My slides are here; the podcast of the talk is here. 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

In this podcast, Peter recounts his experiences with mobile multimedia at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) from 2000/2001 to the present day. He also speaks 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!

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

In January 2009, I got to revisit that painting and many other artworks in the American Art Museum, including an exhibition of Frank Gohlke’s photography, with Nina as we talked about our experiences and aspirations for mobile interpretation. Along the way we recalled Peter Samis‘s trope of ‘visual velcro‘ in describing how interpretation can be essential to helping visitors connect with certain artworks in particular. We talked about the power of dialogue and the conversational tone, as exemplified in the SmartHistory.org podcasts. Our views of cellphone tours and headphones got tossed around, with an idea for podcasts that can work both as gallery tours and as learning experiences beyond the museum. And we shared our enthusiasm for games and how they can bring adaptive learning experiences to museum interpretation, referencing Jane McGonigal’s talk for AAM’s Center for the Future of Museums.

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?

Hear the podcast…

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 this 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.”