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).