My slides are here; the podcast of the talk is below. If you have comments or ideas to build on this work, there are pages on the Museum Mobile wiki dedicated to the topic:

• On mobile experience design
• My manifesto for a new mobile information architecture
• And some ideas for a new information architecture

Below is a podcast of the first one I’ve been able to edit together so far (or find it on iTunes); the slides are here. It was delivered at the conference: Event Culture The Museum and Its Staging of Contemporary Art at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art on November 7, 2009. The conference was brilliantly conceived and put together by Rune Gade and Jesper Rasmussen from the Copenhagen Doctoral School of Cultural Studies, Department of Arts and Cultural Studies.

The conference also gave me the opportunity to visit Copenhagen and about 11 of its museums and cultural sites for the first time! My favorite was the Glyptoteket – perhaps the best sculpture experience of my life, with a gorgeous ‘Winter Garden’ courtyard. Here are some pictures; check out the crazy turn of the 20th century French sculpture, and the Louise Bourgeois that apparently moves around the museum! I love her in the Rodin gallery, as if to vindicate Camille Claudel…

The conference really made me want to go back and spend some time working with and learning from the museum professionals and academics I met there. In particular, I’m keen to visit the ARoS after hearing a presentation about it from Jesper. They are doing some really innovative things in contemporary art curation: see Sense City, where “the spectator takes center stage,” and Art City, where you walk down a city street, seeing the art representing elements you might find in a city, displayed as if in their natural places along the streets and square. No labels! I’ll add a link when Jesper publishes his paper about these installations.

Until then, thanks to all who organized and attended the conference!

The International Spy Museum in Washington, DC now offers an amazing taste of what it’s like with a GPS-triggered game and tour of the city. Inspired by two real FBI cases – Operation Lemon-Aid, conducted in 1977, and KITTY HAWK in 1966 – Spy in the City is a 1.2 mile (1.5 hour), $16 experience using the BarZ Adventures GPS Ranger device. Code-named ‘Geo-Cobra’, the multimedia handheld uses Flash to simulate the experience of receiving text messages, audio, video, photographs and other breaking intelligence from headquarters as you track a foreign agent. You scan for fingerprints, descramble audio messages and decipher local monuments to identify your quarry.

It’s an ambitious application of the new technology, offering lots of important lessons for others interested in trying the treacherous world of location-based mobile, as well as exploring the value of gaming in education. For those less intrepid, this interview with the tour’s author, Amanda Ohlke, and the Museum’s Executive Director, Peter Earnest, also shares ideas on lower-tech mobile programs like scavenger hunts, and how they can be leveraged for team-building and other group experiences. After all, “it’s not about the technology” – though I do try to get some hints from Peter, a former spy with the CIA himself, as to what new mobile tricks we might inherit from the clandestine services in the next generation!

So don’t be surprised if this podcast self-destructs after you’ve heard it…

We connected via Skype last month and Peter recounted his experiences with mobile multimedia at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) from 2000/2001 to the present day. He also spoke candidly about the future of mobile, companies and business models in the industry, as well as the ‘open source’ project that’s being pursued collaboratively on the Museum Mobile wiki. In closing, he answers questions from Dave Patten of the Science Museum in London, MoMA Learning (Beth Harris, Director of Digital Learning), and educator at the St Louis Art Museum and Michael Mouw from the Minnesota Historical Society.

Be sure to check out SFMOMA’s multimedia programs, podcasts, and in particular, writings by student contributor, Radford Leon, from Herbert Hoover Middle School, celebrated by Peter in this interview.

Peter & I would love to hear your thoughts and feedback on our conversation!

Compare it to Chris Alexander’s solution for the San Jose Museum of Art. I’m interviewing Chris & Ted on Sunday May 17, 2009 – you’re welcome to post your questions for them here!

Join the opensource ‘Museums to Go’ collaboration on the wiki, and check out our ‘parent’ wiki as well with a wealth of resources collected around the 2008 Tate Handheld Conference. Both museums and vendors are contributing their best practices, solutions and code to the community with the aim of improving access and interpretation to collections around the world.

