annette,
your questions and musings are too technical for me, but i'd be interested
in the answers!  i don't know if you're aware of an evaluation listserv
called EVALTALK - maybe people on that list might be able to help in addition
to these very helpful museum folks.

here's how to subscribe:

To subscribe to EVALTALK, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
The body of the message should read:

            SUBSCRIBE EVALTALK FirstName LastName

Replace the terms FirstName and LastName with your first and last name.


hope that helps!
grace



*******************************************
Grace Manubay
M.S. Candidate
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Dana Building
430 E. University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
[log in to unmask]
*******************************************

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Annette Adele Wilson wrote:

> I have a sort of corollary to this question about critical size.  I've
> been looking at methods of exhibit evaluation, and in particular at
> Serrell's work, "Paying Attention."  She proposes a measure she calls the
> "Sweep Rate Index" (SRI) which is the average total time visitors spend
> divided by the square footage.  "It represents the amount of
> space-per-time used by the visitors as they visually and physically sweep
> the area of the exhibition."  Clearly one can do this for an individual
> visitor as well, or for categories of visitors.
>
> Below are some questions/thoughts/musings about the SRI and %DV.  I would
> welcome any comments or clarifications.  It may be that I am not fully
> understanding some of the thinking behind it, and would welcome helpful
> pointers. I would also be interested to know if others have developed
> modifications to these two measures that are intended to account for some
> of the issues raised.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand it, the SRI ratio essentially "adjusts" the amount of time
> spent for the size of the space, allowing a comparison of times between
> different sizes of exhibits.  This seems quite valuable in many ways.
> However, the embedded assumption is that there is an optimal ratio that
> exhibits might seek to achieve.  An embedded assumption may also be
> that the "cost" or value of space (square footage) is the same across
> institutions and across institutional types.
>
> And this is the connection to the earlier "critical size" topic: the
> implication of suggesting an optimal index number (or range) for the SRI
> is that there is an optimal "space-use rate"  that cuts across
> institutions and exhibits.  But for institutions of different sizes and
> means, there may be different "costs" of space, and a different
> expectation with regard to how a visitor might use it, or the time a
> visitor might spend in it.
>
> I am also a little concerned about how to apply the square footage: 1) Is
> it total square footage that the visitor may use or occupy?  as in the
> corridors or pathways?  2) Or is it the total square footage that the
> exhibit occupies? which would include the space taken up by the exhibit
> items/elements themselves as well as the space a visitor might occupy?
>
> If it is the latter, then there would be a massive difference between
> exhibition types, since for example paintings take up virtually no space
> at all, while a zoo exhibit may consist of elements taking up a lot of
> square footage that a visitor never enters.
>
> If it is the former, then how do we account for the variability or
> complexity of exhibit items?  The "footppint" of an exhibit item may
> contribute to its interest or complexity in a way that is not reflected in
> the "frontage" or length of pathway available to the visitor.  It may
> contribute to the depth or complexity of an item/object, and thus to the
> kind of time or interaction a visitor will have.
>
> That "exhibits" (the total object of study) could consist of any number of
> items/objects (paintings/text panels/dioramas/objects on stands...) is
> accounted for by Serrell in her Percent of Diligent Visitors(%DV).
>
> This figure seems somewhat problematic since it doesn't account for the
> fact that an exhibit with 300 item/elements may engage a visitor
> completely differently than one with 10.  Visitors may "understand" in
> some way that it isn't possible to take in 300 items (or they may not!).
> Or that an exhibit with 10 items "should" be approached with more
> attention time to each item.
>
> It seems to me that item/element complexity and depth is also less well
> accounted for. This may be particularly true for exhibits with interactive
> component item/elements, such as we see in science or technology museums.
> Some objects in the exhibit may comprise three or four "activities" and
> offer the opportunity for several stops, while other objects may have only
> one "activity".  Does each "activity" (read a panel on one side, look at a
> video on another side, operate levers and gadgets on a third side)
> constitute an item/element?  Or is the entire object/footprint a single
> item/element comprising several modes of interaction?
>
> Elements may also differ in that not all elements require a full stop for
> comprehension, while others may be "omnipresent" throughout the visitors
> circulation time, and be the backdrop or anchor for the entire visit.
>
>
> I do fully realize in some sense my questions are premature: that Serrell
> is actively building a database of evaluation and observation studies that
> cut across instituional types and sizes.  It is precisely through this
> achievement that she/we will uncover the answers to some of these
> questions about how visitors and exhibits vary across institutional sizes
> and types, and thus whether a single index can be meaningfully applied
> across the board.
>
>
> Annette A. Wilson
> _________________________                            _____________________
>                           The University of Michigan
> College of Architecture and Urban Planning  :           Research Assistant
>  -Joint Programs-                           :    Interdisciplinary Program
> 3+ Master of Architecture    and            :         in Feminist Practice
> Doctoral Program in Architecture            :              2125  Lane Hall
>         Environment and Behavior            :
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Thomas D. Meier wrote:
>
> > Dear listmembers
> >
> > I wonder if there has ever been a discussion on the list about the critical size of museums in terms of exhibition space. What is the numer of square feet or square feet generally considered to be necessary to attract a considerable number of visitors not only from the vicinity of the museum but also from other towns, cities and even from abroad?
> >
> > I know of course that the importance and value of a museum does by no means depend on sheer size. But it helps to convince people that it might be worth the trip. Having some accurate information on the subject might also convince managements and boards of museums being situated in the same neighbourhood to strengthen cooperation with eachother...
> >
> > Thanks for any information on the subject.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > Thomas D. Meier
> > Museum of Communication
> > Bern, Switzerland
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > =========================================================
> > Important Subscriber Information:
> >
> > The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
> >
> > If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
> >
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).