Loic Tallon is a museum designer who blogs at Musematic. Back in June, he titled a post: "I never take audio guides. I can't stand them." This wasn't his personal opinion, but an oft-overheard line from museum visitors who have been burned too often by bad or poorly-implemented audio guides.
While he first tried to argue with the people who said this, he came to realize the sentiment was widespread enough to indicate a real problem with the way this technology is maturing. From the post:
I’ve come to believe that it’s not the visitor’s fault that they can’t stand audio guides. They’re actually the victims in all this; the museums are the culprits.
Let me explain how I see it.... A visitor arrives at a museum and, before breaching the gallery threshold, is obliged into an early decision. “Would you like to take the audio guide?” the museum asks.
It seems like a simple question. But if we stop and look at this from the visitor’s perspective – a reasonable action considering audio guides are a visitor service – they’re probably asking themself: “Well, why in the devil is there an audio guide, and why should I take it? Especially if they want me to pay extra for it!”
Time was when just having "multi-media" technology at an exhibit was novel. It isn't anymore. You have to be purposeful in explaining why a visitor needs or might want to consider taking the audio tour. At some places, it is essential (Tallon refers to the excellent audio guide at Alcatraz, for example)...at most others, it is a nice supplement to other interpretation already in place. So museums have to tell visitors what the advantage of the guide is.
...if we provide no information, and simply advertise to visitors that ‘audio guides are available’, we’re actually encouraging visitors to draw on personal notions of whether they like audio guides in order to decide whether to take it or not.
Tallon also reiterates what I gather is a guiding mantra amongst museum techies: "It's not about the technology." Here's my favorite part of the post:
Like the cinema, the audio guides itself is not, and should not be presented as, the deal clincher. I know that ‘sexy’ technologies like multimedia tours, and IPodTouches/IPhones currently act as deal clinchers, but like an I-Max, after a couple of experiences, I’m sure the novelty will wear off.
In this funny and insightful piece, Tallon stops just short of what I think is the logical conclusion of his argument: The content rules and the presentation matters. People are tired of sticking speakers in their ears and hearing boring or silly factoids about the stuff around them. If audio is going to help your exhibit, it needs to take advantage of the power of the medium: voice, story, music, pacing and even -- gasp -- silence. Reading a guidebook into a microphone doesn't cut it anymore. Interviewing the curator about the exhibit won't do it. Visitors expect, and deserve, an engaging experience -- and an explanation up front of what that experience will be like.
One more thought on Museums.
When it comes to creating place-specific audio, museums are leading the way. They are WAY out in front of historic sites, tourist boards and chambers of commerce in creating audio enhancements to the visitor experience. This makes sense. Museums are hyper-planned, self-contained environments that are designed by professional interpreters (many of whom blog and write and meet about new technologies all the time). The most successful trends in placecasting will no doubt have their roots in museum interpretation. All the same, I'm most interested in what is happening out of doors.
To me, the exciting part about the idea of placecasting is meeting people where they are at...in the real world. When there are no interpretive signs or tour guides around, mobile audio takes on new importance and new potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment