas off each other (Tonkiss 2004). For this reason focus groups also tend to generate more critical comments than individual interviews (Kitzinger 1995). By moderating the discussion the researcher can encourage the participants to use their own vocabulary (Tonkiss 2004, Kitzinger 1995) and to discuss the topic in ways that allow them to express their own attitudes (Braverman 1994). Moreover, focus groups create an environment where it is easier for the participants to develop their own questions and pursue their own priorities regarding the topic of discussion (Kitzinger 1995). This makes it easier for the researcher to comprehend what the research participants perceive as most important. Overall, the researcher captures a wider range of perspectives through focus groups than through individual interviews. Braverman (1994) even suggests focus groups as a primary basis for generating knowledge in museums. Thus, the researcher decided to select focus groups as the method for this research project.

3.2 Sampling 3.2.1 Web exhibitions Three Web exhibitions were selectively chosen as the objects of discussion in this research project. The Web exhibitions were selectively chosen from the totality of Web exhibitions available on the Web by Norwegian museums 11 June 2006. The researcher chose this as the foundation for the Web exhibition sampling process for practical reasons. As the researcher is Norwegian she found it easier to obtain participants and locations for the focus groups in Norway than elsewhere. There is no reason to believe that Web exhibitions presented on the Web by Norwegian museums differ severely from Web exhibitions presented by museums elsewhere. Likewise there is no reason to believe that the views of Norwegian focus group participants differ radically from the views of possible focus group participants in other countries experiencing an availability of Web exhibitions.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

22

Methodology Previous to the sampling process the researcher located the totality of existing Web exhibitions presented by Norwegian museums. As the Web site kulturnett.no is Norway’s official portal regarding Norwegian culture on the Internet the researcher used this Web site to locate all Norwegian museums having a Web presence (ABM-utvikling 2004). Every museum’s respective Web site was investigated in order to locate present Web exhibitions. Of a totality of 888 museums, only 23 museums present what might be described as Web exhibitions. A list of these Web exhibitions was created and every Web exhibition was thoroughly investigated by the researcher who concurrently made notes regarding the design aspects featured in each of them. From this extensive list the researcher selected three Web exhibitions that later became the objects of investigation and discussion in the focus group sessions. These Web exhibitions were: •

Made in Africa – scener fra afrikansk markedsliv [Made in Africa – Scenes from African Market Life] (Kulturhistorisk Museum Universitetet i Oslo 2002)

•

Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten – en nettutstilling [The Borregaard Society Outside the Factory – a Web Exhibition] (Borgarsyssel Museum 2003)

•

Steinalderen [The Stone Age] (Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger 2003)

The selection of Web exhibitions was based on the following criteria: •

As Web users rarely continue investigating a Web site found uninteresting the Web exhibitions should address a topic of general interest that many people might find worthwhile exploring.

•

For comparative reasons, and to help facilitate discussion later on in the focus group sessions, the Web exhibitions should present the users with a wide variety of design aspects. Combined they should incorporate an assortment of navigation possibilities and elements such as text, images, sound, video etc.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

23

Methodology •

As Internet technology and Web user expectations change rapidly the Web exhibitions should be published within the last five years. Older Web exhibitions were created at a time where technology and user expectations were less developed than at present and thus it would be inappropriate to select such Web exhibitions for investigating the opinions of Web users in 2006.

Combined, the three chosen Web exhibitions were sufficiently different regarding their respective design aspects to aid in facilitating the discussion between the focus group participants. Selecting less than three Web exhibitions would have presented the participants with an insufficient amount of Web exhibition design aspects. Selecting more than three Web exhibitions could possibly have resulted in “museum fatigue” amongst the participants, especially if they were not accustomed to visiting museums or museum Web sites or if the extra Web exhibitions did not present any additional design aspects. Besides, for the participants to experience most of what the Web exhibitions had to offer it would be necessary that they spend a sufficient amount of time on each exhibition. Incorporating more than three Web exhibitions would have made the sessions last too long.

A description of features regarding each of the Web exhibitions chosen for this research is found in appendix 1.

3.2.2 Focus group participants In order to obtain views from a variety of Web users, individuals of different ages and professions were asked to participate in the research project. To get in contact with as many different individuals as possible the researcher in addition to approaching people herself, also asked acquaintances and people who had agreed to take part in a focus group to recommend

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

24

Methodology other individuals who might also be interested in participating (Kelly 2001). However, the researcher had the final word regarding who would participate and thus the focus group members were selectively chosen by her. When asked to participate each individual was informed about the purpose of the project, the focus group and data collection procedures, and that anonymity for the research participants would be guaranteed (Tonkiss 2004). A total of twenty five individuals participated: fifteen women and ten men. They were divided into four focus groups; three of which consisted of six people and one group consisting of seven people. The research participants were from twenty three to sixty three years old and from various backgrounds such as gardener, teacher, natural science researcher, librarian, secretary, higher education student, social services worker, chef, and one conscientious objector. In one of the groups there were also supposed to have been two teenagers but despite being sent reminders about the time and place for the focus group they never turned up.

Apart from gathering people of different ages and backgrounds the only selection criteria was that the participants should have a general knowledge of and experience with using the Internet and various Web applications. As few people yet are familiar with the Web exhibition genre the researcher chose not to make knowledge of and practical experiences with the use of Web exhibitions a criterion for the choice of research participants. The researcher believed the participants would get a sufficient feel for this genre just by using the Web exhibitions presented in the focus group sessions, and that they would be able to provide relevant comments regarding positive and negative Web exhibition aspects based on this session.

3.3 Preparations Before conducting the focus group sessions the researcher composed a list of open-ended questions (appendix 2) to aid obtaining information of relevance to the project’s research

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

25

Methodology question. The same questions were answered in all focus groups, though not necessarily in the same order or the same phrasing of the questions. As focus groups tend to evolve into a dialogue between the research participants themselves rather than being a question and answer session between the researcher and the research participants, many of the questions were answered without the researcher having to actually state the questions. Instead the researcher kept the discussion focused by asking follow-up questions concerning opinions and statements on which she wanted a more elaborate explanation. Previous to conducting the focus group sessions the researcher tested the set of questions on two external individuals, and to improve the set of focus group questions as well as her own skills as a moderator the researcher also asked for feedback regarding this (Krueger and Casey 2000, Bryman 2004). This feedback was incorporated back into the design of the focus group sessions. After concluding the first focus group the researcher also asked the participants of this group for their opinions concerning the session as a whole as well as regarding her own role and abilities as a moderator. Feedback from this group was incorporated back into the execution of the following focus group sessions.

3.4 Procedures and data collection Every focus group was conducted similarly but in four different locations. Each participant borrowed or brought with them their own personal computer. Compatibility with the Web exhibitions was tested on all computers before embarking on the focus group sessions. As sound was an important aspect in two of the exhibitions the computers were programmed to a satisfactory sound level. Headsets were provided for all research participants to ensure that they would only hear the sounds from their own computer and not from other research participants’ computers.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

26

Methodology After gathering the participants for each focus group they were again informed about the course of the session. It was stated that all discussions would be recorded on audio tape and that, as no names would be used in the research report, anonymity would be guaranteed. After gaining consent from the participants the focus group session was initiated.

Each focus group session was divided into three sections: •

Previous knowledge and expectations

•

Use of Web exhibitions

•

Discussion and thoughts regarding experiences with using the Web exhibitions

In the first section the researcher asked the participants about their previous knowledge of and experiences with Web exhibitions. This discussion was recorded on an audio cassette. In the next section the audio recorder was switched off and each participant was handed a list of the URL-addresses leading to the three Web exhibitions selected for this research project. They were informed that they had 1,5 hours at their disposal to spend exploring these exhibitions. They were also told that the aim of investigating these Web exhibitions was to consider which aspects in each exhibition they liked and disliked rather than focusing on remembering as much as possible from what was being communicated. Apart from this the participants were free to navigate and use the exhibitions in whatever manner they pleased. Each person was given a pen and paper for taking notes if deemed necessary. The researcher was available to answer technical questions throughout the session. After 1,5 hours the participants met again for the third part of the focus group session and discussed their thoughts about the Web exhibitions they had explored. The focus of this discussion was to obtain information regarding which Web exhibition aspects were experienced as positive and negative. This was mostly done by comparing the different exhibitions. The discussions were recorded on audio

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

27

Methodology cassette and lasted between 1 and 1,5 hours. All discussions took place in a confined space with only the researcher and the research participants present. The researcher served as the moderator in all four focus groups. Including instructions the whole focus group sessions lasted from 3,5 to 4 hours.

3.5 Data analysis Following the focus group sessions the researcher transcribed the audio cassette recordings (appendix 3). These transcripts, together with notes made by the participants during their investigations, provided the material for data analysis.

The data was analysed utilising the long-table approach (Krueger and Casey 2000). This is an approach where the researcher identifies a set of categories that she wants the focus group members’ opinions about. Following, she reads through the data material, separates the different comments by physically cutting the data into pieces, placing the comments in their relevant category. Following, the researcher reads through the comments in each category and writes up summaries. Interpretations of the data are based upon these summaries.

For this research project the categories were based upon the questions asked in each focus group session, many of which focused on various Web exhibition design aspects. When reading through the transcripts and the notes from the participants the researcher also identified some additional categories. These concerned Web exhibition aspects that the researcher did not specifically query about but that the focus group participants themselves found sufficiently important to comment upon. After deciding which Web exhibition aspects were to be analysed the researcher once more read through the transcripts and notes, cut them

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

28

Methodology apart, and placed each comment in its relevant category. Summaries of each category was created and based upon these interpretations were made.