In this podcast, you’ll hear us using the SmartHistory dialogue technique to work through some of the ideas for ‘soundtracks‘ and ‘soundbites‘ that I introduced at the AAM Learning in Museums seminar in Minneapolis/St. Paul last summer. We tried to understand how, without rooting visitors to the spot listening to ’soundbites’ in front of one object after another, we could quickly provide some basic keys to reading a gallery of artworks, designed to be listened to as a ’soundtrack’ by visitor strolling through the space. We realized that in so doing we were effectively reading the curator’s intentions: the stories and relationships created by the placement of objects in the space, the design, look and feel of the gallery, etc.

There have, of course, been many wonderful gallery overviews in hundreds or even thousands of audio tours over the years. This one is intended to lay bare the aim and structure of the soundtrack and help us re-examine some of the fundamental concepts and components of the audio tour. Your comments and criticisms on this ‘working document’ will be very helpful and welcome!

Credits (in order of appearance in the podcast, excluding room overviews):

Master of the Legend of St. Ursula
Flemish
Triptych of the Annunciation, about 1483
oil on wood
23 ¼ x 45 ¾ in. (overall)
1997.138
Indianapolis Museum of Art, Acquired through the generosity of Lilly Endowment and Anonymous Art Fund

Master of the Legend of St. Godelieve
Flemish
The Miracles of Santiago, about 1500
oil on panel
32 x 138 in. (open)
24.3
Indianapolis Museum of Art, James E. Roberts Fund

Rembrandt van Rijn
Dutch (1606-1669)
Self-Portrait, about 1629
oil on wood
17 ½ x 13 ½ in.
C10063
Indianapolis Museum of Art, The Clowes Fund Collection

Follower of Rembrandt van Rijn
Dutch (1606-1669)
Old Man with a Tall, Fur-edged Cap
oil on wood
9 ¾ x 7 ½ in.
C10062
Indianapolis Museum of Art, The Clowes Fund Collection

Nina Simon with Morris Louis's Faces, 1959, at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

Thanks to Nina, I got to look at the art museum for the first time through the revealing lens of the science museum. She pointed out that science museums often invoke their visitors as scientists or researchers, helping them make discoveries and relive in some way the subject as professionals experience it. Why, she asks, do art museums not position the visitor as an artist, curator, or art historian? How can we all – visitors and museum staff alike – give ourselves license to create and innovate within the museum experience?

Beth has now joined MoMA in New York as the Director of Digital Learning. She, Steven and I are joined by Deborah Howes, head of educational media at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Titus Bicknell, technology analyst and former chief engineer for Antenna Audio. Over lunch on New Year’s day in 2009, we talk about why people don’t tend to prepare for their museum visit by downloading podcast tours and other materials – as they might for a run, a flight, or their daily commutes – and what museums can do about it in light of the ‘digital age divide’. We consider the other end of the visit lifecycle as well, in terms of how people can ‘bookmark’ and take information away from the museum for deeper study later – but will only want to do so if the content they encounter during their visit has ‘put them in the picture’ and engaged them. At the heart of the conversation is the question of conversation itself as a context for learning, and how its strategic use helps transform the museum from Acropolis into Agora: a platform where many voices can come together and even the amateur and the outsider are empowered to make discoveries, fall in love, and sing of their passions.

