Designing interactive multimedia for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery

Designing interactive multimedia for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery

Material Information

Designing interactive multimedia for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery
Curtis, Kelley
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla.]
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Anthropology -- Computer-assisted instruction ( lcsh )
Interactive multimedia -- Design ( lcsh )
museum anthropology
multimedia design and development
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Masters -- USF ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: Computer-based multimedia offer an alternative means of providing instruction to learners in two primary, yet disparate, ways. Multimedia can be used to convey information to learners, or alternatively, learners can make use of multimedia to impart information. One example of the use of multimedia technologies at the University of South Florida is an interactive computer kiosk installed in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery. The development of the educational program featured on the kiosk's touchscreen computer is the subject of this paper. The purpose of the kiosk's program was twofold: 1) to introduce the field of anthropology to university students and the general public who visit the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery; and 2) to incorporate training in the creation of multimedia materials into two departmental project-based courses, Museum Methods and Visual Anthropology. Designing effective educational programs that take advantage of multimedia capabilities without losing focus on the user's needs or on the content being presented is a challenging endeavor. In this paper, I present the process of designing an interactive multimedia program, and discuss the critical issues of audience, hardware and software, programming tools and other technical and design considerations. The development of the program, furthermore, must be understood within the broader context of several areas, including anthropology and museums, the role of education in museums, and exhibitions as a form of media and communication. Finally, a summary of the project is presented, including a discussion of the problems and successes encountered and suggested areas for further development.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 97 pages.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kelley Curtis.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
001430592 ( ALEPH )
52376199 ( OCLC )
AJL4053 ( NOTIS )
E14-SFE0000109 ( USFLDC DOI )
e14.109 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001430592
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 031007s2003 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000109
b SE
1 100
Curtis, Kelley.
0 245
Designing interactive multimedia for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery
h [electronic resource] /
by Kelley Curtis.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 97 pages.
ABSTRACT: Computer-based multimedia offer an alternative means of providing instruction to learners in two primary, yet disparate, ways. Multimedia can be used to convey information to learners, or alternatively, learners can make use of multimedia to impart information. One example of the use of multimedia technologies at the University of South Florida is an interactive computer kiosk installed in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery. The development of the educational program featured on the kiosk's touchscreen computer is the subject of this paper. The purpose of the kiosk's program was twofold: 1) to introduce the field of anthropology to university students and the general public who visit the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery; and 2) to incorporate training in the creation of multimedia materials into two departmental project-based courses, Museum Methods and Visual Anthropology. Designing effective educational programs that take advantage of multimedia capabilities without losing focus on the user's needs or on the content being presented is a challenging endeavor. In this paper, I present the process of designing an interactive multimedia program, and discuss the critical issues of audience, hardware and software, programming tools and other technical and design considerations. The development of the program, furthermore, must be understood within the broader context of several areas, including anthropology and museums, the role of education in museums, and exhibitions as a form of media and communication. Finally, a summary of the project is presented, including a discussion of the problems and successes encountered and suggested areas for further development.
Co-adviser: Bird, S. Elizabeth
Co-adviser: Weisman, Brent R.
museum anthropology.
multimedia design and development.
Dissertations, Academic
x Applied Anthropology
Computer-assisted instruction.
Interactive multimedia
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856


DESIGNING INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA FOR THE ANTHROPOLOGY EXHIBIT GALLERY by KELLEY CURTIS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: S. Elizabeth Bird, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Brent R. Weisman, Ph.D. Susan D. Greenbaum, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 11, 2003 Keywords: museum anthropology, multimedia design and development, electronic exhibit, kiosk, touchscreen, public education Copyright 2003, Kelley Curtis


i Table of Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................... .......iii Introduction................................................................................................................... .......1 Thesis Organization.................................................................................................1 Chapter One: The Context of the Kiosk Project..................................................................4 The Anthropology Exhibit Gallery..........................................................................4 The Kiosk Project....................................................................................................6 Chapter Two: Theoretical and Pedagogical Background..................................................10 Introduction....................................................................................................... .....10 Museums and Anthropology..................................................................................11 Museums and Media..............................................................................................13 Museums and Education........................................................................................16 Museums and Multimedia......................................................................................19 Chapter Three: Instructional Design for the Kiosk Project...............................................22 Introduction............................................................................................................22 Project Management..............................................................................................23 Instructional Systems Design.................................................................................29 Analysis......................................................................................................29 Design........................................................................................................31 Development..............................................................................................32 Fair Use and Copyright...................................................................33 Evaluation..................................................................................................36 Needs Analysis.......................................................................................................35 Characteristics of the Target Audience..................................................................38 Delivery Environment............................................................................................40 Authoring Tools.....................................................................................................43 Methodology for Facilitating Learning .................................................................44 Instructional Goals and Objectives ...........................................................46 Instructional Approach...............................................................................49 Design Considerations...............................................................................51


ii Chapter Four: Conclusions Applied Work in Museums and Multimedia Development...................................54 The Future of the Anthropol ogy Exhibit Gallery Kiosk........................................57 References Cited............................................................................................................... .64 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ....69 Appendix A: Project Management Process...........................................................70 Appendix B: Project Management Process Questions...........................................71 Appendix C: Fair Use Provi sion of the Copyright Act..........................................74 Appendix D: Kiosk Statement on Copyright.........................................................75 Appendix E: Multimedia Exhibit Interface Standards for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Program................................76 Appendix F: Proposed Timeline for Completion of Project..................................81 Appendix G: Online Survey...................................................................................85 Appendix H: Kiosk Screens...................................................................................86


iii Designing Interactive Multimedia for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Kelley Curtis ABSTRACT Computer-based multimedia offer an altern ative means of providing instruction to learners in two primary, yet disparate, ways. Multimedia can be used to convey information to learners, or alternatively, lear ners can make use of multimedia to impart information. One example of the use of multi media technologies at the University of South Florida is an interactive computer kiosk installed in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery. The development of the educa tional program featured on the kiosk's touchscreen computer is the subject of this paper. The purpose of the kiosk's program was tw ofold: 1) to introduce the field of anthropology to university students and th e general public who vi sit the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery; and 2) to incorporate trai ning in the creation of multimedia materials into two departmental project-based courses, Museum Methods and Visual Anthropology. Designing effective educational programs that take advantage of multimedia capabilities without losi ng focus on the userÂ’s needs or on the content being presented is a challenging endeavor. In this paper, I pr esent the process of de signing an interactive multimedia program, and discuss the critical issues of audience, hardware and software, programming tools and other tec hnical and design considerations.


iv The development of the program, furthe rmore, must be understood within the broader context of several areas, includi ng anthropology and museums, the role of education in museums, a nd exhibitions as a form of media and communication. Finally, a summary of the project is presented, incl uding a discussion of the problems and successes encountered and sugge sted areas for further development.


1 Introduction Computer-based multimedia offer an altern ative means of providing instruction to learners in two primary, yet disparate, ways. Multimedia can be used to convey information to learners, or alternatively, lear ners can make use of multimedia to impart information. One example of the use of multi media technologies at the University of South Florida is an interactive computer kiosk installed in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery. The development of the educa tional program featured on the kiosk's touchscreen computer involved both the delivery and the design aspects of the use of multimedia, and is the subject of this thesis. The “kiosk project” (as it will be refe rred to throughout this paper) sought to utilize multimedia not just as a method of de livery, but as a tool for practical, hands-on learning. One of the primary goals of the project was to incorporate training in the creation of multimedia materials into two departmental project-based courses, Museum Methods and Visual Anthropology. My intention is for this thesis to aid, in part, in fulfilling that goal of training students in the effective use of the medium by providing an accessible and useful introductory guide for students interested in creating similar multimedia projects. The parallel, fundament al goal of the kiosk was to introduce the field of anthropology to university student s and the general p ublic who visit the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery. This goal will be more fully realized as a result of future additions of student-created multimedia projects to the interactive kiosk.