3.6 Validity and reliability Validity and reliability are terms which are normally used to describe the quality of a research project. A research project has high validity if it measures what it was intended to measure, and it has high reliability if it is able to produce results which are consistent over time (Golafshani 2003). However, these terms were initially developed to determine the quality of quantitative studies and some researchers therefore argue that they are not appropriate for describing the quality of qualitative studies. Instead they propose the term trustworthiness as the measure for this (Golafshani 2003, Rudestam and Newton 2001). Nevertheless the term trustworthiness in many ways encompasses what is referred to as validity and reliability, and the research conducted for this dissertation is evaluated in accordance with these terms.

3.6.1 Validity This study sets out to measure the user perspective regarding Web exhibitions. As the focus groups consisted of Web users the research to a certain extent measures what it is intended to measure. However, questions regarding validity can still be raised as most of the research participants had no experience with or knowledge about Web exhibitions beforehand. Perhaps the data derived from the focus groups would have been more valid if the groups only consisted of people with previous Web exhibition experience and knowledge. However, as Web exhibitions is a fairly new Web genre it was not possible to gather enough people with this background. The researcher believes that encountering Web exhibitions in the focus group sessions provided the focus group participants with sufficient experiences to enable them to make relevant comments regarding this Web genre.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

29

Methodology Another aspect that might reduce the validity of this research is that no children or teenagers took part in the focus groups. This means that their views are excluded from the project. Children were not invited because they were not the target group for two of the exhibitions. The researcher finds it more appropriate that research regarding children’s perception of Web exhibitions should be conducted on its own, focusing only on this segment of the population. On the other hand, there was an intention to include teenagers in this research project, but unfortunately the ones who had agreed to participate never turned up. The results from this research project is thus only based on opinions stated by adults and is therefore only valid to describe views relevant to this segment of the population.

3.6.2 Reliability Computer technology and Web applications are rapidly changing. What is perceived as up to date and good quality today might be outdated in just a few years. In accordance with this development the expectations towards Web applications also change. Thus, views and opinions about Web exhibitions as they are presented on the Web in 2006 might not be equally relevant ten or twenty years ahead in time. However, the researcher believes that views regarding some of the aspects related to Web exhibitions will be relevant for several years to come. This statement is made because even though there have been some changes regarding Web exhibition design, the changes are not too revolutionary. Web exhibitions are still mainly text based, just as they were about ten years ago. Therefore, hopefully, the results from this study will be of relevance also in the future. However, as the technology evolves and more museums make use of the Web as a place to create exhibitions new studies regarding the user perceptions of these must be conducted.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

30

Results and discussion

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The four focus group sessions conducted for this research project provided the researcher with critical data shedding light on what Web users expect from Web exhibitions and what they regard as positive and negative aspects of such exhibitions. The themes emerging from the data analysis concerned aspects relevant to a variety of design elements and multimedia applications, navigation and functionality, level of interactivity, exhibition contents, credibility, and technical issues. This chapter presents these data and discusses them in relation to the relevant literature. As the literature shows few examples of Web users’ perspectives regarding Web exhibitions being taken into consideration much of the discussion is based on findings from the focus group sessions themselves.

The themes that emerged from the data analysis are discussed in the subsections of this chapter. These include presentation design, information design, interaction design, information content and technical issues. There is also a section exploring some general thoughts regarding the Web exhibition genre. Before presenting and discussing the results from the focus group sessions an introduction of the participants’ previous experiences with and general knowledge about Web exhibitions is given. Their expectations towards the content and design of Web exhibitions are also introduced.

4.1 Previous experience and knowledge of Web exhibitions Only two of the focus group participants had heard about Web exhibitions before taking part in this research project. One of them had also used such exhibitions, mainly as part of a higher education study programme. The rest of the participants claimed no knowledge of or prior experience with Web exhibitions. After investigating the Web exhibitions presented in the

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

31

Results and discussion focus group sessions another participant said that she actually had visited one of these very exhibitions before but that she had not mentioned it as she could not relate it to an exhibition. This indicates that among Web users some uncertainty regarding the perception of Web exhibitions exists.

4.2 Expectations regarding content and design Despite limited knowledge about Web exhibitions most participants still had some expectations regarding what they would encounter when visiting such exhibitions. Kalfatovic (2002) and Solhjell (Hollekim 2001) believe that Web exhibitions are characterised by the presenting of a story. None of the participants mentioned this but instead emphasised that the Web exhibitions should present a specific theme. Most of them also expected objects and images to constitute a substantial part of the exhibition. In relation to these they expected a certain amount of interpretation. This could be in the form of text, somebody talking, or video. Some participants also hoped for sound effects or music. A comment made by several participants was that because the Web provides great opportunities for multimedia presentations Web exhibitions should incorporate more than just text and images. This is supported by Bearman and Trant (1999) who express that regarding Web applications Web users are quite demanding. Carey and Jeffrey (2006) see this in connection with the constant advances in computer and Internet technology. The participants also expected the opportunity to navigate according to personal preferences, hopefully by using hyperlinks. Some also wished for a more or less predetermined route through the exhibition, presenting the most important images and information. However, all participants agreed that Web exhibitions should not limit the users to strictly follow this route. They should also provide the opportunity of following hyperlinks leading away from the main route to more detailed information. These comments mirror some well established design aspects regarding Web

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

32

Results and discussion sites in general; they should enable the users to decide the path through the available information (Erichsen 2003: 452) according to their own preferences (Kalfatovic 2002). Some participants also expected the exhibitions to contain hyperlinks to Web pages outside the Web exhibitions themselves; Web pages that would provide further information about the Web exhibition themes.

4.3 Presentation design The participants made several comments about the Web exhibitions’ presentation design. This can be described as the look of the Web page on the computer screen (Erichsen 2003: 340). Creating a good presentation design means choosing the design elements best suited for communicating the Web exhibition theme and arranging them so that they communicate it effectively. The design elements mostly commented upon were text, illustrations, video, sound and oral histories. Function and design of the front page was also discussed.

4.3.1 Text The three Web exhibitions presented contained various amounts of text. Made in Africa presented long blocks of text and in order to read everything one had to scroll vertically (figure 1). This caused negative reactions from every one of the participants who found the amount of text on each Web page overwhelming. After a while most participants became quite bored with this exhibition. Consequently few of them viewed or read the entire exhibition. Despite negative remarks about the amount of text on each Web page the participants found the exhibition’s total amount of text and information positive: “A lot of information is not problematic as long as it is structured well enough”. As it is easier to read large amounts of text on paper than on a computer screen they also appreciated being able to obtain a printer friendly version of this exhibition. However, as it was a Web exhibition they

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

33

Results and discussion would have welcomed text that was better adjusted for viewing on a computer screen: “It could have been more pages and less text on each”. In Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten each Web page had less text (figure 2). The Web users would still have to do some scrolling but despite this they reacted positively to the length of the texts, finding them both practical and suitable for the computer screen.

Figure 1 Web page in Made in Africa presenting a lot of text. The Web user has to scroll quite a bit to read the whole text. Also notice the amount of small images.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

34

Results and discussion

Figure 2 Web page in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten presenting what the focus group participants perceived as an appropriate amount of text.

All the participants preferred relatively small amounts of text on each Web page. This might be connected with the fact that people scan rather than read pages on a computer screen (Erichsen 2003). People often find Web pages containing large blocks of text boring (Erichsen 2003) and tend not to read them (Kalfatovic 2002). As Web users are less likely to be overwhelmed when presented with smaller fragments of text (Soren 2005: 146) it is better to divide it up into shorter sections (Erichsen 2003, Kalfatovic 2002). Creating printer friendly versions of each Web page is encouraged (Erichsen 2003, Kalfatovic 2002). Whereas nobody reacted to the need for scrolling in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten and Steinalderen they reacted strongly towards this in Made in Africa. This contradicts Kalfatovic’s argument that vertically scrolling is overall acceptable (2002: 74). The amount of text on each Web page in relation to other Web pages within the same Web exhibition was also commented upon. Several participants found it strange or annoying when Web pages presented very different amounts of text. This was especially evident in Steinalderen: “It was Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

35

Results and discussion very uneven. I think it became very fragmentary”. This concern for coherence throughout the Web exhibition is recognised by Kalfatovic (2002: 26).

4.3.2 Illustrations The use of illustrations within the Web exhibitions was welcomed by all participants. However, they reacted negatively to small photographs as it made observing details difficult (figure 1). Several participants found that such photographs added little or no meaning to the rest of the exhibition. They were also negative towards using the same image several times. According to Jan Hjorth (1978) a rotten museum exhibition is partly characterised by incorporating a lot of small pictures. It seems this is valid also for Web exhibitions. The participants became more engaged in pages presenting only one or a few large images (figure 3).

Figure 3 Most Web pages in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten contained only one main image.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

36

Results and discussion Soren (2004) and Erichsen (2003) stress that images should be of good quality. This is supported by the participants; as one of them said: “Why not have some sharp nice photos in stead of something that looks like it’s been shot with a disposable camera? You can’t put that in an exhibition today”. Many were also disappointed that the newer photographs in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten, photos taken after colour photography became the norm, were in black and white. They would have appreciated these presented in colour. Others believed presenting all the photographs in black and white was positive as it provided consistency throughout the Web exhibition.

Steinalderen contained few photographs and presented instead plenty of drawings and animation sequences (figure 4).