1. Producer: Who produced the tour? Was it done ‘in-house’ by museum staff in part or whole? Were any audio tour content or technology providers involved?
2. Technology: What device was used? Did it use headphones? If so, mono or stereo?
3. Distribution: How was the device distributed? Was it available for download online or on site, as well as on museum-specific players at the museum?
4. Staffing: Were the staff employees of the museum or a tour provider? Were they well-presented, professional and courteous? What kind of an effort did they make to get you to take the tour? Did they explain the device and tour use clearly and efficiently?
5. Price & Security: What did the tour cost? Were you required to leave a deposit or was other security used for the device? Where were the distribution facilities located with respect to the museum/exhibition entrance?
6. Take-up Rate: How many devices were available to visitors? What percentage of visitors were taking the tour? What percentage of devices were in-use? Can you get a sense of the profile and motivations of those taking the tour – and those not?
7. Marketing: How was the tour marketed/advertised within the museum and beyond? What signage was available at individual ‘stops’? Was it visible and helpful?
8. Technical Performance: Describe your experience of the technology: what worked well, not so well? Was the device easy to carry and handle? Was the audio quality good? Overall did the device serve as an ‘invisible’ platform for the content?
9. Tour Design: Is the tour linear or random access? How is the tour integrated into the exhibition design? Does it interact or conflict with other media (audio, video, interactive kiosks, etc.)? Did the audio tour do something that other media – wall labels, docent tours, etc. – couldn’t do as well?
10. Length & Layout: How long was the tour (how many stops, overall length)? Were the stops well distributed throughout the space covered by the tour?
11. Languages & Versions: Were there multiple languages or versions, e.g. a children’s tour, sign language tour, or descriptive tour for visitors with low vision?
12. Content Structure: Describe your experience of the content: what was the tone/voice? How long were the messages? Were there multiple layers of messages at some exhibits? How many messages in the whole tour? Did the tour and the messages seem too long, too short, or just right?
13. Visitor Experience: Evaluate your overall experience: was your visit enhanced by the audio tour and interactions with tour staff? Do you think other visitors enjoyed the tour? Was there crowding around exhibits on the tour, or other issues that clouded your experience?

The reviewers interviewed by Nancy Proctor for this case study are Harriet Moss, former President and CEO of Antenna Audio, and Ernesto Sanchez, artist and former performer with Snake Theater, where Chris Hardman’s audio-based theatre productions were born. Despite being offered in the classic museum audio tour formula, the tour proved to be as innovative and unusual in structure as the exhibition and the artist it represented. Moss and Sanchez found themselves delighted and inspired by the multi-modal, polyvocal experience and how even this established medium challenged their expectations of the exhibition experience.

Apologies for the less-than-ideal audio quality of this podcast, which was recorded through a less-than-cutting-edge skype-to-phone connection so includes unfortunate interference!

And thanks to the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, de Young Museum, for permission to use the following images from the exhibition in the podcast (in order):

1. Loading…

   Nat Finkelstein, Andy Warhol, Gerard Malanga, Mary Woronov and The Velvet Underground, 1966, (reprint 1996), gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Museum purchase.

   

   Nat Finkelstein, Andy Warhol, Gerard Malanga, Mary Woronov and The Velvet Underground, 1966, (reprint 1996), gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Museum purchase.

   

   Andy Warhol, The Velvet Underground and Nico, Lou Reed, Nico, John Cale, Sterling Morrison, Maureen Tucker,1967, Verve/Polydor, Verve Records, subsidiary of MGM Records, Phono album cover, offset lithograph on coated paper.

   

   Cover by Andy Warhol, Cano (November 1948), 1948, printed ink on paper with coated paper cover. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh.

   

   Andy Warhol, Self-Portrait, 1986, acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Andy Warhol, Self-Portrait in Drag, 1981, Polaroid TM Polacolor 2, facsimile. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Andy Warhol, Debbie Harry (detail), 1980, acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Photographer unknown, Andy Warhol holding a 1964 publicity photograph of The Rolling Stones, 1969, gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Andy Warhol, Triple Elvis (Large three Elvis), [Ferus Type] June-July 1963, silkscreen ink, silver paint, and spray paint on linen. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Virginia.
   No results found.
   Photographer unknown, Andy Warhol holding a 1964 publicity photograph of The Rolling Stones, 1969, gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.
2. Cover by Andy Warhol, Cano (November 1948), 1948, printed ink on paper with coated paper cover. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh.
3. Andy Warhol, Self-Portrait in Drag, 1981, Polaroid TM Polacolor 2, facsimile. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.
4. Nat Finkelstein, Andy Warhol, Gerard Malanga, Mary Woronov and The Velvet Underground, 1966, (reprint 1996), gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Museum purchase.
5. Andy Warhol, Triple Elvis (Large three Elvis), [Ferus Type] June-July 1963, silkscreen ink, silver paint, and spray paint on linen. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Virginia.
6. Andy Warhol, Debbie Harry (detail), 1980, acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.
7. 
   Loading…

   Nat Finkelstein, Andy Warhol, Gerard Malanga, Mary Woronov and The Velvet Underground, 1966, (reprint 1996), gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Museum purchase.

