MUSETECH Evaluation Criteria by Cluster
Overview
The MUSETECH Model[1] posits that in order for museums to successfully utilize technologies, there are three stakeholder perspectives that must be considered. Throughout all stages of a museum technology project, these perspectives offer views that complement and inform the others in a way that can build institutional synergy. This model also states that there are four primary stages or constituents of a museum technology project. These quartiles contain evaluation criteria per perspective, grouped by thematic categories, which allows for a granular overview of the considerations throughout each stage of the technology project.
Design Quartile
D1. Design and product ideation
Cultural Heritage Professional
D1Pa. Design concept
The main goal or concept that is to be achieved with a specific technology idea or application. Cutting edge or novel technologies without an established use may be difficult to fully conceptualize[2].
D1Pb. Integration with exhibit
This criteria is about how well the technology will or can be integrated into the exhibit or other things on display.
D1Pc. Integration with other ICT
This criteria relates to how well the technology integrates with other Information and Communication technologies. Can this technology be used with other on-site, off-site or online technologies used by the institution?
D1Pd. Balance of physical with digital
This criteria relates to the balance between physical and digital elements within an exhibit or display. Certain technologies can "overshadow" a visitors connection with an exhibit or the objects on display[3].
D1Pe. Clear understanding of the fabrication process
This criteria is about the clarity and understanding of the fabrication, installation and deployment process for the technology by Cultural Heritage Professionals.
D1Pf. Level of in-house technical knowledge
This criteria considers whether there is enough in-house technical knowledge to independently manage the project, or if support and consultation will be required by external contractors to fully manage this project.
Museum Institution
D1Ma. Level of Innovation and business intelligence
What value does this technology and this specific approach add for your institution?
D1Mb. Brand name, uniqueness, originality
This criterion is about whether the technology used serves the museum's brand and reputation[4].
D1Mc. Integration with other ICT
This criterion evaluates how the new technology or project would integrate into the existing digital framework of the institution.
D1Md. Budget
This criterion is about the financial considerations that may be associated with a technology project, including a cost versus benefit analysis.
D1Me. Staff acceptance
This criterion relates to the staff of the institution and their willingness to adopt and embrace the new technology, or if it will merely be tolerated.
Visitor
D1Va. Co-design, front-end evaluation and visitor acceptance
This criterion is related to initiatives that include visitors in the early design and evaluation phases[5].
D2. Experience design and narratives
Cultural Heritage Professional
D2Pa. Experience added value
This criterion relates to how the technology mediation relates to the application it is being used it, because different technologies offer different visitor experiences.
D2Pb. Relevance to audience
This criterion relates to the relevancy of the content on display to the intended audience.
D2Pc. Tailored content
This criterion relates to how a Cultural Heritage Professional might tailor the content and narrative to different visitors' profiles.
D2Pd. Attentional balance
This criterion relates to the attentional balance of the technology and physical elements of an exhibit.
D2Pe. Social interaction
This criterion considers the role this technology can have in fostering and facilitating social interaction in real and virtual spaces.
D2Pf. Before and after the visit support
This criterion relates to the potential of the technology linking pre- and post-visit activities.
Museum Institution
D2Ma. Interpretive, educational and learning potential
This criterion relates to the interpretive, educational and learning potential that the technology project may provide.
D2Mb. Personalization potential
This criterion relates to the museum's potential for providing personalized content for visitors through a customization, context-awareness or adaptivity mechanism. This is distinct from the "tailored content" provided by Cultural Heritage Professionals.
D2Mc. Public outreach and communication
This criterion relates to the potential of a museum using this technology to connect with their communities[6].
D2Md. Big data potential
This criterion relates to the big data potential provided by some technology solutions that can offer useful insight into visitor preferences.
Visitor
D2Va. Engagement
This criterion refers to the opportunities offered to visitors to engage them on a physical, emotional, intellectual, social, cognitive or proprioceptive level[7].
D2Vb. Personalization
Personalization of content and narratives for specific visitors should increate engagement.