Figure 4 Steinalderen included many drawings.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

37

Results and discussion The participants’ reactions towards these were mixed. Most thought they were fun while others found them less appealing, preferring a more sophisticated design including more details. However, many participants stated that one had to consider these in accordance with the Web exhibition’s main target group. They believed this was children and thus deemed the simple drawings and animation sequences appropriate. Some participants would have appreciated if the exhibition also had contained more photographs. Then the users themselves could decide which illustrations they preferred investigating. Despite some disagreements regarding the success of the drawings and animations most participants were positive to the incorporation of these elements as it expressed an acknowledgement of the Web as a space for multimedia applications. The literature concerning Web exhibitions provides no comments regarding the use of drawings or animations.

4.3.3 Video and sound The literature also says little about the incorporation of video and sound in Web exhibitions. Instead it focuses upon the use of multimedia elements in general stating that this is a positive element (Kalfatovic 2002, Soren 2004, Archives and Museum Informatics 2004). This appreciation of multimedia in Web exhibitions is discovered in the participants’ attitudes towards video and sound. The participants reacted positively to the incorporation of a video in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten: “You get informed very quickly that way. And I remember it better too”. Despite the generally positive attitudes some critical remarks were also made. Participants over 45 years of age in general thought the Borregaard video was of good quality and liked it being in colour. Some of the younger participants however found it too dark and gloomy and believed they could have made a better one themselves. Most participants believed one would get a better understanding of a Web exhibition topic if

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

38

Results and discussion communicated through a mix of different media, letting the visitors utilise more of their senses.

Steinalderen was the only Web exhibition incorporating sound effects. These are audio elements that provide no meaning standing alone but that when used in conjunction with other design elements add meaning to these. The reactions towards the Steinalderen sound effects varied. Some found them annoying, especially as it was impossible to turn them off. Others thought they were positive as: “it becomes more exciting and lively right away”. Several participants also experienced the sounds imbuing the exhibition with a special atmosphere. It seems the participants appreciated the extra dimension the sound provided; improving the overall communication of the exhibition theme. This is acknowledged by Erichsen (2003). When discussing the sound effects the participants often referred to the intended target group. Some said that even though they did not like the sound effects themselves children might find them more enjoyable.

4.3.4 Oral history and personal testimonies Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten contained several oral history interviews where people who had grown up in the Borregaard society shared their memories. Most participants reacted positively to these and some even felt that these interviews were the best feature of the entire exhibition. Several participants stated that the personal testimonies made the exhibition subject come alive, making it easier to comprehend: “First of all they spoke alright, and you got a better impression of how it was for them to live and work”. They preferred listening to somebody talking about the subject rather than just reading about it, and the emotional dimension was found positive. Experiencing a personal connection with something in the exhibitions made the visits more interesting and worthwhile. The appreciation of encountering

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

39

Results and discussion personal stories in gallery exhibitions is acknowledged by Dierking and Falk (1998) stating that visitors expect to experience some sort of engagement and personal connection with what is presented (p. 57). Soren (2005) and Thomas and Boily (1998) support this, expressing that incorporating aspects that encourage visitors to relate to the exhibition content or that touch their emotions is an example of best practice. Kalfatovic suggests that hyperlinks to the full written transcripts of oral interviews should be included (2002: 90). The participants did not comment upon this but agreed that the audio recordings in no case should be replaced by transcripts.

Though the interviews were regarded as positive the participants felt some of them lasted too long. A couple of interviews were up to ten minutes long and everybody agreed that this should have been reduced. Listening to the interviews was only possible in Windows Media Player. When using this software an abstract colourful image appeared on the screen (figure 5).

Figure 5 Image visible when listening to oral history interviews in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten. Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

40

Results and discussion Several participants found this disturbing as it brought them out of the Web exhibition setting and atmosphere. They felt that looking at a photo of the person being interviewed or any other image related to the exhibition subject would have been more appropriate and enjoyable.

4.3.5 Front page As the front page is the first page the Web user encounters when visiting a Web exhibition all participants found it important that this Web page has an appealing layout. If the front page fails to capture the Web user’s interest immediately chances are big that the visitor might abandon the exhibition (Kalfatovic 2002, Mintz 1998). According to the participants the front page should include a limited amount of text, briefly introducing the exhibition theme. It should also include an image or colours that are nice to look at, enticing the visitor to investigate further. In addition a menu showing the exhibition’s main subheadings could be presented, giving the Web user an impression of the amount and nature of information contained within. Thomas and Boily (1998) and Erichsen (2003) recognise this as an important front page element. The participants however state that the front page menu should not be too extensive as the page should be easily surveyable and only include a few elements. For the exhibition to live up to the expectations created by the front page the participants believed the following pages should be created with this in mind. In this research all participants were very pleased with the front page of Made in Africa. However, the rest of the exhibition did not live up to the expectations created by this page, ultimately leading to disappointment for all. This shows the importance of coherence and consistency throughout (Erichsen 2003). To view the front pages of all three Web exhibitions consult appendix 1.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

41

Results and discussion

4.4 Information design Information design can be described as the structure of information within the Web exhibition (Erichsen 2003: 326). The menu, hierarchy of information and navigation possibilities constitute important parts of this structure.

4.4.1 Menu and principal of structure The menu is usually the starting point for finding one’s way through a Web exhibition. In Steinalderen this menu was only available on the front page. In the two other exhibitions the menu was visible at all times and Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten also showed the thread of Web pages already visited by the Web user (figure 6).

Figure 6 Red circle showing the always visible menu and the thread of previously visited Web pages in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten.

Several participants found this positive as it became easy to understand one’s location within the exhibition: “If you didn’t have the index you wouldn’t know how much was left”. They

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

42

Results and discussion were also satisfied with the constantly visible menu, making it easier to navigate according to personal interests. Not having the menu visible throughout was perceived a flaw in Steinalderen. Kalfatovic (2002) discusses a variety of structure principles for Web exhibitions, finding the star/fan the most popular principle. Here, visitors at the start of the exhibition are given a selection of navigation choices. After each choice a menu or hyperlinks on each page informs the visitor about previous and further choices (p.84). Whether it is Web users or Web exhibition developers that rate this structure principle popular is not stated. Comments from the participants however support the notion that Web users are positive regarding this structure.

4.4.2 Hierarchy of information As all the information content would not be of interest to every visitor, the participants largely agreed that the information should be organised somewhat hierarchically. This is supported by Dierking and Falk (1998) advocating that exhibitions should provide varying degrees of depth of information (p.59). According to the participants it should be easy to arrive at the information most important for understanding the exhibition theme. From this information one should find hyperlinks to information of more specific or detailed nature: “Then you can skip what you’re not interested in and read what interests you”. Others can omit this information and move on with the rest of the exhibition. Erichsen (2003) proposes that any information should not be more than three clicks away from the front page. As most Web users delve just a few pages into a Web site Kalfatovic supports the view that information should be placed close to the front page (2002: 83). The participants provided no direct comments regarding this. Instead they focused on the importance of always being able to understand where within the information hierarchy one is located.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

43

Results and discussion

4.4.3 Navigation possibilities The Web exhibitions in this research project contained several different navigation possibilities. Both images and words, either in the menu or in the text itself, functioned as hyperlinks. Steinalderen also had a ‘back’ button bringing the visitor to a previous page (figure 7).

Figure 7 Red circle showing ‘back’ (tilbake) button in Steinalderen.

However, clicking this ‘back’ button provided an inconsistent result. Usually the Web user was directed all the way back to the front page but in some instances the visitor just got directed to the previous page. This caused a lot of frustration among the participants: “It was very annoying because you had to go back and then forward again”. As it more or less has become a convention in Web design that ‘back’ buttons lead to the previous page (Keene 1998: 71) the participants expected the ‘back’ button in Steinalderen to follow this norm. The

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

44

Results and discussion two other Web exhibitions incorporated a ‘next’ button as well as a ‘back’ button (figure 8). In these exhibitions the ‘back’ button followed the norm mentioned in Keene (1998).

Figure 8 Red circle showing ‘back’ (forrige) and ‘next’ (neste) buttons in Made in Africa.

Soren (2005) points out the importance of clear, comprehensible, logical navigation within Web exhibitions (p. 146). It seems the participants agreed with this. Thomas and Boily (1998) state that Web exhibition browsing also should be made pleasant. The participants perceived menus and ‘next’ and ‘back’ buttons as more pleasant and appealing navigation tools than images or hyperlinks within the text on each Web page.

4.5 Interaction design Interaction design describes the possibilities for the Web user to have control over elements within the Web exhibition. A common term for this is interactivity (Erichsen 2003: 332). The participants expressed that Web exhibitions with a high degree of interactivity is more

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

45

Results and discussion appealing than ones with a low degree of interactivity. Bearman and Trant (1999) and Soren (2004) acknowledge that Web users want interaction and encourage using interactivity in Web exhibitions. Soren (2005) and Archives and Museum Informatics (2004) even believe interactivity provides best practice for Web exhibitions. However, the participants believed that not all types of interactivity would be appropriate for every Web exhibition. Dierking and Falk (1998) elaborate on this stating that interactivity might be especially valuable for children.

Steinalderen had the highest degree of interactivity and received positive feedback for this. Participants especially liked the interaction in the animation sequences (figure 9) and the quiz (figure 10).

Figure 9 Parts of animation sequence in Steinalderen. ‘Trykk her’ means click here, initiating the animation sequence. The animation sequence is thus controlled by the Web user.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

46

Results and discussion

Figure 10 Part of the quiz in Steinalderen. The question sounds: ‘Which animals existed in Norway during the Stone Age?’ When the Web user clicks on an animal the Stone Age man reveals whether or not this animal existed and gives an explanation.