   

   Nat Finkelstein, Andy Warhol, Gerard Malanga, Mary Woronov and The Velvet Underground, 1966, (reprint 1996), gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Museum purchase.

   

   Andy Warhol, The Velvet Underground and Nico, Lou Reed, Nico, John Cale, Sterling Morrison, Maureen Tucker,1967, Verve/Polydor, Verve Records, subsidiary of MGM Records, Phono album cover, offset lithograph on coated paper.

   

   Cover by Andy Warhol, Cano (November 1948), 1948, printed ink on paper with coated paper cover. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh.

   

   Andy Warhol, Self-Portrait, 1986, acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Andy Warhol, Self-Portrait in Drag, 1981, Polaroid TM Polacolor 2, facsimile. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Andy Warhol, Debbie Harry (detail), 1980, acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Photographer unknown, Andy Warhol holding a 1964 publicity photograph of The Rolling Stones, 1969, gelatin silver print. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

   

   Andy Warhol, Triple Elvis (Large three Elvis), [Ferus Type] June-July 1963, silkscreen ink, silver paint, and spray paint on linen. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Virginia.
   No results found.
   Andy Warhol, Self-Portrait, 1986, acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen. The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh. Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

In under 10 minutes, hear Chris’s top 10 tips – and add your tips & questions in the comments below!

1. Talk about the elephant in the room – or the meteor that just hit the Pope;
2. Choose the most passionate person to narrate the tour;
3. Structure the tour around key messages and the educational mission: of the museum, the exhibition and the object;
4. Position the visitor as archaeologist/researcher to make discoveries through the tour;
5. Forming an opinion is a profound learning experience: don’t be afraid to encourage your visitors to debate with the tour;
6. Choose the platform last, to suit the story;
7. Trust your ear (more than the script);
8. Get the operations right to avoid the glitches becoming the prevailing memory of the tour;
9. Keep it simple: truly hip technology is technology that works consistently;
10. Be complementary: the tour can’t compete with the museum or exhibition.

‘Random access’ to tour content, allowing visitors to chart their own route through the museum or gallery, became possible as digital audio technologies replaced cassette tapes. But even as digital audio players increased museums’ ability to offer a wide range of tours and languages on a single device, ‘information on demand’ audio design obviated certain kinds of theatrical and narrative engagement. With the visitor moving between two minute ’stops’ in no predictable order, the tour could not develop a complex story over time, nor immerse the visitor in a continuous soundtrack to accompany the museum’s visuals. “There are always trade-offs as technology advances,” comments Torgersen. As new 21st century technologies continue to shape the nature of what you can do with content, “you have to decide what story you want to tell first, and then choose the best tools to tell it,” counsels Hardman.

From short-range radio systems and IR triggers to iPhones and GPS – with a short stop to hear how the first movie projector was put on tour – follow two of the pioneers of performative sound as they trace the development of their understanding that “all these technologies are tools; it’s the content that makes them valid.”

In the first podcast, Chris Hardman, founder and Artistic Director of Antenna Theater, which became the global audio tour company, Antenna Audio, talks about ‘writing the rules’ of audio tour creation with David Torgersen, the senior sound designer for Antenna Theater for 15 years and producer of more than 300 audio tours around the world.

Stay tuned to hear about the pros and cons of linear versus random access technology, the impact of new 21st century platforms on audio tour content design and use, and the emerging role of ‘citizen curators’ as the world becomes “an audio tour waiting to happen.”

A vodcast evaluation of MoMA Wifi and MoMA Audio coming up next. More about MoMA Audio and MoMA Wifi on MoMA’s gorgeous new website!