D2Vc. Learning, entertainment and edutainment
Edutainment is both instructive and fun, providing both learning and entertainment[8]. Pleasant and positive memories are favored over unpleasant memories[9].
D2Vd. Attentional balance
This criterion relates to how a visitor balances their attention between the physical object and the technology.
D2Ve. Affective impact
This criterion relates to the emotional resonance that a digital resource may invoke from a visitor. A number of studies have highlighted the increasing importance of emotion and affect for learning[10][11].
D2Vf. Social interaction
This criterion is related to the relevant criteria from the Cultural Heritage Professional perspective (D2Pe).
D2Vg. Ability to follow usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D2Vh. Sense of belonging to a community
This criterion relates to empowering visitors to feel that they are part of a local, regional, national or international community[12].
D3. Interactions, affordances, and interaction metaphors
Cultural Heritage Professional
D3Pa. Quality of Affordances
Affordances are the intrinsic properties of a thing that provide clues about how it can be used[13].
D3Pb. Suitability of interaction metaphors
This criterion is related to the efficacy of an interactive's physical form to communicate it's function.
D3Pc. Interface design
This criterion relates to how clean, clear and comprehensive the interface is, regardless of the form it takes.
This criterion relates to how intuitively and successfully someone can navigate within contents or the physical space being augmented.
D3Pe. Follow-up usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D3Pf. Multisensoriality
This criterion refers to the inclusion of additional senses beside seeing, reading or hearing.
Museum Institution
D3Ma. Follow-up usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D3Mb. Brand name, uniqueness and originality
This criterion is about how an interactive communicates the brand identity of the museum.
Visitor
D3Va. Utility, usability and ease of use
D3Vb. Intuitiveness, learnability and learning curve
D3Vc. Responsiveness
D3Ve. Personalization
D3Vf. Social interaction
D3Vg. Follow-up usage on other platforms
D3Vh. Multisensoriality
D4. Aesthetics, look and feel and visceral qualities
Cultural Heritage Professional
D4Pa. Look and feel
Museum Institution
D4Ma. Brand name, uniqueness and originality
Visitor
D4Va. Look and feel
Content Quartile
C1. Content creation
Cultural Heritage Professional
C1Pa. Utility, usability and ease of use
C1Pb. Learnability and learning curve
C1Pc. Personalization and adaptation
C1Pd. Multilingualism
C1Pe. Community support
C1Pf. Technology knowledge and support in the house
C1Pg. Interoperability
Museum Institution
C1Ma. Continuity of usage
C1Mb. Logging
Visitor
C1Va. Perceived content quality
C1Vb. Visitor-created content, creation and curation
C2. Content maintenance
Cultural Heritage Professional
C2Pa. Ability to make changes in-house
C2Pb. Potential for documenting and archiving
Museum Institution
C2Ma. Staff acceptance
C2Mb. Interoperability and modularity
Visitor
C2Va. Personalization
C2Vb. Social interaction and sharing
C2Vc. Continuity of usage
Compliance Quartile
MP1. Health, safety and accessibility
Cultural Heritage Professional
MP1Pa. Accessibility
MP1Pb. Appropriateness
MP1Pc. Safety
Museum Institution
MP1Ma. Safety
MP1Mb. Emergency management
MP1Mc. Disposal and recycling
MP1Md. Hygiene, cleaning and maintenance
Visitor
MP1Va. Accessibility
MP1Vb. Appropriateness
MP1Vc. Safety
MP2. Logging and monitoring
Cultural Heritage Professional
MP2Pa. Logging and monitoring
Museum Institution
MP2Ma. Log storage, access, privacy and analytics
Visitor
MP2Va. Personalization
MP2Vb. Legal compliance
MP3. Ethics and legal issues
Cultural Heritage Professional
MP3Pa. Protecting audiences
MP3Pb. Data gathering and protection
Museum Institution
MP3Ma. Other legal issues
MP3Mb. Data protection laws
MP3Mc. Ethics for gathering data
Visitor
MP3Va. Trust and confidence in museum