The participants took pleasure in checking how much they had learned and enjoyed receiving feedback throughout the exhibition. Contrastingly Made in Africa offered a low degree of interactivity and was considered boring as: “there was nothing to do there”. A reason why interactivity is so appealing might be because visitors are not passive receivers of information (Hooper-Greenhill 1995). The Web provides a chance to utilise interactivity in ways that other media do not. Web site developers should thus make use of this opportunity (McDavid 1997). It appears that regarding Web exhibitions a certain level of interactivity is expected by the users.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

47

Results and discussion

4.6 Information content The reason for creating a Web exhibition is to communicate information about a specific subject. However, information about context, Web exhibition creators and the sources used are also part of the exhibition content.

4.6.1 Theme The themes of the Web exhibitions in this research were quite varied. Most participants expressed that they were of a certain interest but not everyone was equally enthusiastic about all subjects. The Web users tended to spend less time visiting exhibitions perceived as less interesting. One participant said this about exhibition themes: The theme has a big influence on whether or not the exhibition seems interesting. But an uninteresting theme can be made more exciting and interesting by using shorter texts, interactivity, user choices and the use of several senses. But it is demanding to capture the interest of somebody who is not really interested (Focus group participant). The extent to which a Web exhibition can appeal to a vast amount of Web users can thus be questioned.

4.6.2 Context Knell argues that possessing a certain amount of knowledge about an exhibition theme will enhance the visit (2003). The participants largely shared this view. Participants with limited knowledge about a theme generally wished the exhibition had included an introduction explaining the theme’s context. This should place the theme in a geographical and historical setting. It should also define the limitations of the Web exhibition, explaining which subjects would be covered. Simultaneously this would provide visitors with a notion regarding the total size of the exhibition. Participants with a fair amount of previous knowledge about the themes did not experience this immediate need for a context section but still felt it would be

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

48

Results and discussion appropriate: “One of the most important things when you want to create something is to explain it”.

Participants also believed the exhibitions should include a section about the context of the Web exhibition itself, explaining why it was made, when and by whom. They also wanted it to state the main target groups and the intended use of the exhibition as this would ease interpretation and understanding. Erichsen (2003) and Kalfatovic (2002) mention the importance for Web exhibition developers to be aware of these aspects throughout the planning and development process. Participant feedback reveals that Web users also would appreciate information about this.

4.6.3 Information sources and credibility According to the participants information regarding who made the Web exhibition affects the credibility of the exhibition content. This is acknowledged by Kalfatovic (2002) advocating that Web exhibitions for this reason should include a credits and acknowledgement section (p.32). In this project the researcher did not instruct the participants to look for information about who had created the Web exhibitions. Still, many took time to investigate this. Some did it out of curiosity while others were not convinced about the accuracy of the information content. While some participants felt that credibility was sufficiently determined when discovering that the exhibitions were created by museums, others did not. Several participants would have appreciated references to the exact sources for the exhibition content; if possible with hyperlinks to the relevant documents. Especially Steinalderen caused frustration regarding the lack of reference to sources. As this exhibition was aimed towards children some participants thought it would be inappropriate to include this. Others pointed out that the information should be correct even if aimed at children and that references could have been

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

49

Results and discussion placed on a separate page within the exhibition. This feature was found in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten (figure 11) receiving positive feedback from several participants. Kalfatovic also advocates placing references on a separate page; including hyperlinks leading to pages outside the Web exhibition (2000: 85).

Figure 11 Information sources presented on a separate page in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten.

Bitgood (1986) presents accuracy of facts as a key element of any exhibition and Soren states that establishing credibility is an example of best practice (2005: 145). All focus group participants agreed that information regarding who made the exhibition should be easily available; preferably via a hyperlink on the front page.

4.6.4 Last updated The front page of Made in Africa expressed that the exhibition was last updated in 2002. Regarding Internet and computer technology four years ago is a long time. Many participants Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

50

Results and discussion were negative to the lack of updating and got the impression that the exhibition was less relevant now than previously. It seems that if Web exhibition developers do not intend to keep updating the exhibition they should not mention anything about this in the Web exhibition. This only ascertains something that is old and outdated. Erichsen even believes that if a user encounters a Web site that has not been updated in a long time the risk of loosing that visitor is great (2003: 453).

4.7 Technical issues Despite advocating the use of multimedia within Web exhibitions the participants also showed an awareness of the difficulties related to this. While a few of the participants found some exhibitions boring as they did not include the latest presentation technologies, others felt that the choice of technology was justified as not every Web user has a computer able to handle the latest design software. Additionally many people are uncomfortable with the many functions available on the Web. Thus, they might prefer Web applications with a simpler design. This might be related to age; as one participant put it: “I wouldn’t have let my grandmother loose on one of those pages but I don’t think any of the children in the family would have had any trouble using them”. Some of the participants therefore believed the exhibitions should be designed in accordance with the technological knowledge of the intended target group. Discussions regarding whether or not to incorporate the latest technologies into Web exhibitions are also evident in the literature. Soren believes Web site developers need to use and exploit the latest technologies in order to keep up with the demands from increasingly sophisticated Web users (2005: 147). Perlin (1998) and Erichsen (2003) disagree stating that we must adjust to the fact that old equipment and software still is being used. The newest technologies might not even be suited for communicating the exhibition theme (Erichsen 2003) and the use of a fancy interface is not always proportional

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

51

Results and discussion with functionality (Wullum 2001). Parry (2005) warns us about falling into the technology trap – making use of the latest technology for its own sake. Instead of being and end in itself new technologies represent means for communication and should be utilised as such (Perlin 1998).

In order to overcome problems regarding computer equipment, software and lack of Web skills several participants suggested that Web exhibitions could offer a selection of choices regarding how to view them. This would enable Web users to choose the version most compatible with the available computer equipment or the version matching one’s comfort level. Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten provided such a choice; the video could be viewed in standards matching different Internet speeds (figure 12). The participants were positive to this initiative.

Figure 12 Red circle shows that Web users can view the video in Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten in the format matching their available Internet speed.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

52

Results and discussion Mintz appreciates information technology’s possibilities of offering personalised experiences to gallery exhibition visitors (1998: 21). From the focus group discussions it seems that these possibilities also are welcomed in Web exhibitions.

4.8 What is a Web exhibition? Throughout the discussions the participants constantly kept returning to the issue regarding the actual nature of Web exhibitions and whether or not they believed the Web exhibitions presented in this research project fell into that genre. Most participants agreed that Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten was a Web exhibition as it included a variety of elements and media normally found in gallery exhibitions: photos, representations of objects, video, audio recordings and text. They also found this exhibition well structured and the size and scope of it easy to comprehend. Steinalderen was by most also understood as a Web exhibition as it too incorporated a variety of media elements. Made in Africa on the other hand, was a puzzle to many participants. They found it resembling a book rather than an exhibition and could not understand why it fell into the exhibition category. It is evident that the Web exhibition genre is not yet fully comprehended, perhaps not even fully developed. As a result, many Web users experience difficulties understanding what they are all about and what to expect from them.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

53

Conclusion

5 CONCLUSION Due to the lack of reliable information regarding the creation and design of Web exhibitions this research project was especially aimed towards examining this. The researcher conducted four focus groups comprising a total of twenty five Web users. In accordance with the main aims of the project the researcher investigated into these Web users’ expectations regarding what to encounter in Web exhibitions. She also examined which Web exhibition aspects they found positive and negative, and why. The Web users’ opinions were later analysed and discussed, and the presentation of the findings include examples of several aspects that the Web users found influenced the quality of the Web exhibitions. Based upon the feedback from the focus group participants the researcher developed a list of recommendations regarding the creation of future Web exhibitions.

5.1 Key findings Despite a few differences between the participants regarding some aspects they did share several opinions. They all agreed that an appealing front page is crucial, something which is supported by both Kalfatovic (2002) and Mintz (1998). In accordance with Erichsen (2003) they believed that the navigation possibilities should be easy to understand, supplying the visitors with an opportunity to navigate through the exhibition according to personal interests. The participants also found a consistent layout throughout the entire exhibition important; again supported by Erichsen (2003). Another aspect the Web users found essential was the utilisation of multimedia in the Web exhibitions. Using multimedia in a museum context is also highlighted by Perlin (1998), and Soren (2005) views this as crucial for creating good quality Web exhibitions. The Web users further appreciated a high level of interactivity and, like Erichsen (2003), they believed this should be incorporated into the Web exhibitions. The

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

54

Conclusion participants generally appreciated that different layouts and design elements would appeal to different audiences and stated that each Web exhibition should be designed in accordance with the needs and expectations of the intended target group. Target group awareness is also advocated by Erichsen (2003). In addition to confirming statements from the existing literature concerning Web exhibition and Web application design this research project generated recommendations regarding Web exhibition aspects that existing literature has not commented upon. As well as design aspects the Web users were concerned with exhibition content. They believed Web exhibitions should provide a section explaining the context of the exhibition theme as well as the context of the Web exhibition itself. According to them Web exhibitions should also present the exhibitions’ information sources as this would help establish the Web exhibitions’ credibility.

5.2 Recommendations When creating a museum Web exhibition developers should have the following aspects in mind:

5.2.1 Design elements and multimedia •

The text on each Web page should be relatively short and divided into smaller sections. It should not be necessary to scroll frequently in order to read the whole page.