2 Thesis Organization This thesis is divided into five parts. The first part (Chapter One: The Context of the Kiosk Project) provides an overview of th e kiosk project, the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery, and my role in the kiosk project. Following this introductory chapter are two distinct, yet complementary, parts that comprise the essential content of the thesis. In the first of these two parts (Chapter Two: Th eoretical and Pedagogical Background), I will provide an overview of the didactic areas th at this project incor porates, which include anthropology, museums, education, and multim edia. The kiosk project is uniquely situated at the convergence of these broad ye t interrelated areas, and hence I will focus on the relationships of these areas to one anot her, specifically as they apply to the development of interactive multimedia used to deliver anthropologica l content. In the second of the main parts (Chapter Three: In structional Design for the Kiosk Project), I will present effective ways to design edu cational programs that take advantage of multimedia capabilities without losing focus on the userÂ’s needs or on the content being presented. I will present examples from the kioskÂ’s interactive program to illustrate the programÂ’s design and instructional approach, as well as discuss the critical issues of audience, hardware and software, programm ing tools and other technical and design considerations. The next part (Chapter Four: Conclusions ) will include a discussion of what these new technologies and approaches to teachi ng mean to the field and application of anthropology. A summary of the project is presented, including a discussion of the projectÂ’s pros and cons, the problems and successes encountered, identification of the areas that can be improved upon, and suggested areas for further research. A preliminary


3 review of user feedback collected to date, observations of visitor use of the kiosk, and informal interviews, will be presented. The final part of this thesis consis ts of the Appendices. Included in the appendices are various tools and planning documents that were produced during the process of design and development of the kiosk project. They serve as useful examples that illustrate the process. Examples incl ude a flow chart of th e kioskÂ’s interactive program, sample templates of screen layout and a mock-up storyboard showing content and navigation, a multimedia interface sta ndards guide, work breakdown structure and time table. A brief discussi on of copyright law as it app lies to the project is also included.


4 Chapter One: The Context of the Kiosk Project The Anthropology Exhibit Gallery The Anthropology Exhibit Gallery at the Un iversity of South Florida features student-created exhibits about the broad field of anthropolo gy. These physical displays are created by undergraduate and gradua te students enrolled in Museums Methods a 4credit class offered in the spring semester ev ery 2-3 years. The course format includes lectures and class discus sions on contemporary issues in the management of anthropology museums, as well as pract ical, hands-on experience designing and fabricating an exhibit. In the future, st udents may also extend their skills to the development of computer-based multimedia exhibits that will be presented on the gallery’s kiosk, via the internet, or on stand-alone CD-Rom programs. The Anthropology Exhibit Gallery hous es between 13 and 15 display cases, depending on the gallery’s arrangement. The exhibits represent al l areas of anthropology, including cultural, biological linguistics and archaeology. Objects are drawn from the department’s ethnographic and archaeological collections, but increasingly the exhibits are becoming more thematic and less dependent upon the department’s collections. This continuing transition makes the electronic form at an ideal mode for the display of new exhibits, since “virtual exhibits ” don’t contain any real artifa cts. This new direction in


5 exhibit development was a key factor in the decision to add an inte ractive kiosk to the gallery’s offerings. The Anthropology Exhibit Gallery is r ecognized as one of USF’s “hidden treasures” (Rodmell 2002: 8). The gallery is used primarily as a teaching resource by Anthropology faculty and instruct ors in other disciplines univers ity-wide. In addition, an estimated average of 30 visitors attend the ga llery each day. Visitors include university students (not just students of anthropol ogy), guests to the university, and occasional groups of school-aged children. A pen-and-paper visitor log allows visito rs to record their name, address, and comments. A review of the log reveals that almost half of the entries include remarks along with the visitor’s name. The overwhelm ing majority of the comments recorded, over 90%, are positive feedback, describing the gallery exhibits as “cool,” “insightful,” and “fascinating.” In addition, typical comm ents such as “great job,” “beautiful displays,” and “impressive” express praise for the professional quality of the exhibits. Only 3% of all comments are negative, and nearly half of these comments contain reference to a specific exhibit (“I didn’t like the exhibit on…”). By contrast, only about 15% of all comments mention a specific exhi bit by name. In addition, a small percentage of the comments are either ne utral or somehow irrelevant (“My cousin is an anthropology major”). “I never knew this was here!” and “I’ ll be back!” are frequent entries in the gallery’s visitor log, and recu rring comments like “Very intere sting and informative!,” “I loved it!,” indicate that the gallery is ove rwhelmingly found to be an enjoyable and educational experience by its visitors. Perhaps the most significant contribution of the


6 gallery that can be gleaned from visitor comments is that the exhibits seem to successfully acquaint visitors wi th the scope of the field of anthropology; as one visitor put it, “there was a lot of in formation I was not aware of.” In general, visitor comments and feedb ack from class assignments suggest that many of the visitors enter the gallery with th e popular misconception that anthropology is merely about “stones and bones,” yet leave with an awareness of the breadth of the field and a better appreciation of how anthropol ogy relates to the real world outside the gallery’s display cases. I will return to a consideration of visitor response in my concluding chapter. The Kiosk Project Through a grant awarded by Center for T eaching Enhancement and the University of South Florida, anthropology professors Dr. Elizabeth Bird and Dr. Brent Weisman sought to introduce interactive media to the teaching of anthropology. The grant was used to set up an interactive computer ki osk in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery, funding both the equipment purchases and the cost of the development of the multimedia program. I was hired as a graduate assistant to work on the project. The kiosk project had two primary, parallel goals. The first essential aim of the kiosk was to introduce the broad field of an thropology to the general public, including students, by means of an interactive program delivered via a touchscreen interface. The second aim of the project, which functions to support the first, was to incorporate training in the making of educational materials in to two project-based courses, Visual Anthropology and Museum Methods. Students would receive practic al training in the


7 creation of multimedia programs, and the resulting student projects would be included on the kiosk, thus continuing to develop the kiosk as a teaching resource. A prototypical program was created duri ng Spring 2001, and in the Fall of 2001 the touchscreen computer kiosk was instal led in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery, adding a new dimension to the gallery’s offerings. Additional components were added during the Fall of 2002 and will continue to be added in future semesters. The contents of the kiosk program serve as an introduction to, and complementary extension of, the physical displays on exhibit in the gallery. Howe ver, these "e-Exhibits” may or may not be based on actual gallery e xhibits. For example, an introductory module entitled “What is Anthropology?,” was created independent of any specific gallery exhibit. The module presents basic anthropological concepts acquainting visitors with the range of anthropologi cal inquiry and providing a di sciplinary context for the objects on display. The module “Race: A Biol ogical Reality or Social Construct?” reintroduces the topic of an exhibit that wa s displayed several years ago. The electronic version of the exhibit is able to include visitor interactions that were not possible in the static form. In addition, several modules serv e to augment exhibits that are currently on display. (Note: by the time this thesis is published, these physical gallery exhibits will no longer be on display.) For example, brief video clips provide additional information about select artifacts from tw o exhibits, “Potsherds to People,” and “Florida Aflame.” The “Imagined Indian Image Gallery” modul e complements its gallery counterpart through the inclusion of movie clips that portray American Indians. It also adds a “virtual gallery” of supplementa ry images of American Indian s of a wider variety than is possible in the gallery exhibit. By mean s of the electronic me dium, the Anthropology


8 Exhibit Gallery is able to include far more images and information than can be crammed into a single display case, in addition to multimedia components and interactives that engage the visitor in new ways. The kiosk project was an ambitious unde rtaking, and ultimately required an extended timeline for its completion. The fo llowing tasks relating to the instructional design of the kiosk program were outlined in the original grant proposal: a) identify appropriate interactive media; b) outline educational content of th e interactive medium, including physical layout, intent, scope, and main message of the educational content; c) in consultation with project directors, compile and draft educational content relevant to the field of anthropology, inco rporate appropriate gr aphic content and links to other resources; d) identify, photograph and videotape select ed aspects of the museum exhibits, archaeological and ethnographic collections of the USF anthropology department, and faculty research for “virtual ” interactive acce ss by the user, e) after review and revi sion, install content an th e interactive computer, troubleshoot any bugs in the system; f) prepare supplementary written materi als for classroom use (in coordination with classroom instructors); g) prepare evaluative materials fo r student and faculty use; and h) train faculty and students in the e ffective use of the interactive medium.


9 In the following chapters, I will expl ore the theoretical issues surrounding museum representation, and their place in th e larger discourse of anthropology, and will discuss the process of “making the kiosk happen.”


10 Chapter Two: Theoretical and Pedagogical Background Introduction In order to effectively realize the potential of the computer as an educational medium for anthropology in the setting of a small teaching gallery, the use of multimedia must be understood in the larger context of the field of anthropology, museum practice, and public education. In partic ular, it is important to recognize the relationships between these multifaceted areas. It is beyond the sc ope of this thesis to provide a complete review of these associations. Instead, I w ill focus on the key issues within each area that are most relevant to the development of co mputer-based multimedia of anthropological content. I must emphasize that the division s presented below are somewhat arbitrary, as the central issues are common to the many in extricably interrelat ed areas discussed. Along with the practical, technical consider ations that will be presented in the following chapter, an awareness of these criti cal issues is necessary to create multimedia programs that make use of interactive educati onal strategies which will enable visitors to connect with objects and collections, and enga ge in an enjoyable learning experience.


