OK, I'll leap into this discussion...

We have found some of the same things that Kersti mentions in recent
evaluations here at Glenbow.  In particular, we've been interested to see
whether or not the layering technique we've unconciously adopted is actually
comfortable for our visitors.

I believe someone else posted the gerneral "guidelines" for layering:  basic
info first on artifact label, followed by some more detailed information,
and, in our case, a handout for the really interested that includes even
more detailed information.  At either of the 2 latter stages, we like to try
to include the artifact's "story" - how it was used, who used it, something
intriguing about it, etc.

We've also experimented with a number of techniques for uncluttering the
display of artifacts - numbering the artifacts, leading to a key, basic
tombstone labels that lead to a handout, etc.  Our preliminary findings,
based on the evaluations of 4 exhibits, seem to support our techniques.
People find the labels easier to read, they can hone in on the information
they're most interested in, they can take a handout away with them to read
later, they can use that handout to lead them to the library for further
reading, etc.  What doesn't work for us, is the long artifact label or
gallery panel, no matter how "user-friendly" the language used is.  Most
visitors simply don't want to stand there reading five gallery panels (trust
me, this is based on a real example....)  We also find people will be more
apt to read labels if the label includes a question or point to ponder or
gets them involved in an interactive experience - hands on or not.

It's interesting that Kersti's data breaks down into two relatively even
groups.  It raises the question how do you please both groups?

Kersti?  Has the museum managed to come up with something that adequately
addresses this paradox?

I'm also waiting to hear from Beverly Serrell, who I believe lurks on this
list - I'd love to hear your $.02 worth, Beverly!


Christina J. Simpson
Co-ordinator of Evaluation/Results Monitoring
Glenbow Museum
Calgary, Alberta  CANADA



>In a study we recently conducted of members of the Museum of Anthropology
>(where labelling is sparse in many galleries), we posed a question about
>labelling.  The answers we received back (about 500), broke relatively
>evenly into two groups:  the first felt strongly that the aesthetics of
>the museum were such that labels would interfere with visitors' enjoyment
>of objects and spaces (and views out) and that if some people wanted more
>information, there were many other, less oppressive sources available;
>the second felt equally strongly that the museum should not expect people
>to come with enough cultural knowledge to figure out what they were
>looking at and it was our responsibility to make the learning process
>easier for them.  Of course there were people "in between" too, many
>offering creative solutions (computer access, layered labelling, handouts,
>guided tours, and audio guides).
>
>Though members are no doubt a more knowledgeable bunch than casual
>visitors, we believe the findings are useful to rethink our service to all
>visitors.
>
>Kersti Krug
>Museum of Anthropology
>The University of British Columbia
>Vancouver, Canada
>
[log in to unmask]