•

The Web exhibition should accommodate the possibility of obtaining a print version of the text.

•

Images should be large enough to enable the Web user to view all the details contained within. If it is necessary to have small images in order to accommodate the layout of the Web page the Web user should be able to enlarge these images.

•

Images should be meaningful and relevant to the text.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

55

Conclusion •

The use of animations should be considered in relevance to the intended target group for the Web exhibition. Adults generally prefer animations that are more sophisticated and believe less sophisticated animations appeal more to children.

•

In order to communicate the exhibition theme the Web exhibition should incorporate and take advantage of a variety of different media, not only text and images. Video, sounds, animation and oral histories are some of the elements that, when used properly, Web users find appealing. It is however crucial that these media elements reflect high quality. The overall appreciation of the Web exhibition increases with the number of senses the Web exhibition is able to activate with the Web user.

•

Sound effects might add to the atmosphere of the Web exhibition visit, and thus enhance the communication of the exhibition theme. However, some people find such effects annoying. The Web exhibition should therefore enable Web users to turn off the sound.

•

The Web exhibition should incorporate stories and elements that are familiar to the Web users; elements they can become emotionally engaged in. This makes it easier for the Web users to connect with the exhibition’s subject material. Personal testimonies, either in oral or written form, are examples of this.

5.2.2 Navigation •

For navigational purposes the exhibition menu should be visible throughout the Web exhibition. This makes it easier for visitors to comprehend where in the exhibition they are, where they have been so far, and what they have yet to see.

•

The information should be organised somewhat hierarchical. Visitors should get to the general and basic information first, and from there discover hyperlinks leading to information of more specific or detailed character.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

56

Conclusion •

In order to create a balance throughout the exhibition each Web page should contain close to the same amount of text and information.

•

‘Back’ and ‘next’ buttons are perceived as good navigational tools, but only if they lead the visitor to the expected place within the exhibition. ‘Back’ is usually recognised to direct the visitor to the previous Web page he or she visited, whilst ‘next’ normally takes the visitor to the following Web page.

5.2.3 Information content •

The information within the Web exhibition should come from reliable sources. A list of these sources should be provided, preferably on a separate page.

•

The exhibition should include a section describing the context of the exhibition theme, placing it in a geographical and historical setting. It should also define the boundaries of the Web exhibition; explaining which subjects are covered within, thus providing the Web users with a notion regarding the total size of the Web exhibition.

•

The Web exhibition should include a section describing the context of the Web exhibition itself; including explanations regarding why the exhibition was made, when, by whom, the main target groups, and the intended use of the exhibition. This makes interpretation of the exhibition and its content easier for the visitors.

•

Information about the time of the last update should not be included in the Web exhibition unless the museum intends to update the exhibition often and on a regular basis.

•

Hyperlinks to further information regarding the exhibition theme should be placed on a separate Web page within the exhibition or on the same page as the references referring to the information sources for the Web exhibition contents.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

57

Conclusion

5.2.4 Technical issues •

The existence of old computer equipment, as well as some Web users’ limited computer skills should be taken into consideration when designing the Web exhibition. Viewing the exhibition should not require Web visitors to be in possession of or be able to use the latest computer technology. If new technologies are part of the exhibition Web users should also be provided with alternative choices for viewing the exhibition; choices which are more likely to match older equipment or that presents communication elements more familiar to the Web user.

5.2.5 Interactivity •

The Web exhibition should incorporate a high level of interactivity. Enabling the visitors to answer questions or initiate animation sequences appear to be two appealing ways of doing this.

5.2.6 Overall design •

The overall design should be consistent throughout the Web exhibition.

•

The front page is of vital importance for the success of the Web exhibition. It should provide visitors with an idea regarding what to encounter further into the exhibition. The front page should consist of only a few elements and include a small introduction to the exhibition theme, a short menu presenting the main sub-sections within the exhibition, and one or a few nice images. The goal is to captivate the Web visitor interest in moving further into the exhibition.

•

The Web exhibition should be constructed and designed so that it matches the needs and expectations of your intended target group. It is hard, if not impossible, to please everyone.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

58

Conclusion As the literature concerning the creation and design of Web exhibitions is limited Web exhibition creators have had few sources to turn to for advice. They normally consult professional Web application developers or literature concerning Web applications in general. However, there is no certainty regarding the extent of which guidelines concerning general Web applications also are applicable to Web exhibitions. The researcher thus hopes that the results provided in this report will provide museum Web exhibition developers with a more reliable source of reference when creating future museum Web exhibitions.

5.3 Future research Comparing the results from this research with Kalfatovic’s Web exhibition principles (2002) or principles regarding Web application design in general (Erichsen 2003) one finds that many facts are similar. Kalfatovic, however, does not comment upon levels of interaction. Instead he is concerned with the technicalities of layout and navigation. This can also be said for Erichsen, and neither he nor Kalfatovic provide any recommendations regarding content. At the 1998 Museums and the Web conference Thomas and Boily presented a paper discussing the production of virtual exhibitions. They too created a list of recommendations regarding what Web exhibitions should include; a list specifically aimed towards the creation of museum Web exhibitions. However, as Web technology and Web users’ expectations regarding Web applications change rapidly these recommendations do not necessarily mirror what is necessary to meet the expectations of Web users today. It seems that Web users in 2006 are more advanced in their expectations regarding Web exhibitions than Web users were eight years ago. Keeping up to date with the views and expectations of the people visiting Web exhibitions must be taken seriously by museums if they want to create good quality Web exhibitions appealing to the Web user. The findings presented by Thomas and Boily (1998) as

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

59

Conclusion well as the results from this research project will need to be tested and updated also in the future.

A limitation of the research conducted for this project is that it only shows the opinions stated by people over twenty three years of age. Many of the focus group participants mentioned that children might have other expectations regarding Web exhibitions than adults. What children’s, and teenagers’, opinions regarding Web exhibitions are and how they relate to the opinions of adults will be something to investigate in the future.

Before embarking on this research project the researcher spoke with staff from several museums presenting Web exhibitions. These conversations revealed that few of the museums had applied routines for evaluating their Web exhibitions. It would be interesting to know whether or not this attitude is widespread within the museum sector. Connected with this is another aspect of interest for future research; what is actually the rationale behind creating such exhibitions, and do the Web exhibitions serve their intended purpose? A comparison between the museums’ and the Web users’ expectations regarding Web exhibitions would also be of interest.

Despite the findings presented in this research project the amount of reliable information regarding creation and design of museum Web exhibitions is still limited. The researcher believes that to add to this knowledge museums should also conduct some user oriented investigations themselves. This could be done by consulting members of the intended target groups both previous to and throughout the development process (Soren 2004). Such an approach would make it more likely for museums to be left with products being used and

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

60

Conclusion appreciated (Soren 2005, Keene 1998, Mintz 1998). With regards to Web exhibitions, their usage and public appreciation should always be the main goal.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

61

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABM-UTVIKLING, 2004. kulturnett.no [online]. Available from: http://www.kulturnett.no/index.jsp [Accessed 5 June 2006]. ARCHIVES AND MUSEUM INFORMATICS, 2004. Best of the Web Museums and the Web 2004. Best On-line Exhibition or Activity Site. [online]. Available from: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2004/best/virtual.html [Accessed 30 May 2006]. ARKEOLOGISK MUSEUM I STAVANGER, 2003. Steinalderen [Norwegian] [The Stone Age] [online]. Available from: http://www.steinalder.no/flashsite.htm [Accessed 5 June 2006]. BEARMAN, D. AND TRANT, J., 1999. Interactivity Comes of Age: Museums and the World Wide Web. Museum International [online], 51 (4), pp 20-24. Available from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/muse/51/4 [Accessed 31 May 2006]. BITGOOD, S. C., 1986. Knowing When Exhibit Labels Work: A Standardized Guide for Evaluating and Improving Labels. Jacksonville, Alabama: Jacksonville State University. BORGARSYSSEL MUSEUM, 2003. Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten – en nettutstilling [Norwegian] [The Borregaard Society Outside the Factory – a Web Exhibition] [online]. Available from: http://ostfold.kulturnett.no/borregaard/ [Accessed 5 June 2006]. BRAVERMAN, B. E., 1994. Empowering Visitors: Focus Group Interviews for Art Museums. In: E. HOOPER-GREENHILL, ed. The Educational Role of the Museum. London: Routledge, 1994, pp 216-230. BRYMAN, A., 2004. Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. CAMERON, F., 2001. Wired collections – the next generation. Museum Management and Curatorship. [online], 19 (3), pp 309-312. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235902%232001 %23999809996%23367881%23FLA%23&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version =1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7aa8c1dfda8064775fd08dcd679fdb52 [Accessed 9 February 2006]. CAREY, S. AND JEFFREY, R., 2006. Audience Analysis in the Age of Engagement. In: Museums and the Web 2006, Albuquerque 22-25 2006 [online]. Available from: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/carey/carey.html [Accessed 26 May 2006]. CHIN, 2004. Content scope evaluation: Determining Audience Interest in Virtual Exhibits [online]. Available from: http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Digital_Content/Content_Scope/evaluation.html [Accessed 27 May 2006]. CUNLIFFE, D. E., KRITOU, E. AND TUDHOPE, D., 2001. Usability Evaluation for Museum Web Sites. Museum Management and Curatorship [online], 19 (3), pp 229-252. Available from: Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