11 Museums and Anthropology Museums and anthropology have had a long-standing and interdependent relationship that has shaped both the present state of museum prac tice and the field of anthropology, though it is not possible to trace fu lly this historical a ssociation here (for complete reviews of this topic see Alexander 1979, Stoc king 1985). Instead, in this section, I will provide an overv iew of the current state of museum practice and what implications it has on the future relationship between museums and the field and practice of anthropology. Museums and universities, in particul ar, have experienced a markedly close association. Some of the earli est and most prominent museum s with the largest and most significant anthropological collections were established within, and continue to be operated by, universities (B oylan 1999: 43; see also Solinger 1990, Hinsley 1981). University museums, even rather modest ones like USFÂ’s Anthropology Exhibit Gallery that serve primarily as teaching galleries, are important symbols of academic merit and a valued part of the learning and cultural expe rience of students and th e universityÂ’s wider community. Museums, both those within and outside of universities, are dynamic institutions, highly variable in their size, specialties and st ructure. (It should be noted that throughout this discussion, when referring to museums, I am mainly concerned with, and speaking about, museums of anthropology, natural hi story, history, and other museums with ethnographic collections.) Regardless of their differences, all museums are popularly equated with the collection, preservation, and exhibition of objects. These key terms are to be found in any definition of a museum th at is encountered and are routinely included


12 in museum mission statements world wide. It is exhibitions, however, that dominate the public perception of museums (Lord 2002: 12) and overshadow the other functions of museums. Museums are often the first, and sometimes the only, place in which many people experience “foreign” or “exotic” objects and concepts. For this chief reason, museums bear the responsibility of presenting cultura l materials and education about them in interesting and stimulating, yet uncomplicat ed ways. Museums must also remain conscientious of their power to interpret and assign meaning and must therefore strive to provide sensitive and accurate information. These sentiments resonate within the museum professional community, as evidenced in journals, conferen ces and exhibitions. A critical reflexive turn in museology, as in anthropology generally (Clifford and Marcus 1986), has brought the issues of repres entation and voice to the forefront. It is because of their power to construct meanings that museums, rather than being seen as preservers of cultural heritage are being accused by some groups of being brigandeers of others’ ob jects of cultural patrimony. As Ames puts it “Museums are cannibalistic in appropriating other peoples’ materials for their own study and inte rpretation, and they confine their representations to glass box display cases” (Ames 1992: 3). In response to these concerns, and attemp t to make relevant their offerings to a multicultural society, museums are proactivel y exploring and incorporating ways in which they can collaborate and meet the need s of the public they se rve. Some museums are doing this better than others. The cu rrent reorganization of Native American and African exhibits at many museums, the Sm ithsonian Institute’s Museum of Natural


13 History and forthcoming Museum of the American Indian are exemplary models, demonstrating that conscientious attention is being given to living re presentatives of the cultures presented. Populati ons are increasingly being given opportunities to exert control over the way they are presented in museums. A thorough review of the ample examples is not possible in the scope of this paper; suffice it to say that involvement in exhibition development is just one way in which audiences actively shape exhibitions. Museums and Media The 20th century has witnessed unparalleled advances in public communication – radio, television, film, music re cordings, faxes, cell phones, a nd the internet. “Yet,” as Lord points out, “there is still another succes s story in public communication that remains with us and is constantly growing and extending its influe nce – the museum” (2002: 11). Museums are generally overlooked as a fo rm of mass media, yet the primary function of museums is to communicate inform ation to large groups of people. As a form of mass media, museums possess partic ular characteristics that are unique unto themselves. Museum communication is a new and growing area (Hooper-Greenhill 1995: 11), and in fact there are limited refe rences to museums as such in the mass communications, anthropology, or even museum lit erature (with the exception of the very recent recognition acknowledgement by Lord [2002]), that specifically addresses the issue of the museum as a form of mass media. A typical mass media introductory text book offers this operational definition of mass communication:


14 a process whereby professional co mmunicators use technological devices to share messages over l ong distances to influence large audience (Wilson 1995: 12). Museums are not among the forms of ma ss media listed by the author. I would argue however that museums do in fact f it the above descripti on. Clearly museum curators, educators, and other staff, can be considered professional communicators. It is their job to translate the museum’s mission in to information that can be enjoyed by the public. Museums use a variety of methods and devices to extend their messages, including several types of medi a, such as audio tapes, prin ted brochures, a nd interactive kiosks. Although it is true that one must (i n most cases) attend a museum to view an exhibition, exhibits are not limited to a conf ined area. In many instances, traveling exhibitions are transferred from museum to museum, thereby increasing the number of visitors who view it. Further, I would argue that the objects th emselves have “traveled” to become part of an exhibition, very often far removed fr om their place of origin. Historic and prehistoric objects, in addition to actual geographical distances, have also traveled metaphorically through time to reach their audiences. Additionally, more and more museums are developing “virtual tours” that can be accessed entirely via the World Wide Web or CD-Rom, without the visitor ever havi ng to set foot inside the museum. This development promises to reach an even greate r number of people. Finally, I will assert that museums do seek to influence their audiences, although their goals may seem somewhat innocuous compared to other forms of mass media. The fundamental goal of any museum exhibition is to provide in formation, although the specific objectives


15 established for any exhibition may or may not include a call for action on the part of its visitors. Further, I believe that it can be al leged that museums are in the market of selling ideas, whether of not the ideas pres ented are overt or even intended. Plainly, in mass communications termi nology (Wilson 1995: 8), the museum can be viewed as a source (sender) that is in the business of delivering a message or messages, which are the objectives of the museum and any given exhibition. Messages are communicated via the medium (channe l) of museum displays, publications, presentations, etc., to an audience (receiver). Museums it can be said, in the terms of Lu ll, wield a great deal of symbolic and cultural power, as they utilize symbolic forms to produce meanings, construct representations of cultural lives, and influe nce their audiences (L ull 1995: 66-86). They are unquestionably hegemonic institutions through which identity is transmitted, consciousness formed, and social power is exercised (Lull 1995: 6-43). How museums impart meanings is the subject of great concer n in the museum world issues such as who controls history and the repres entation of cultures, whose in terests are being served by museums, who has the right to interpret meaning, and even who should staff museums are all being actively debated in museums t oday. Museums, it is recognized, not only create, but also reflect culture. Also as Lull points out, museums carry messages that serve the interests of some groups and not others (Lull 1995: 9). “Every museum exhibition, whatever its overt subject, inev itably draws upon the cultural assumptions and resources of the people who make it” (K arp and Levine 1991: 1). Further, the practice of museum display has always implied the taking of positions. The gathering of collections to create an exhibit necessarily re quires judgments, and


16 expresses values of various kinds, primarily those of the exhibiti ons’ organizers (Harris 1995: 37). Exhibitions seem a ppropriate when visitors shar e the same attitudes as the exhibits makers, and when the presentation style of the exhibit is familiar. Museums, long respected as a source of objective authority, are having their authority critically questi oned, both within and outside of their walls. The tendentiousness of museum exhibitions has b een exposed, as increasingly the “others” that have been the focus of museum exhibits have st epped forward to voice their concerns. Museums, as institutions built up during a colonial era, are criticized for interpretations that impose categories and reify Western values. Museums authenticate those identities on display and contribute to the myth-building as much as other forms of mass media. The inherent reality that the museum’s objects are removed from chronologically and con ceptually from the society for which the items once held meaning is indeed problematic. Museums and Education Today an essential aim of museums is to educate, in other words to convey information, albeit different museums have diffe rent ideas of what information is to be relayed and how this is to be accomplished. It is not possible to review here the history of museum development in the U.S., but it should be noted that since the early years of the 20th century, museums have steadily empha sized their public service role, with education being the central concern. Excellence and Equity (1992), a report issued by the American Association of Museums, identifies museums as institutions of public service and education, the term education encompa ssing a broad range of activities including


17 “exploration, study, observation, critical thi nking, contemplation and dialog” (Hirzy 1992: 6). For museums the principal, but not exclusive, means of fulfilling their educational missions is through exhibitions. Museums professionals therefore recogni ze that their audience is of primary significance, since learning cannot occur unless information has been received effectively. In order to ascertain their successes and failures at communication, museums have in recent years made a considerable e ffort to address the question of who visits museums and why. It can be confidently asse rted that the reasons people visit museums fall into the same category system as other forms of mass media as outlined by McQuail et al: diversion, personal relationships personal identity, and surveillance ( in Lull 1995: 93). In a similar manner Kelley uses the term s “sacred, social and cognitive to classify visitors’ personal and social uses of muse ums” (Kelley 1992: 24-31) It is noteworthy that the primary reason most people attend museums is in or der to learn (Falk 1998: 40): an iterative value that is ge nerally reflected in the public images of, and presentations within, museums. Museum-goers typically hold the view that education is a lifelong process, and perceive educational activities as an interesting and important leisure pursuit, regardless of their age, gender, ethn icity, or socioecono mic status (Falk 1998: 40). Within museums, objects serve as signs (Maroevic 1992: 25). Objects almost without exception are the central feature of e xhibits. The primacy of objects stems from the view that objects in and of themselves are representative of an objective reality. They possess inalienable truths. They are valued not only as material documentation, but for the conceptual essences they em body (even if their identities ca n never be truly revealed).