Operation Quartile
O1. Deployment and setting-up
Cultural Heritage Professional
O1Pa. Ease of use for installation
O1Pb. Distance monitoring
O1Pc. Workflow
O1Pd. In-house technical knowledge
O1Pe. Additional staff training
Museum Institution
O1Ma. Set-up and start up
O1Mb. Modularity and interoperability
O1Mc. Staff and front-desk training
O1Md. Distribution, recovery and guarantee
Visitor
O1Va. Visitor experience quality and customer care
O1Vb. Visitor-owned devices
O2. Robustness and maintenance
Cultural Heritage Professional
O2Pa. Environmental contraints
O2Pb. Robustness
O2Pc. Maintenance required
O2Pd. Updating and replacing
Museum Institution
O2Ma. Storage cost
O2Mb. Level of maintenance
O2Mc. Loss, deterioration, theft and replacement
O2Md. Reusing and disposing
Visitor
O2Va. Robustness
O2Vb. Responsiveness
O2Vc. Stability
O2Vd. Speed and speed of recovery
O3. Power and energy
Cultural Heritage Professional
O3Pa. Day to day running and maintenance
O3Pb. Stability
Museum Institution
O3Ma. Interventions in the exhibit space
Visitor
O3Va. Prevent feelings of failure and frustration
O4. Costs
Cultural Heritage Professional
O4Pa. Workforce, time and additional staff
Museum Institution
O4Ma. Financial costs and investments
O4Mb. Running costs
Visitor
O4Va. Costs (value for money and time)
O5. Additional Resources
Cultural Heritage Professional
O5Pa. Instructions and how-to guides
Museum Institution
O5Ma. Adopting, financing and sponsoring
Visitor
O5Va. Uptake
References
- ↑ https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297717
- ↑ Areti Damala and Nenad Stojanovic. 2012. Tailoring the Adaptive Augmented Reality (A2R) museum visit: Identifying Cultural Heritage professionals' motivations and needs. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media, and Humanities (ISMAR-AMH). Atlanta, USA, IEEE, 71-80.
- ↑ Merel Van der Vaart and Areti Damala. 2015. Through the Loupe: Visitor Engagement With a Primarily Text-Based Handheld AR Application. In Proceedings of the IEEE Digital Heritage 2015 Conference, vol. 2, 535-544. doi: 10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419574
- ↑ Jane Finnis. 2017. Let’s Get Real 5: What’s the Brand? Culture24
- ↑ Susie Ironside. 2013. Glasgow Museums. In Museum Practice 15.01.2013, Museums Association: London. Retrieved from: https://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/youth-panels/15012013-glasgowmuseums
- ↑ Elena Not and Daniella Petrelli. 2018. Blending customisation, context-awareness and adaptivity for personalised tangible interaction in cultural heritage. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 114 (2018): 3-19.
- ↑ Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Kim Hermanson. 1999. Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn. The educational role of the museum, Routledge: London, 146–160.
- ↑ Isabelle Astic, Coline Aunis, Areti Damala, and Eric Gressier-Soudan. 2011. A ubiquitous mobile edutainement application for learning science through play. In Museums and the Web 2011 Proceedings. Retrieved from: https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/a_ubiquitous_mobile_edutainment_application_fo. html
- ↑ John Falk and Lynn Dierking. 2018. Learning from museums. Rowman & Littlefield.
- ↑ Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Merel van der Vaart, Dick van Dijk, and Ian Ruthven. 2016a. The Loupe: Tangible Augmented Reality for Learning to Look at Ancient Greek Art. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 16, 5 (2016), 73–85.
- ↑ Sara Perry, Maria Economou, Hilary Young, Maria Roussou, and Laia Pujol-Tost. 2017. Moving beyond the virtual museum: Engaging visitors emotionally. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), IEEE, 1-8. doi:10.1109/VSMM.2017.8346276
- ↑ Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Laura Maye, and Monika Lechner. 2018. Cultural Heritage Communities: Technologies and Challenges. Routledge.
- ↑ Donald Norman. 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3), 38-43.