62

Bibliography http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235902%232001 %23999809996%23367881%23FLA%23&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version =1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7aa8c1dfda8064775fd08dcd679fdb52 [Accessed 1 March 2006]. DIERKING, L. D. AND FALK, J. H., 1998. Audience and Accessibility. In: S. THOMAS AND A. MINTZ, eds. The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum. Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998, pp 57-72. ERICHSEN, S. H., 2003. Mediedesign. Bilde. Tekst. Lyd [Norwegian] [Media Design. Image. Text. Sound]. Oslo: GAN Forlag AS. FAGERJORD, A., 2006. Web-medier. Introduksjon til sjangre og uttrykksformer på nettet [Norwegian] [Web Media. Introduction to genres and forms for expression on the Web]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. GOLAFSHANI, N., 2003. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report [online]. 8(4), pp 597-607. Available from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2005]. GRADWOHL, J. AND FELDMAN, G., 1998. Going Electronic: A Case Study of “Ocean Planet” and Its On-line Counterpart. In: S. THOMAS AND A. MINTZ, eds. The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum. Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998, pp 173-190. HAZAN, S., 2001. The Virtual Aura – Is There Space for Enchantment in a Technological World? In: Museums and the Web 2001, Seattle 14-17 March 2001 [online]. Available from: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/hazan/hazan.html [Accessed 14 March 2006]. HJORTH, J., 1978. How to Make a Rotten Exhibition. Stockholm: Riksutstälningar. HOLLEKIM, V., 2001. Hjemme på utstilling [Norwegian] [On Exhibition at Home]. Aftenposten [online] 24 April. Available from: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:q9ct0ntBHCgJ:tux1.aftenposten.no:8080/nyheter/nett/d 205975.htm+nettkunsten+i+dag+og+i+fremtiden&hl=no&gl=no&ct=clnk&cd=10 [Accessed 9 February 2006]. HOOPER-GREENHILL, E., ed. 1995. Museum, Media, Message. London: Routledge. ICOM, 2005. ICOM Definition of a Museum [online]. Available from: http://icom.museum/definition.html [Accessed 31 May 2006]. INTERNET WORLD STATS, 2006. World Internet Usage Statistics [online]. Available from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [Accessed 30 May 2006]. KALFATOVIC, M. R., 2002. Creating a Winning Online Exhibition. A Guide for Libraries, Archives, and Museums. Chicago: American Library Association. KEENE, S., 1998. Digital Collections: Museums and the Information Age. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

63

Bibliography KELLY, L., 2001. Focus Groups [online]. Sydney: Australian Museum Audience Research Centre. Available from: http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc/pdf/research/focusgps.pdf [Accessed 8 August 2006]. KITZINGER, J., 1995. Qualitative Research: Introducing Focus Groups. British Medical Journal [online]. 311(7000), pp 299-302. Available from: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/311/7000/299 [Accessed 8 August 2006]. KNELL, S. J., 2003. The Shape of Things to Come: Museums in the Technological Landscape. Museum and Society. [online], 1 (3), pp 132-146. Available from: http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/m&s/msknell.pdf [Accessed 22 November 2005]. KRUEGER, R. A, AND CASEY, M. A., 2000. Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications. KULTURHISTORISK MUSEUM UNIVERSITETET I OSLO, 2002. Made in Africa – scener fra afrikansk markedsliv [Norwegian] [Made in Africa – Scenes from African Market Life] [online]. Available from: http://www.khm.uio.no/utstillinger/madeinafrica/ [Accessed 5 June 2006]. MCDAVID, C., 1997. Truth Claims, Conversations and Borderlands: Archaeology and the Internet [online]. Available from: http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/truth.htm [Accessed 24 February 2006]. MCDAVID, C., 2004. Towards a More Democratic Archaeology? The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice. In: N. MERRIMAN, ed. Public Archaeology. London: Routledge, 2004, pp 159-187. MCELEARNEY, G., 2004. The Use of Learning Technologies in Archaeology. In: D. HENDSON, P. STOKE AND M. CORBISHLEY, eds. Education and the Historic Environment. London: Routledge, 2004, pp 121-131. MINERVA WORKING GROUP 5, 2003. Handbook for Quality in Cultural Web Sites: Version 1.2 – Draft. Parma: Minerva Working Group 5. MINTZ, A., 1998. Media and Museums: A Museum Perspective. In: S. THOMAS AND A. MINTZ, eds. The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum. Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998, pp 19-35. MUVA VIRTUAL MUSEUM OF ARTS, 1997. Virtual Museum of Arts el País [online] Available from: http://muva.elpais.com.uy/Ing/ [Accessed 4 March 2006]. PARRY, R., 2005. Digital Heritage and the Rise of Theory in Museum Computing. Museum Management and Curatorship [online], 20 (4), pp 333-348. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V9M-4H6XKNS-11&_cdi=5902&_user=4835956&_orig=browse&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_sk=9997 99995&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtzzSkWA&md5=2b27061f64f60392ffee70819a352e27&ie=/sdarticle.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2006].

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

64

Bibliography PERLIN, R., 1998. Media, Art Museums, and Distant Audiences. In: S. THOMAS AND A. MINTZ, eds. The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum. Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998, pp 73-87. PIERROUX, P., 1998. Art in Networks. Information and Communication Technology in Art Museums. Thesis (Master). University of Oslo. PIERROUX, P., 1999. Art in Networks: Information and Communication Technology in Art Museums. In: G. LIESTØL AND T. RASMUSSEN, eds., 2001. Internett i endring. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 1999, pp 87-104. RUDESTAM, K. E. AND NEWTON R. R., 2001. Surviving Your Dissertation. A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications. SILVER, D., 1997. Interfacing American Culture: The Perils and Potentials of Virtual Exhibitions. American Quarterly, 49 (4), pp 825-850. SMC, 2004. A national ICT strategy for Scotland’s museums. Edinburgh: The Scottish Museums Council. SOREN, B. J., 2004. Research on ‘Quality’ in Online Experiences for Museum Users [online]. Quebec: CHIN. Available from: http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Digital_Content/Research_Quality/pdf.html [Accessed 18 March 2006] SOREN, B. J, 2005. Best Practices in Creating Quality Online Experiences for Museum Users. Museum Management and Curatorship. [online], 20 (2), pp 131-148. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235902%232005 %23999799997%23598177%23FLA%23&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version =1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e5c0bda56a9dda370af075e65991726a [Accessed 18 March 2006]. STATISTICAL CONSULTATION GROUP STATISTICS CANADA, 2005. Canadian Heritage Information Network’s 2004 Survey of Visitors to Museums’ Web Space and Physical Space. Survey Documentation and Findings [online]. Available from: http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Digital_Content/index.html [Accessed 13 March 2006]. STRETEN, K., 2000. Honoured Guests – Towards a Visitor Centred Web Experience. In: Museums and the Web 2000, Minneapolis 16-19 April 2000 [online]. Available from: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2000/papers/streten/streten.html [Accessed 9 March 2006]. THOMAS, S. AND MINTZ, A., eds. 1998. The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum. Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums. THOMAS, W. AND BOILY, D., 1998. Virtual Exhibition Production: A Reference Guide. In: Museums and the Web 1998, Toronto 22-25 April 1998 [online]. Available from: http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/boily/boily_paper.html [Accessed 16 May 2006]. TONKISS, F., 2004. Using focus groups. In: C. SEALE, ed. Researching Society and Culture. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications, 2004, pp 193-206.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

65

Bibliography TRANT, J., 1997. CIDOC Multimedia Working Group Multimedia Evaluation Criteria [online]. Available from: http://www.archimuse.com/papers/cidoc/cidoc.mmwg.eval.1.html [Accessed 26 May 2006]. WALSH, P., 1997. The Web and the Unassailable Voice. Archives and Museum Informatics [online], 11 (2), pp 39-48. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/(qmil4pf5tzne0y45rpzyvw55)/app/home/issue.asp?referrer=pare nt&backto=journal,8,9;linkingpublicationresults,1:102848,1 [Accessed 30 May 2006]. WITCOMB, A., 2003. Re-imagining the museum: beyond the mausoleum. London: Routledge. WULLUM, A. L., 2001. “010101” i teknologiens Mekka – sjamerende, men uforløst – Artikkel [Norwegian] [”010101” In Technology’s Mecca– Charming but Unredeemed]. [online]. Kunstnett Norge, Kulturnett.no. Available from: http://www.kulturnett.no/dokumenter/dokument.jsp?id=T420123 [Accessed 3 March 2006].

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

66

Appendix 1: List of Web exhibitions and features

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF WEB EXHIBITIONS AND FEATURES These are the three Web exhibitions used in this research project. The list includes the features and design elements relevant for each Web exhibition. The subjects they discuss are all very different, and the exhibitions make use of several different elements to get their story across to the Web visitor.

Made in Africa – scener fra afrikansk markedsliv [Made in Africa – Scenes from African Market Life] Available from: http://www.khm.uio.no/utstillinger/madeinafrica/ Presented by: The Museum of Cultural History

Figure 13 Front page of Made in Africa.

• • • • • • • • • •

About West African market life Themes: Market life, consumption dreams, poverty and the range of goods, and West Africa in Oslo Only text and photos Mostly long bulks of text and fairly small photographs Pop-up windows with short texts about different items or specific people Possibility for English version Possibility for print version Suggestions for teachers about how to make this exhibition part of the curriculum activities References about where the information used in the exhibition is obtained Photographs from the gallery exhibition

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

67

Appendix 1: List of Web exhibitions and features • •

Menu always visible on the left side of the computer screen, and also includes a “next” and “back” button Possibility for navigating from start to end or to choose to visit whichever sites the Web user wants

Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten – en nettutstilling [The Borregaard society outside the factory – a Web exhibition] Available from: http://ostfold.kulturnett.no/borregaard/ Presented by: Borgarsyssel Museum

Figure 14 Front page of Borregaardsamfunnet utenfor fabrikkporten.