18 Granted, any object does not have a purely functional existence but also symbolizes aspects of the ‘parent’ society’s ideological framework (Owen 1996: 202). The objects combined and presented to th e public in exhibitions have changed cultural contexts multiple times before they are displayed, a fact that is usually obscured to the public (Maroevic 1992: 24). Once a component of an exhibition, an object acquires yet other meanings in relation to the other objects and elements of the exhibit. Indisputably, at different times and in diffe rent social and museum contexts, the same museum material can therefore convey very different messages. Additionally, each visitor brings his or her own personal history to the museum experience, further confounding and challenging the art and deliver y of museum exhibiti ons. All of these factors contribute to the creation of an “exhibition reality,” if you will. Still, studies reveal, not surprisingly, that visitors attend museums to see objects, to learn about different cultures and to disc over the meaning the objects had for their original owners (Kreamer 1995: 55). “One key to the succ ess of museums,” notes Lord, “is the remarkable fact that visitors who have abandoned religion, don’t believe the press or media, and even question much of what their children are learning in school or university, are often ready to pl ace all of their conf idence in the experience that museum exhibitions offer” (Lord 2002: 16) The tenacity of the muse um’s perceived authority lies primarily in the presumed authenticity of the objects. As museums continue to grow larg er, more numerous, and more diverse worldwide, there is a need for anthropologi sts to examine the particularly specific instrument of communicati on that is unique to mu seums – the exhibition.


19 The fact that museums are one of the most popular leisure venues in the U.S., outdrawing even sporting events (Falk 1998: 38) warrants a clos er look at the museum and the messages it promotes, as well as how museum s relate to other forms of contemporary media. Furthermore, the reality that mo re people learn about anthropology from museums than universities (Ames 1992: 139) sh ould be recognized as a significant point to note by anthropologists, especially t hose interested in communication, media, education, and popular culture. Museums and Multimedia A museum visit is foremost a multimedia experience. Visitors are typically exposed, minimally, to objects displayed near descriptive text. Museums are also interactive in the sense that a visitor need not experience the e xhibits in a linear fashion. Visitors can move freely from gallery to gall ery, utilizing any of th e resources an exhibit provides, such as the objects on display, labels audio tapes, and mech anical interactives, for example. Koester points out that in contemporary so ciety, individuals are accustomed to the flood of visual, aural, and written information that bombards them daily through television, radio, video, and print media, that they are not only more accustomed to accepting and selectively interp reting all this stimulus, they increasingly expect multimedia in every environment that they encounter (Koester 1993: 12). Indeed, museums are increasingly dependent on multiple media for the dissemination and communication of information in, as well as ou tside of, exhibitions. Today standard fare in museums can include audio guides, slide shows, video presentations, live


20 demonstrations and performances, interactive co mputer terminals, etc. Taken as a whole, museums are a unique multimedia communication medium. Within museums a specific communication pattern exists. It is a communication with the past in the present. The narratives in museum exhibitions do not explain past realities, but discuss pa st material culture in the contex t of the present audience’s social experiences. “Ethnographic materials posses a compelling power to capture audiences by their intuitive nature,” notes David de la To rre, director of the Mexican Museum, “since many of these objects were made for use in daily or ritual life, the view er is intuitively in touch with the purpose of these objects” (Garfield 1989: 43). Ames suggests that alienation from the land in Western soci ety cause people to locate meaning in cannibalized cultures (Ames 1992) Whatever the reason people find visits to museums to be meaningful experiences, museums today st rive to design exhibi ts that appeal to a media saturated society. Museums today are clearly in competition with other leisure pursuits, such as movies, theme parks, sports and recreational activities. Research indicates that an increasing number of museums are acknowle dging and capitalizing on the drawing power of having an element of entertainment or f un in their exhibits (Koester 1993: 7). Whenever education seems entertaining, suspicions about accuracy emerge among certain museum-goers and pr ofessionals, however the argument can be made that by attracting greater audiences museums can make a greater societal impact (Tramposch 1998: 49). Interactive multimedia displays are an example of the “infotainment” or “edutainment” strategies muse ums use to attract visitors.


21 Interestingly, as electronic exhibitio ns become more commonplace, indications suggest that the ubiquity of th ese virtual experiences only serv es to increase the interest of media users in the “real thing” the auth entic experience that can be enjoyed only on a visit to a real museum. The concern that virtual experiences will replace real museums seems to be unsubstantiated. Clearly, museums are not located outside of the social processes and structures in which they exist. Ames identifies the museum as an “artefact of our own society,” and thus itself, an object worthy of study (Ame s 1992: 44). Museums as a form of mass media are also a valuable subject for close examination. Exhibitions are primarily about communication – communicating aesthetic expe riences, ideas or concepts to varied audiences with different learning styles and le vels of interest. Multimedia offers a whole new range of communication choices that he lp museum professionals reach out to visitors, and it is within that larger cont ext that this current project is situated.


22 Chapter Three: Instructional Design for the Kiosk Project Introduction In this chapter I will address the many practical considerations relating to the development of an interactive multimedia program, like the one installed on the kiosk in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery. Here I will present the process by which the galleryÂ’s kiosk program was designed and developed. In the following sections, and in the appendices attached, I will review many of the technical elements, such as software and hardware, screen design, copy, typography, color, navigation, and inte ractions, that are the integral components of multimedia projects. I will also discuss the human factors that determine design, such as organizational needs, audience characteristi cs, and instructional objectives and content. This information is intended to serve as a guide, by way of example. I have included examples from the kioskÂ’s program to illustrate this discussion, as appropriate. This document is not meant to be an all-inclus ive reference, nor is it a step-by-step, howto-do-it manual. However, the information contained herein will be invaluable for any student considering or creating a computer-bas ed multimedia project. In addition, most of the elements of the method I describe here can also inform and guide the production of other types of multimedia projects as we ll, such as exhibits and videos.


23 The process of creating a multimedia program is very much the same as the process involved in creating a gallery exhibit or visual anth ropology project, like the ones the students in Museum Methods and Visu al Anthropology produce as part of their coursework. In all three types of projects, the basic process incl udes conceptualizing a theme, researching the subject matter, writ ing clear and engaging text (e.g., text for labels, narration/script, scr een copy), and selecting appropriate and compelling visuals (e.g., artifacts, photographs or vi deo, graphics) to “tell the st ory.” Obviously, there are numerous steps and tasks involved in each of th ese stages and all thr ee types of projects entail different kinds of comm unication techniques. I will be discussing these topics as they pertain to the kiosk proj ect in more depth to follow. Careful planning is critical in the development of multimedia projects, therefore it is important to follow a systematic appro ach. (Ivers and Barron 1998: 26). Despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that a system atic approach was only haphazardly and inconsistently applied to the kiosk project (due to a numbe r of conditions, but primarily the project team’s inexperience in completi ng such a project), I am including in this chapter an introductory discussion of two us eful planning and deve lopment tools the Kepner-Tregoe system of project manageme nt and Instructional Systems Design, a generic model for the production of multimedia programs. Project Management A key tool that I discovered and applie d in the later stages of the kiosk’s development was the Kepner-Tregoe method of project management. The KepnerTregoe method of project management is a pr actical tool for pla nning and monitoring any


24 type of project of considerable magnitude that must be completed within a budget and a by a specific time. Anthropologists Dr. Charles Kepner and Dr. Benjamin Tregoe developed the approach while conducting rese arch on decision making at the U.S. Air Force’s Strategic Air Command. They found that successful decision-making was the result of a logical process employed by t hose officers who gathered, organized, and analyzed information before taking action. Their findings became the foundation for the Rational Process, the Kepner-Tregoe method fo r effective organization management and the basis for their project management process (Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. 2001). It is not possible to expound upon the method in detail here, but the illustration in Appendix A identifies the key phases and steps of their project management model and is reasonably self-explanatory In a project as complex as the kiosk project, it is easy to get bogged down with minute details, therefore gain ing an awareness of the overall process involved in a project like this is beneficial because it helps to illuminate the “big picture.” In the Appendices, I have also included a set of questions that should guide the project team during each phase and step of the process (see Appendix B). Although not every step or technique presented needs to be applied to every proj ect, the Kepner-Tregoe method is a dynamic and flexible model that can be adapted to the specific needs of any project. Admittedly, this approach would have facilitated the kiosk project if it had been applied at a much earlier stag e! Even so, I found that re thinking the kiosk project in project management terms was an invaluable endeavor. I was quickly able to identify and concentrate on the areas that remained de ficient and promptly attend to them. The first steps in the process are to defi ne the project’s purpose and objectives. I should note that the purpose and objectives presented here are different than those of the


25 program itself, which will be discussed in a later section. In add ition, another important part of this initial step is to also recogni ze the constraints that will impact the project. The project statement and obj ectives for the kiosk are: Project Statement: Set up an interactive computer kiosk in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery within two academic semest ers at a cost not to exceed $15,000. Objectives: Created interactive exhibits that wi ll be displayed on a touch screen monitor. Introduced the field of anthropology to visitors, providing a foundation for understanding the gallery’s exhibits. Incorporated training in the design of electronic exhibits into two classes: Museum Methods and Visual Anthropology. Other Objectives/Constraints: Electronic exhibits designed for use on an iMac computer w/built-in touch screen (with no keyboa rd or mouse accessible). Project completed by the end of the grant period (9 mo.). New equipment purchases will not exceed $7,000. Graduate Assistant hired to work on this project will be paid $8,000 over the course of two semesters. Project completed using alre ady owned computer programs Another product of the Kepne r-Tregoe process that helps to bring into the focus the “big picture” is the Work Breakdown Struct ure (WBS). The WBS is an outline of all of the tasks and deliverables involved in co mpleting a project. Although the WBS is only one element in the project management process, it serves as the basis for determining the required resources, team members’ responsibil ities, and the sequence and scheduling of a project.


26 The Work Breakdown Structure for the kiosk project contains all of the elements outlined in the original grant proposal, but organizes them in a different manner, according to related activities. A WBS does not necessarily present the jobs to be done in the order of completion, but identifies all of the things that must be accomplished in order to successfully finish the project. The WBS for the kiosk project appears below. I will address some of these items in mo re detail in the following section. Work Breakdown Structure for the Anthropology Gallery Kiosk Project 1.0 Preliminary Planning 1.1 Scope of project defined 1.2 Objectives/constraints identified 1.3 Audience characteristics identified 1.3.1 Visitor logs reviewed 1.3.2 Visitors informally interviewed 1.4 Equipment needs determined 1.5 Exhibits for inclusion selected (e-Exhibits) 1.6 Overall structure and design of program determined 1.7 Budget and timeline established 2.0 Equipment selected, purchased, set up 2.1 Equipment options researched (feat ures and pricing compared) and recommendations made 2.2 Equipment selections made 2.3 Equipment purchased 2.3.1 POs obtained 2.3.2 Equipment orders placed 2.4 Equipment received 2.5 Equipment set up 2.5.1 Equipment (computers and peri pherals) unpacked, connected 2.5.2 Software installed


27 3.0 Encasement designed, built, installed 3.1 Designer/fabricator hired 3.1.1 Designer/fabricator contacted 3.1.2 PO for encasement payment acquired 3.2 Plans for encasement design drawn up/approved 3.3 Equipment purchased 3.4 Encasement fabricated 3.5 Kiosk housing installed 4.0 Educational content designed 4.1 Scope of content of each e-Exhibit defined 4.2 Gallery Exhibits “repurpose d” (for each e-Exhibit) 4.2.1 Exhibit text obtained 4.2.2 Exhibit text edited for electronic version 4.2.3 Objects/artifacts photographed 4.2.4 Images scanned 4.3 Flowcharts created (for each e-Exhibit) 4.4 Storyboards prepared (for each e-Exhibit) 4.5 Additional required elements/graphics obtained 4.5.1 Needed graphics/elements identified 4.5.2 Needed images “harvested” 4.5.3 Needed elements procured 5.0 Program developed 5.1 Needed programs obtained 5.2 e-Exhibit scripts prepared 5.3 Graphics created 5.4 Multimedia components produced 5.4.1 Audio produced 5.4.2 Video produced 5.4.3 Animations produced 5.5 Code authored/programmed 5.6 Components assembled 6.0 Kiosk installed 6.1 Completed program installed on touchscreen 6.2 Program tested (alpha-test) on touchscreen and revised 6.3 Touchscreen installed in gallery 6.4 Beta-test performed; program revised as necessary 6.5 Additional modules installed as they become available


28 7.0 Evaluation materials prepared 7.1 Online survey designed, installed 7.2 Online survey results report completed 7.3 Instructor questionnaire prepared 7.4 Instructor questionnaire results report completed 8.0 Support materials prepared 8.1 Technical manual prepared 8.2 InstructorsÂ’ guide prepared 8.3 Supplementary instructional materials prepared 9.0 Train faculty and students in use of medium 9.1 Faculty training sessions held 9.2 Student training sessions held 10.0 Project successfully managed 10.1 Project team meetings held (bi-weekly) 10.2 Evaluations performed on on-going basis 10.3 Budget monitored 10.4 Progress monitored 10.5 Project plan revised as needed As this WBS makes clear, there was a great deal of work to do and numerous steps involved in the kiosk project. Typi cally a multimedia project of this magnitude would involve several people, in which case project management becomes an even more valuable tool for planning, communicating, and coordinating the efforts of the design team. The team for the kiosk should include th e roles of Project Manager, Instructional Designer, Graphic Artist, Multimedia Developer, Programmer, Project Advisors, Office Manager, and Cabinet Maker. In reality, I assumed the respon sibilities of the first five roles listed above, while Drs. Bird and Weisman served as the Project Advisors. The Office Manager assisted with the remittance of the grant f unds, and a Cabinet Maker was hired to design and constr uct the kioskÂ’s encasement.


29 Good project management should guide the entire project, from beginning to end, regardless of the number of people involved. Th e more effort put into the initial planning and continual monitoring, the smoother the proj ect will go and the better the quality of the final product. I strongly recommend the application of the Kepner-Tregoe method and believe that the steps outlined in thei r method can greatly improve the chances of project success, even when th e undertaking is a class project that has a “team of one.” (Incidentally, project management is a great tool for writing one’s thesis, which is essentially a “project to mana ge” in itself [see Thomas 1999]). Instructional Systems Design Instructional Systems Design, simply stat ed, is a process of sensible decision making to determine the who, what, when, where, why, and how of instruction or training (Clark 1995). ISD models prescribe a pr ocess for the design and development of instructional programs to ensure that progre ss is made in an effective and efficient manner. There are many ISD models and th e different models vary in structure and complexity; however all ISD models stress a nd include the generic phases of analysis, design, development, and evaluation (Alessi and Trollip 1991; Iv ers and Barron 1998: 19). I will present only a generalizable m odel here that includes these common phases. Analysis The Analysis phase lays the groundwork of any multimedia project. Unfortunately, it is also the phase that of ten goes overlooked or is only superficially


30 addressed, at best, by inexperi enced designers, and even by many experienced designers. It is during the analysis pha se that a project is evolve s from a “good idea” into a comprehensive plan for the realization of that idea. Most of the tasks outlined by the Kepner-Tregoe method of project management, disc ussed earlier, take pl ace at this stage. In the case of the kiosk project, this phase included determining the project’s goals and brainstorming to generate ideas a bout the project, including what content to include, the overall “look and feel,” and the program’s inst ructional approach. During this initial phase we also selected and ac quired the hardware and software needed to complete the project. Some aspects of this phase occurred even before the kiosk pr oject was a (funded) reality. During the grant writing stage, much of the project was anticipated and described in the grant proposal. In addition, I had de veloped a prototype introductory module as my project for the Visual Anthropology class, even before the grant proposal was written. Two critical aspects of the Analysis ph ase are assessing the organization’s needs (the Anthropology department, in th is case) and the target audience ’s characteristics. It is imperative to consider the appropriateness of interactive multimedia presented on a touchscreen as the method of delivery for in struction. Why is the kiosk “needed”? Further, the program’s intended audience is a significant determinant of the program’s goals and design. Therefore, it is crucial to possess a good understand ing of the learners’ characteristics, competencies, limitations, and fa miliarity with the subject area in order to produce effective computer-based instruction. I will discuss thes e subjects in more detail in later sections of this chapter.


31 Design The Design phase involves the planning stages of the development of the multimedia program. During this phase the program’s content is determined and described in detail. Storyboards are created th at describe the exact text, graphics, audio, interactions, and other multimedia elements of the program. Flow charts that outline the sequence and structure of program are produce d. The products of th is stage provide the blueprints for the following phase, development. The kiosk’s program is comprised of seve ral e-Exhibits th e creation of each individual module was a complex subproject unto itself, consisting of multiple activities. For each module, the scope of the content had to be defined and the content created. In the case of previously displaye d gallery exhibits, the presen tation had to be “repurposed” for the electronic format. There were inherent problems in this endeavor, due to the simple fact that the trans ition involved taking something th at is three-dimensional and converting it into a two-dimensional format Many exhibit techniques do not translate readily to the limited landscape of a comput er screen, and thus the content of the eExhibits often had to be reorganized in a ne w and different manner. A physical exhibit, for example, can employ visual techniques to “guide” the visitor through the information and objects on display, such as, the actual spatial relationships between objects. In addition, copy on an exhibit label can be longer than is possible on a single screen layout of the computer’s monitor. So, in many instan ces, the exhibit script had to be edited and rewritten. Although it may not seem the case, the process of repurposing an exhibit was equally as time and labor-intensive as creati ng an entirely new one, designed specifically for the new format.