• • • • • • •

About living as a worker at Borregaard in the period between the two World Wars. At that time Borregaard was one of Norway’s biggest industrial working places with ca. 2000 workers Themes: Living conditions, the people, spare time, film and sound One section about the project itself Photos, texts, video, and recordings of oral history that can be listened to A separate section of the exhibition directs people to further information about the Borregaard society: articles, photographs, archive material, Web links and literature references Some places Web visitors are encouraged to add information to the Web site, for example if they know the names of people in some of the photographs Menu always visible on the left side of the screen and on the top of the screen. In addition a path appears showing the order of which the Web exhibition user has visited the different pages; kind of hierarchical. This way the user should have no problems

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

68

Appendix 1: List of Web exhibitions and features navigating through the exhibition or knowing where she is in relation to the rest of the information available

Steinalderen [The Stone Age] Available from: http://www.steinalder.no/flashsite.htm Presented by: Stavanger Museum of Archaeology

Figure 15 Front page of Steinalderen.

• • • • • • • • • •

About the Stone Age Themes: Climate, food, hunting and fishing, clothes, tools and weapons, resources, the people, dwelling places, religion, technology, dangers, plant life, animal life, the ice age, timeline, quiz Text, images, animation (both automatic and user activated), sound (nature sounds and “clicking”-sounds), some photos Encourages interaction from Web exhibition visitor Text is mostly in small bulks Some of the text only appears when the Web exhibition visitor moves the cursor over a particular image Exhibition incorporates “back” button Mostly explanations about where to click in order to navigate between the pages As there are few hyperlinks between the different topics the visitor almost always has to go back to main page in order to visit the other exhibition themes. Main menu is only visible on the main page

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

69

Appendix 2: Questions for focus group sessions

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS Before investigating the Web exhibitions Have any of you heard about Web exhibitions before? In what context? Have any of you visited a Web exhibition before? How many? Do all of you understand what a Web exhibition is? What do you think it is? Is there anything you would expect to find in a Web exhibition? (For example type of information, images, sounds, video or animation)

After investigating the Web exhibitions Were there some aspects of these exhibitions that you liked? Why did you like them? Were there some aspects of these exhibitions that you did not like? Why did you not like them? Were the images too small/big/similar? Did you manage to have a look at the video or oral interviews? Were the texts too long/short/detailed/superficial? What do you think about the graphic layout on the computer screen? (Fonts, colours, location of elements on the page) Was there too much/little/sufficient information about each of the themes? What could have been added or left out? Did you find the topics interesting or relevant? Did you believe whatever was communicated to you? Why/why not? What do you think of the language that was used? Was it too simple or difficult? How did you use the different Web exhibitions? Was it easy or difficult to navigate? Was the use of linkage between the pages logical? Did you get lost?

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

70

Appendix 2: Questions for focus group sessions How engaging were the different exhibitions? What made the exhibitions engaging/not engaging? Was the fact that the exhibition was engaging/not engaging positive, negative, or indifferent? Do you think different subjects are best presented in different ways? Why? Which forms of presentation do you think works best with which types of exhibition subjects? What do you think of the angles from which the exhibition subjects were approached? Should they have been approached in more/less/other ways? Would you have made some changes to the exhibitions you just visited? Why/why not? What would you have changed? Why? Which impacts would these changes have had? (I.e. easier navigation, created a deeper/better understanding of the subject, made the subject/exhibition more interesting?) What do you think about the compilation/juxtaposition of the different media on each Web page? (Text, images, animation, video, sound etc) What would you have wanted to include in a Web exhibition? (Text, photos/images, animation, sound, video, layout) Which exhibition did you like the most/least? Why? Did you look for who the creators of these exhibitions were? Why? Did these exhibitions make you want to: • visit the museum? • look for more information about the subject? • look for more Web exhibitions? • leave the exhibition? Or other things? What do you think the purposes of these exhibitions were? (Education/entertainment etc) Were you educated/entertained etc? Who do you think are the target groups for these Web exhibitions?

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

71

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session

APPENDIX 3: EXCERPT FROM FOCUS GROUP SESSION Okay, what do you think – generally? They were very, very, well I think all of them were nice looking, more or less. I think they were boring but they were very informative. It was kind of like “here is a spoon, now open your mouth”. I think that Borregaard site was a bit dull and boring. The Africa page had a lot of text. It was just text and text. And Steinalderen recycled stuff on the different pages, but otherwise it was okay. I think that one was fun. The Steinalder exhibition. Well, everything was very text based. Okay, there were some images in Steinalder and it had some animation and stuff, but text was kind of the main thing in the middle of the page. And then it had some images on the page and it wasn’t necessarily any text for the images. I maybe think that the Borregaard exhibition was most exhibition-like in relation to my expectations, because there you could choose not to read the text. Because that Africa site just consisted of text, at least that’s what I felt. Yes. I saw that the Borregaard exhibition was very good at a lot of things, but there was no print function. Then you would have had to cut and paste or come up with some other clever idea if you just wanted to print the text. At least I liked that function very much on the Africa site. So if you were to use it for some school purpose then it was okay, and so I think it worked very well there. What I think was very good about the Africa site was that it had a ‘next’ button. So you could just sit there and click ‘next’, ‘next’, ‘next’, ‘next’ and when you had finished reading a page it was ‘next’. I think that was good. I don’t like that. On that Africa site it was kind of like an index box on each page so all the time you were able to see where you were underneath the main heading. Wasn’t that the case in Borregaard too? No, or they had this thread on top. They had an index as well. But regarding the index; do you find having an index good or bad? What do you think?

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

72

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session It is good. Yes. Mm (agrees). I think it is important. At least in the Africa exhibition. If you hadn’t had an index then you wouldn’t have had any idea about how much was left. I think that the index box there could have been placed outside the main frame of the exhibition because, well, the frame was so narrow with a lot of pictures and it was a little messy. They could have placed other things there instead. What about the Steinalder exhibition? That one didn’t have an index. Yes, when you got to the front page it was just an image. No text, just an image right away. So, hm, what do I think seems exciting here, I thought, and then I realised that the themes here might be for those with special interests. But then I looked at what kinds of clothes they wore. It was something I liked about the two first exhibitions I looked at. Because there it was kind of like, when you get there it was an introduction, and if you are interested then you do bother reading those eight sentences and then you very quickly realise what it is all about. But if they had just opened with an image, well in the Steinalder exhibition the theme was quite obvious so there maybe an introduction wasn’t as necessary. There was one thing I felt was missing on the Africa site because in Steinalder and Borregaard you realise that there is some kind of purpose to it. But in the Africa exhibition I kind of wondered what the background for the exhibition was. I almost said, I got the feeling that they tried to communicate how strange it is in Africa. And, okay, that’s nice enough but I don’t know if, well. At least I think I got an impression of how it is in Africa. Well, but then there is… But it wasn’t an exhibition. No. I got the feeling that I was reading a booklet with illustrations. It wasn’t an exhibition. It was more like a regular Web site than an exhibition. I didn’t really understand where the exhibition part was on that site. It had a button that said ‘exhibition’. On the very first page you got to. Yes, but there you only found photos from the gallery exhibition.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

73

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session And every time you pushed that button the page got a new frame. Yes. They start with, in the back of the text they had some small photos on the side, and they were so small that you were unable to see anything. And they were the same photos that were used in the text blocks. Where there was text there was a row of photos next to it, so you very quickly understood the relation between the photos and the text. But then when you came to the page that showed photos of the gallery exhibition the photos were just chaotic. They weren’t taken in a way that made you actually see what was pictured. And it was no text to explain the pictures. I got a feeling that this Web exhibition kind of was a supplement to school children that were supposed to visit the gallery exhibition first and then go home and do some reading and answer questions and tasks. So that this maybe wasn’t within the scope of a Web exhibition, at least the way I think about it. I think it was strange that it didn’t have an ‘about’ function. Because in most regular Web pages there is an ‘about’ function. Where you get to know why the Web site exists. Because if I browse the Internet and all of a sudden come across this exhibition, how am I supposed to understand what it is? And if I don’t know that it exists, how am I going to find it, or get to know about it? That was unclear I think. Mm (agrees). I think the first page, well I got the notion that I understood what it was all about because I had read the text there. I kind of agree with [participant 1] here. In connection with what, really? Where did that page come from? I didn’t quite understand that either. But I think it was very good that it had a page with questions that was aimed at further education. That it had questions that one could use to prepare for a visit, or solve afterwards. And themes for discussion and stuff. That was very positive. So the target group for that exhibition (Made in Africa) – who do you think that is? Secondary school and college. I became very happy that I’m not in secondary school anymore. Maybe I have a negative attitude. When I looked at that exhibition I managed to end up at some of the Web pages belonging to the University of Oslo. That was because the Africa page was under the University of Oslo. But that is because it was made by Kulturhistorisk museum; a University museum. I think the Borregaard page, those sound clips.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