32 Admittedly, I did not laboriously produ ce flowcharts and storyboards for every single e-Exhibit, at least not to an equal degree: To do so would have taken the entire grant period! Storyboards and flowcharts are the detailed plans that are usually passed from a designer (the person that plans the material) to a developer (the person that actually produces that material). Since I already knew what I pla nned to do, and I would be the one who would be doing it, it wasn’t nece ssary to document it in detail. However, storyboards and flowcharts are extremely usef ul tools, even if they are only rough sketches committed to index cards. These tool s help to demonstrate the relationships of the components with each other, an d with the sequence of the “story.” Development The Development phase is where all of th e elements come together. This stage involves the actual production of the media elements, incl uding text, graphics, audio, animation, and video. During this phase, al l of the components are assembled in the actual program and the program itself is written. For every e-Exhibit, artifacts had to be photographed with a digital camera, documents and other images had to be sca nned, and much completely new material had to be collected or produced. Graphics and ot her media elements were either created or obtained from a variety of s ources, including clip art collec tions and the internet. The kiosk’s program includes several original vide o sequences and audio segments that had to be recorded and edited. Fortunately, the Fl orida Center for Instructional Technology had produced several short video segments, based on two of the gallery exhibits, that I was able to incorporate into the program


33 For me, the most challenging and reward ing task of the kiosk project was the authoring of the computer program that pr esents the material in a user-friendly, interactive interface. I spen t a significant amount of time learning the program that was used, mostly through a process of trial a nd error. Solutions to some programming problems were simple, some were very perple xing most required a creative approach because I am not a “programmer.” To a certain extent, the design and deve lopment phases overlapped while working on the kiosk project. This was because diffe rent modules were in different stages of production at the same time. For example, dur ing one week I may have been creating the graphics for one e-Exhibit, whil e researching the subject matter of another. It would have been impractical to complete one module, follo wed by another, and another. When I hit a roadblock in one, I was always able to pick up where I left off on another. While this flexible approach was required because some resources were simply not available at the time that they were needed, some modules remain incomplete today. Fair Use and Copyright One question that inevitably arises at the ons et of a project such as this one, is "What about copyright?" Indeed, t he interactive computer kiosk installed in the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery contains material that is copyrighted by others, as do the gallery exhibits and other visual anthropol ogy projects created by st udents. Therefore, it is useful to consider here the four factors that determin e Fair Use (See Appendix C for Fair Use Provision of the Copy Right Act) and discuss briefly the application of the Fair


34 Use Doctrine to this situa tion. (For more informati on about Copyright Law, see The goal of the kiosk project is to intr oduce interactive media to the teaching of anthropology at the University of South Flor ida, to both students and the general public. Since the kiosk and the student projects featured on it are produced exclusively for nonprofit educational purposes, th e provisions of the Fair Use Doctrine are clearly met. Additional projects develope d by students enrolled in the Visual Anthropology and Museum Methods classes may be installed on the kiosk for public access and may be used throughout the department to enhance instruction. Student projects may include videos, "virtual" exhibits, web pages, and CD-R OM interactives. It is expected the all projects will contain materials copyrighted by ot hers in some form. Copyrighted text, for example, will be reviewed and may be includ ed for illustrative purposes. Since many of the students are not accomplished artists, most of the graphics and musical selections included will necessarily be copyrighted works. It is anticipated that copyrighted works will not be reproduced in their entirety a nd will be limited to such elements as photographs, illustrations, brief segments of mu sic or video, etc. Furthermore, the copyrighted materials will be selected, combin ed, and “refashioned” in unique ways in order to deliver a new message independent of the purpose of the original copyrighted works. Finally, it is unlikely that the r easonable use of copyrighted materials in these projects will affect the value of the original copyrighted works. Included on the kiosk is a Statement on Copyright and Fair Use (see Appendix D)


35 Evaluation Evaluation is a process that should idea lly occur throughout the entire design and development process, as part of the overall pr oject management efforts. Periodically, the project should be reviewed and, if necessar y, revised. Evaluation th at occurs throughout the process is referred to as formative ev aluation. Summative ev aluation, on the other hand, takes place at the end of th e project. In this case, due to the constraints of time and resources faced in this project, no formal evaluations were performed, although this would be highly recommended under more favorable circumstances. Formative evaluation was done on a continui ng basis through regular meetings of the project team. The project advisors provided feedback on various aspects of the program, including such things as the wording of the content, the program’s appearance and appropriateness of graphics and other media, and the effectiveness of interactions and instructional approach. In addition to ongoing evaluations, two majo r tests of the software are usually conducted. An alpha test is performed by the project team, prior to delivering the program to the client, or as in this case, installing the program on the touchscreen in the gallery. A beta test is a full test of th e final program, usually conducted by, or in collaboration with, the client for whom the pr oduct had been produced. In the case of the kiosk’s program, we allowed the gallery’s visito rs, the end-users, to conduct the beta test. This approach was the most appropriate a nd practical for us, again, due to time and resource constraints. Furthermore, some i ssues only arise when the program is actually “put to the test,” since inevitably visitors will use the kiosk in ways not anticipated by the design team. Through the use of the kiosk in the gallery by actual vi sitors, the program’s


36 strengths and limitations were identified and several issues and potential problems were brought to my attention and addressed. Needs Analysis The kiosk project emerged as teaching-orie nted initiative proposed to explore the potential of visual approaches to anthropological education, ai med at both gallery visitors and students of the departmental project-bas ed courses, Museum Methods and Visual Anthropology. As mentioned earlier, it is essential to assess the appropriateness of multimedia for the delivery of the content pla nned in a given context and for a particular audience. In order to justif y the addition of the kiosk to the gallery’s offerings, and receive funding for the project, we had to convincingly answer the question “Why include interactive multimedia in the Anthr opology Exhibit Gallery?” There are several reasons Drs. Weisman and Bird felt that an interactive kiosk was a desirable feature to include in the gallery. First, the fact that fewer of the gallery ’s displays are based upon the department’s collections was a key factor in the decision to add an interactive kios k to the gallery. The kiosk allows for the presentation of e ngaging programs that are unencumbered by physical space and time. Concept-based, virtua l exhibits without re al, tangible artifacts become possible via the kiosk. Second, the kiosk would function to extend the life of the ga llery exhibits and provide a public showcase for visual anthr opology projects, other student projects, and department faculty applied re search and work. Many of the student-created gallery exhibits are of exceptional quality and are simply difficult to part with when it is time to


37 dismantle them to make room for a new group of displays. “Repurposing” select gallery exhibits for the electronic format allows the disassembled exhibits to be preserved beyond their gallery life. In addition, many of the projects created by students in Visual Anthropology, such as videos, photographic e xpositions, and web pages, can be included in the kiosk’s program, to be enjoyed by persons not enrolled in the class. In addition, the educational experience of the kiosk also involves the option of creating multimedia projects for students enrolled in Museum Methods or Visual Anthropology. There are a number of learning be nefits for students who take on the role of multimedia designer. When creating multimed ia projects, like other types of hands-on projects such as exhibits and video, student s become producers of knowledge, rather than receivers. Multimedia provides students w ith a powerful medium of communication and offers students new insights into organizi ng, synthesizing and evaluating information (Ivers and Barron 1998: 12). Students are given the opportunity to offer their own interpretations of information and employ r eal–life technology skills. The range of activities involved in creati ng a multimedia product, including conducting research, creating content, and designing, producing, and authoring multimedia components, incorporates a variety of cognitive skills in ways not typically encountered in traditional lecture-based courses. Perhaps the principal and most appealing reason for the addition of the kiosk is the nature of the computer-based program its elf. Video, audio, and interactions can be used to enhance the various obj ects or displays in an exhibition. Multimedia is better suited to relay information that is not easily conveyed through print or verbal explanations. The use of multimedia can also provide more and different types of


38 information than is otherwise possible through traditional exhibition techniques. The kiosk can serve the different information n eeds of the visitors, as modules can be designed to present a variety of information that can be accessed according to one’s interest. Finally, the inherent draw of the inter active media was another key reason why we sought to add the kiosk. Museums have but a brief moment to capture a visitor’s interest, and maintain it. The “holding pow er” of a museum panel with text only is a mere 15 seconds, while a panel with text and an artifact holds the vis itors interest for an additional 30 seconds. By c ontrast, a visitor will spe nd 6 minutes at a computer interactive (Randi Korn and Associates, Inc. 2000). Characteristics of Target Audience The primary audience for the kiosk’s progr am is University of South Florida students, with undergraduate students making up the largest segmen t of the gallery’s visitors. Furthermore, according to the resu lts of the kiosk’s survey, the majority of undergraduate students visiting the gallery are not anthropology majors, as we had expected. In addition to knowi ng who our visitors are, we also needed to know what they knew about the subject matter, anthropology. Dr. Bird and Anthropology graduate st udent Carolena Von Trapp created an informal survey aimed to produce a snapshot image of anthropology held by students at USF (Bird and Von Trapp 1999). Using a brief, open-ended questionnaire, 100 USF students who had never taken a class in anth ropology, were asked a bout their perceptions of the field. The survey revealed that 20 percent of the students knew nothing about


39 anthropology. Over half the respondents pla ced the anthropological focus on the remote past, and nearly 60 percent defined anthropolog y exclusively in terms of archaeology or physical anthropology. The student s viewed anthropologists as anything from the daring Indiana Jones-type to eccentric, unkempt agi ng academics, and concluded that there are few things one can do with a degree in anthropology. This study points out the limited a nd media influenced understanding of anthropology that most undergraduate students possess, and it highlights the areas that the kiosk needed to target. The fact that college student s make up the majority of the gallery’s visitors influenced th e design of the program in other ways as well. First, the content of the kiosk is written at a reading level appropriate for the average college-level freshman. Second, our audience, regardless of age or college-level, is a computer-literate and media-savvy population, and thus has the prer equisite skills to comfortably operate and interact with the system. In fact, we would expect that our audience (the MTV generation) will demand a sleek sophisticated presentation, delivered to them with appealing visuals, and in a minimum amount of time. A dull “page-turner,” similar to a familiar Power Point Presentation, will simply not suffice. Furthermore, we were able to presume that the learners’ motivation is intrinsic; as expressed in the kiosk’s online su rvey, the majority of visitors are either “very interested” or at least “somewhat intere sted” in the anthropology to begin with, and thus are predisposed to exploring the kiosk’s pr ogram. Furthermore, a consistent (though minority) proportion of visitors are likely to be participating as part of a class assignment, and so are additionally motivat ed to learn from the kiosk.


40 Delivery Environment An iMac with a built-in touchscreen, developed by Elotouch Systems, was ultimately chosen to display the multimedia program on the kiosk. The iTouch “touchon-tube” surface wave technology provides a cl ear, reliable and durable interface for interactive displays in expos ed public access environments. The all-in-one design of the iMac ensures that there are fewer parts th at can malfunction and require repair or replacement. In addition, my previous expe rience using an iMac w ith iTouch, which had a record of infrequent system crashes, was al so a factor in selecti ng an iMac for the kiosk. Touch is a natural and efficient method of interaction. “You can’t get more intuitive than touch,” observ es Yechiam Halevy, Director of Information Systems at the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum, that also em ploys touchscreens in th eir galleries. “If you see something that interests you, you touch it” (Elotouch Systems, Inc. 2001). This inherent simplicity is welcome in an envi ronment, like the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery, where the average visitor spends a very limited amount of time. We can’t afford to have visitors waste precious time learning how to use a complicated system. The touchscreen interface allows us to place a potentially limitless number of a wide variety of artifacts litera lly at the gallery vi sitors’ “fingertips.” The kiosk allows visitors examine objects that are otherwise inacc essible to them, such as fragile artifacts and expensive casts. Virtual reality that permits 3-D rotation of virtual objects, proposed for future inclusion on the kiosk, will allow visitors to examine objects from multiple angles and is proposed for fu ture inclusion on the kiosk. Another decisive factor for selecting a touchscreen was security, since the kiosk and museum are unmonitored throughout the day and accessible to any person who enters


41 the building. Gallery visitors do not need access to the mouse or keyboard to control the program, therefore there are no external parts that can be broken, vandalized, or removed. The kiosk encasement is locked into place whil e it is in the gallery, with the iMac secured snugly inside. However, the fact that there is no keyboard or mouse is also the biggest drawback to using the technology. Touchscreen technol ogy requires a different design strategy. First, the touchscreen interface does not allo w for text-entry, limiting the types of user feedback that can be solicited and the type s of interactions that are possible. For example, at present, visitors must record their comments in a pen-and-paper log book rather than being able add their commen ts during completion of an online survey presented on the kiosk. It is also not possible to use standard drop-down menus, radio buttons, or check boxes because the target ar ea for these types of inputs are small and difficult to engage, as they are designed for use with a mouse controlled cursor. Another minor drawback of the iMac is that, aside from memory, upgrades are somewhat more difficult to install than on PCs. In addition to the touchscreen computer, a second iMac was purchased for the programÂ’s development. The iMac is equipped with superior graphics capabilities, as well as built-in audio and video inputs and out puts needed for the production of digital video. The iMac also offered more hard driv e, memory, and upgrade options than PCs of a comparable price. Finally, because we had a very limited budget for the purchase of computer programs, we chose to go with the iMac for the very practical reason that I personally owned many of the programs that we needed. In addition, iMovie, AppleÂ’s proprietary software for editing digital vide o, came packaged with the computer, thus


42 allowing us to complete simple video-ed iting projects without having to purchase additional software, such as the pricey (and complicated) Premiere or Final Cut Pro. All peripheral devices, such as a digital vi deo camcorder, scanner, CD-burner, zip drive, and DVD-burner (added later) were select ed for their dual platform capabilities. All of these hardware compone nts have USB or firewire c onnections and drivers that allow them to be used with either a Mac or PC-compatible computer. Work produced on either type of computer system can be easily integrated into the pr ogram. In addition, the Anthropology departmentÂ’s media lab now has a PC for the development of media projects. The touchscreen iMac is housed in a mobile encasement that can be wheeled into a classroom, lab, or office. The encaseme nt was built to accommodate a wheelchair or stool so that visitors may be seated while using the program. In addition, the iMac computer itself is portable and can be rem oved from the kiosk encasement and taken to any location, even off campus, for demonstr ation purposes. The iMac also has videomirroring capabilities so that it can be c onnected to a projection system, such as a Promixa. The program itself is a standalone application (this mean s that it does not need a special program to run it) that is stored on the touchscreen computerÂ’s hard drive. The video segments do however require that th e computer has QuickTime installed. The program automatically starts up and shuts dow n at preprogrammed times and will restart automatically in the event of a power interruption.


43 Authoring Tools To create the kiosk’s interactive program, I used several multimedia development programs. The program itself was created using Authorware (version 4, for Macintosh). Several suppor t programs were also used to create elements of the program, including, but not limited to, PhotoShop, QuickTime Pro, SoundEdit 16, iMovie, and Premiere. Free trial versions of all of these programs are available for download. With the exception of iMovie, all of these programs are available for both Mac and PC platforms. I will discuss Authorware in some detail, because it is the program that “makes it all happen” and is the least familiar to new multimedia designers. Authorware was develope d specifically to facilit ate the development of courseware and instructional pr ograms, like the kiosk program Authorware is an authoring tool and not a programming language. Authoring software, different from pr ogramming software, are programs that provide on-screen tools (menus prompts, icons, etc.) to help the user develop an application. The underlying code is interp reted by a runtime system or plug-in and is never seen by the developer unle ss the developer choo ses to view it. Authorware is an iconic, path driven system in which programs are created by placing icons on a flowchart (each icon re presents a “procedure” in programming terms). The icons have properties or opti ons that determine what they do that can be set by the programmer. The icons are executed when they are encountered in the linear flow.