74

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session I couldn’t hear them properly. The sound quality. I think it was kind of too much when that man was couching all the time. I think it was very nice listening to them. Me too. They were okay but it was difficult not having an image to look at. Yes, for me as well. It should have been a video or, not just that fancy colour stuff. (laughing) It could have shown a portrait of the person being interviewed. I didn’t listen to it much. I think the interviews were badly executed. How do you know if you didn’t listen to it? (laughing) I actually think they were very good. I became absorbed in the story. You can turn on the sound and look at the rest of the images in the exhibition. I think it worked out very fine! Yes, there were so many stimuli. Yes, I think you had to look at the other pictures. But the sound clips could have been placed at the start so that you could start the sound and then look at the photos. But the sound came in the middle of the section of images. And they lasted so long. Ten minutes smalltalk about how they lived in these working class tenements. (laughing) So I have written down that it was fun but it can be kind of boring sitting there hour after hour just listening. They could have been edited. Yes. But then there is the question if you should edit it to make it fun to listen to or if you should leave them the way they are so that people can go in and investigate and learn something. It could have been possible to do both. Kind of like in the Steinalder exhibition, where you can look for more information if you are interested in the details. Did anybody watch the video in the Borregaard exhibition? Yes. Yes. Mm (agrees). What do you think of it? It was fun with a video.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

75

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session Yes, just the fact that it was a video. I could have done that myself with a handheld camera. I thought they could have done it the way they have at finn.no where they show people’s houses. It can’t be that difficult if they do it at Finn. They could have done something like that instead. It was very dark and blurry. Kind of like a TV documentary. So, then, video is positive as long as it shows good quality? Yes. The Borregaard exhibition was kind of, just in the layout, kind of, just looking at it I think it was kind of like you said; dull and boring, especially as the topic kind of also is that, that the layout kind of emphasises that. It can be difficult to keep up the interest then. Information site. It was kind of like the local history team had made an information site. They’re not reallt able to connect it to the world outside or make it relevant for anything but what the director’s wife did and stuff like that. If they had managed to include some more general stuff and stuff kind of in an expansion of time and space it would have been a lot more exciting. I agree but I don’t think that was the purpose of the exhibition. I think it was really exciting and I felt that I got an insight into a time and a place the way it was back then. I think you got information in so many different ways. I read everything in the entire exhibition. I think it was really exciting. Mm (agrees). What, the Borregaard exhibition? Yes, but then I am very interested in cultural history. So if you’re not I guess it might not be that exciting? The question has to be whether or not you would have visited the exhibition if you were not specifically looking for information about older times or Borregaard. If you are interested in reading about older times or Borregaard then I think that exhibition is very interesting. But I think the fact that it was so grey and boring made it less engaging. But then again it is easier to read a page that is grey than one that is bright orange. It was nice to see how things move and develop over time in the Steinalder exhibition. They could have connected the Borregaard exhibition to national and international occations and developments and the sailboat industry and stuff. That would have been exciting because then you would have understood better why factories and sawmills and stuff appeared.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

76

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session They said very little about the industry and what they were making. It was more like “this is how they lived there”. Yes, because there was no context. No, and, okay if you are interested in cultural history then maybe, but I mean what kind of teapot did they have back then? Or how did they live? It becomes exciting but it is a very special and narrow subject. But it is, local history is often like that. So the theme, some thought the theme was more or less interesting but what do you think about the layout? I think it was quite surveyable and okay. And I liked the, what was it, investigate further or something. Investigate further. Investigate further, yes. Which is a term I have never heard before but that I instantly understood and that made me understand where to find the links. But at the same time it’s like if you’re just browsing though an entire site there are many times when you don’t really look for ways to find out more, but that there are links somewhere it makes you find it. So when you’re visiting the site you’ll understand it quite quickly, but if you’re just browsing through I think it will be wise to have one page with all the links. And then there was, was there any search function at all at any of the exhibitions? No. Should Web exhibitions have a search function? It’s possible. I mean, I think they hardly resembled exhibitions and rather had the look of reference books or school books, so I felt that it was the communicating information that was the focus. And then they definitely should have a search possibility. What I enjoyed most was the Steinalder exhibition. Because Borregaard was a bit too much Borregaard. But it general it could have been more happening in all three exhibitions. More of those small videos and something that’s fun. I think that was missing, I missed humour in all the exhibitions. And something that made it worth investigating. Because it was just info, info, baff, baff, baff, baff, nice mammoth, sort of. Well, well. Just like that Steinalder site, when you got to the first page there was some kind of background noise, some sounds of waves, and they could have had something like that in the Borregaard exhibition for example. Some industrial noise and stuff. (laughing) I don’t really feel that that’s the target group there. (laughing) There is nothing that’s more irritating. Pages that give you sound and it’s impossible to turn it off. You have to sit there and listen to it. So if you’re listening to something else that is sensible and then all of a sudden you get some seagulls screaming, or some industry sounds.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

77

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session You sort of have to be able to turn it off if the sound is a problem for you. At first I was listening to music because there were no sounds, but that just made me want to continue listening to the music because it was so good. Yes, I agree. If there is sound you have to be able to turn it off. Yes, but then these are pages you visit to experience those very pages. But in the Steinalder exhibition I think there could have been more images and more kind of exhibition-like. Don’t take stuff out just put in more. More stuff, more images, more info and good visual input. When you say images, do you think about photographs of objects or animations and such? Both I guess. Maybe most photographs, of different knives and stuff. I generally think the animations were to simplistic. No, I disagree. There weren’t that many good animations, but then there was this one where you saw how the glacier developed. That one illustrated the text very well because it showed exactly what was being told in the text. I’m thinking in a school context. The one with the scull was really gruesome. But I found the one with the glacier moving away from Scandinavia very good. And in the quiz there was some animation. (laughter) Very fun. Yes, quiz is good. Good with some activity. The first three or four quizzes only had one question and then you had to download a new quiz every time you had answered a question. And then there were three on the next one and ten on the last. And that’s a sensible amount I think. But you had to download for like seven seconds or something before getting the next one. Mine came up extremely fast. No, it wasn’t that fast on my comouter. Why is having a quiz a good idea?

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

78

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session It activates the person using the page. You get a number for how good you are. And if you don’t get a number about being good you go back and read once more and then you get a number of being good. It maybe makes it a bit more fun to visit the whole exhibition because you know that you should be able to answer correctly at the end. And you learn more. And you can say oh I got the right answer! And it kind of summarised what you had read. And when there was a question and you thought oh, I don’t know the answer to that, then maybe you go looking. It reminded me of those refresh questions at the end of a school book. Should there have been a quiz in all of the exhibitions? Would that be appropriate? Mm (agreeing) Not in Borregaard. It depends what the purpose is because Steinalder was typical primary school, maybe secondary school. But Borregaard was more, if you put a primary school to look at that one they won’t be able to know a lot afterwards I think. So I believe quiz is good for people who are younger. You have to think about the target group. That’s got to be a general thing for all Web exhibitions, that one has to work towards the needs of the target group. It will be like that at a museum as well. But it was, the user-friendliness has to be, I don’t know, if small children are supposed to use them, then. But maybe kids today are good at that. I wouldn’t have let my grandmother loose on one of those pages but I don’t think any of the children in the family would have had any trouble using them No. I think what you say there, about your grandmother, that if you made any of them to look at Borregaard I think that one would have been a bit better because that didn’t have anything that moved or anything overwhelming. You’re able to look at photographs of people and then click, click, click, click, photos, photos, finished, done. Very simple and straightforward. I think my grandmother is fairly young at heart but I think she’d have caved in pretty soon if she came across flash or something like that. Yes.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

79

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session I think Borregaard was very well constructed in relation to its target group. Yes, that they are the target group, really. Maybe not just pensioners, but. It is few under 35 who spend a lot of time on local history. (laughter) You can’t say that. There are a lot of people who do degrees in cultural history. Yes, there are those of course. But there aren’t many who’d wake up one day and think today I want to spend my day looking at the Borregaard exhibition. It is a reason for that. (laughing) But if this is a new concept, Web exhibition. If that’s something that we’ll get more and more of, that all museum have them and not just information, then maybe. There should be more Web links. I didn’t see any. To what? Steinalder could for example have a link to the Viking age or something. Then you’d be able to browse around. But maybe that one doesn’t exist yet. Maybe they could have placed them on Museumnet so there was a list of all of them so that you were able to visit all the exhibitions there and not have to go to each museum Web page separately to look for them. If you clicked on the back button in Steinalder you got to the front page and not to the previous page. Yes, I know. That was really annoying. It annoyed me a lot. It’s normal to have the Web page icon somewhere, in the upper corner or something, and when you click on that you get to the front page, and everybody understands that. But here you clicked on the back button and you just got too far. So it was difficult to navigate in that exhibition? Difficult and difficult, it was just really annoying because you had to go back and then forwards again. And it wasn’t the same in all the exhibitions. I think it said back.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

80

Appendix 3: Excerpt from focus group session It was an arrow there. That was nice. If you clicked previous page you just ended up outside. Yes. And that was kind of a crisis. (laughter) That’s why I don’t like flash very much. So what did you miss in the Steinalder exhibition? If you are looking at a page there should be direct links to the other pages. I think there were. Yes. There were. But there weren’t, okay there were some. But I found that different links led to the same page. About cannibalism. What was the point of that? It wasn’t too much text on that page and I missed that but if it was aimed at younger people I guess it was enough. The climate page had a lot of text if you kept on clicking. Yes, and on the different trees. I enjoyed the possibility of digging for more information. Yes, me too. But it was kind of not consistent all the way, just a few places. So one should be able to investigate further if one wants to? Yes, either by clicking on each object or in some other way.

Gunhild Hammeraas. MSc Cultural Heritage Studies, GCU, September 2006.

81