44 Authorware can be used to devel op any combination of presentations, tutorial, simulations, drills, tests, games, as well as programs that interact with the World Wide Web. Programs created us ing Authorware, in addition, can be delivered and interact with the internet, as well as on a CD-Rom or computer’s hard drive. Authorware has an intuitive environment and is relatively easy to learn and is designed for both Mac and PC. Developers must learn what each icon does, when to use it, and what options are available to it. It is not necessary to have any previous programming experience to create interactive programs using Authorware, however, some knowledge of basic programming concepts and methods extends the functionality of the pr ogram. It is necessary to write “code,” for example, if you want to track the us ers’ progress through a lesson or collect data from user input. Methodology for Facilitating Learning Developing effective materials that facilita te learning, in any medium, requires an understanding and appreciation of the princi ples underlying how people learn yet how people learn is a subject of gr eat debate. There are far too many approaches to learning to even begin to list, let alone summarize or describe, them here. In creating the gallery’s interactive program, I elected to eschew labels and employ an eclectic approach to instruction using a combination of methodologi es and instructional strategies. (For a comprehensive discussion of methodologies s ee Alessi and Trollip 2001.) To design the program, I applied a healthy dose of comm on sense heuristics and based many design


45 decisions on prior experience, observation, and anecdotal evidence. Fortunately, my sensibilities are in accordance with generally well-accepted design practices grounded in principles derived from research! In the case of the Anthropology Exhibit Ga lleryÂ’s kiosk, the com puter is only one element in the learning environment. Therefor e, it is not necessary nor expected that the kioskÂ’s program is responsible for all phases of instruction. The kiosk is foremost a tool meant to enhance the galleryÂ’s displays and th e visitorÂ’s experience in general. Visitors to the gallery are not expected to acquire new skills or master content, and this fact determines a great deal of the programÂ’s de sign. However, it is hoped that the gallery visitors will learn something from the exhibits and from the kiosk, therefore attention must be given to the factors that promote learning. One approach to designing in struction that is particul arly noteworthy is GagneÂ’s Nine Events of Instruction. Robert Gagne ( 1985) describes a series of events that he believes must take place in or der for learning to occur and th is framework is often used for the development of educational multimedia programs. The Nine Events of Instruction are: 1. gaining attention 2. informing the learner of the lesson objective(s) and activating motivation 3. stimulating recall of prior learning 4. presenting the stimulus material 5. providing learning guidance 6. eliciting performance 7. providing feedback 8. assessing performance 9. enhancing retention and learning transfer


46 Although I did not employ Gagne’s approach in its entirety, it nonetheless served as a useful guide. I should mention, too, th at the kiosk’s program does not preclude the inclusion of all elements outlined. Further, I do recommend a more faithful application of this sensible plan to a nyone interested in designing co mputer-based instruction of a more conventional kind than the kiosk’s program. It is intend ed that the kiosk program is to be used in conjunction w ith other media and learning activ ities, such as the gallery exhibits and classroom instruction, and theref ore it need not inco rporate all elements outlined by Gagne. For example, because it is not necessary for visitors to achieve a mastery of an inventory of facts and data in any of the modules that I have created to date, one will find that “assessing performance” is an aspect that is presently absent from the kiosk’s program. Instructional Goals and Objectives Succinctly stated, the overall aim of the kiosk is to enrich visitors’ understanding of anthropology. Lord explai ns that “the purpose of a museum exhibit is to transform some aspect of th e visitor’s interests, attitudes or values affectively” (2002: 18). The kiosk functions as an anci llary display, and so, in a similar fashion, is focused on the aff ective domain of learning. Although the gallery exhibits and the kiosk definitely have goals and objectives, they are not the well-defined and measurable learni ng objectives associated with discrete lessons to which instructional desi gners and educators are accustomed.


47 According to the Anthropology Exhibit Ga llery’s mission statement, the mission of the gallery is “ edu cate the university community and visiting public about the value and relevance of anthropology to mode rn life by presenting visually appealing and technically competent exhib it representing anthropology's fo ur-field holistic approach based on high standards of an thropological research and sc holarship” (Brent Weisman, spring 2003, persona l communication). Essentially, the exhibits and kiosk are deemed successful when they provoke thought, and promote a desire to know more. Assessing the success of the kiosk program to this end is difficult to measure. For example, it cannot be determined through a multiple choice test th at follows a session at the touchscreen – which would be the kind of measurement tool prescribed by most instructional design approaches. Most of the theories and models of learning place the emphasis on human cognition, however, humans are both thi nking and feeling creatures. Vygotsky said that “the separation of affect [feeling] from c ognition [thinking] is a major weakness...since it makes the thought proces s appear as an autonomous flow of ‘thoughts thinking themselves,’ segregated from the fullness of life, from the personal needs and interests, the inclin ations and impulses, of the thinker” (Vygotsky in McLeod 2003). The museum experience is, moreover, embedded in the visitor’s individual experience, inseparable from their “fee lings.” In the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery attention to this fact is relevant at two levels ; first, although not explicitly expressed, an aim of the ga llery is that the visitor feel good about visiting the


48 gallery that it was not a waste of time; second, the di splays often messages about anthropology that are sometimes at odds with the visitor's views and beliefs. Therefore, it is important for us to co nsider what Clark (1999) describes as "valuing" the worth or value a pers on attaches to a particular object, phenomenon, or behavior. This ranges from simple acceptance to a more complex state of commitment. Valuing is based on the inte rnalization of a specified value, while clues to these valu es are expressed in the learner’s overt behavior and are often identifiable. The kiosk program is designed around broad goals that promote discovery about the content, similar to the surr ounding gallery exhibits. The kiosk offers visitors the opportunity to explore various topics in anthropology, based on their level of interest and learning style. Wh at specific information the visitor will learn from the kiosk’s program will depend on which particular modules the visitor chooses to explore, and to what extent. For instance, at one level, the vis itor may learn informational content about the subject, such as in the “What is Anthropology?” m odule, in which the discipline’s four fields are explored and explained. At another level, he or she may learn how archaeologists are able to us e artifacts to interpret culture, and will see Dr. Weisman demonstrating that proce ss via video, as in the “Potsherds to People” module. This module is clearly more oriented toward process and method than toward information for its own sake. At yet another level, the “Imagined Indian” module takes the prem ise of a static exhibit and extend the examples through virtual means, allowing the visitor to lear n how issues of


49 cultural representation relate to the broader anthropological goal of cultural analysis. Finally, interactive e-Exhibits like “R ace: A Biological Reality or Social Construct?” attempt to allow the visitor to e xplore a complex and controversial topic with the explicit goal of developing an anthropological understanding of the true nature of the concept of race. In this case, the sp ecific lesson outcomes for this module are: 1. Visitors will learn that racial classi fications based on biological variation are scientifically invalid. 2. Visitors will gain an unde rstanding of the problems w ith the scientific use of the racial classification system, including: a) Scientists cannot agree on the num ber of races or the placement of human groups within them. b) The race concept applies arbitrary cl assifications to traits that exhibit predominantly continuous variation. b) There is a lack of correspondence be tween the different traits that are used to make racial classifications. d) More variation exists with in human groups than between them. 3. Visitors will recognize the diffe rence between race as a biological concept and as a social concept. Instructional Approach Designing effective multimedia for learni ng requires combining various media in creative ways based on an understanding of the intended learners (Alessi and Trollip 2001: 328). The kiosk program is an amal gamation of approaches in terms of methodologies for designing educational multimedia, and as such might be best described


50 as an open-learning environment. Hannafin a nd his associates (1999) use the term openended learning environment to describe a progr am that allows learners to set goals and pursue them using methods they deem appropr iate and desirable. The kioskÂ’s program is foremost a presentation that supports explorati on and thus incorporates a wide variety of techniques for facil itating computer-based instruction, integrating elements of other common methodologies such as tutorials, dri lls, simulations, and games (see Alessi and Trollip 2001). The first essential requirement of any progr am is to gain atte ntion; the second, of course, is to maintain it. This is no easy charge, even when learners are intrinsically motivated by a personal interest in the subject, as in the case of most gallery visitors. In fact, because a visit to the gallery and use of the kiosk is entirely voluntary, a balance must be achieved between novelty and familiarity of information, or else the visitor may become disinterested. Users of multimedia programs will quickly lose interest, in any case, if the content is too dense or visually unappealing. Placing the locus of control with the user is one key to retaining interest. The amount of control, however, can vary. User control might include choosing the path, sequence, content, or pace, or electing to re visit screens, or repeat video segments, for example. In the kioskÂ’s program, the visitor make s selections based on their interests, and experience as much or as little of th e program as they choose at their own pace, ensuring an individual experience for each visito r. However, the degree to which the user has control varies within the kiosk program, and even within individual modules. For example, the visitor may make a selection from the main menu, in a sense determining their own instructional goals, and obviously choosing content. However, once they have


51 made a selection, the sequence may be determined by the program (through limiting options), as in the case of the “What is Anthropology?” module. Th e structure of this module is entirely linear. Interactions are another way to engage the learner. Although touching the “next” button on the screen is in the strict sense “interacting” with the program because it is causing the program to respond to the user’s inpu t, it is not sufficient to maintain learner interest. The “Race: A Biological Reality or Social Construct?” module includes several user interactions. Requesting or requiring user input is one way of keeping the process of learning active. A variety of media and presen tation styles also helps to ensure that the learner will want to explore the program. The ki osk program poses many questions to its learners, a presentation technique that is mean t both to engage learners and to underscore the value of inquiry. Over all, the educational emphasi s of this program is on understanding, rather than remembering, a nd the program is designed with this orientation in mind. Design Considerations and Guidelines It is the combination of images, text sounds, and interactivity that make multimedia programs so dynamic and so desirable. But with so much going on, it is especially important to follow some general guidelines for effective design. There are a few qualities that should be present in all educational software, however many of the desirable qualities vary acco rding to the instructional goa ls of the program and the characteristics of the user. Some of the s uggestions I make here may seem like common


52 sense, but there exists enough poorly designe d educational multimedia packages, replete with distracting noises and gra phical elements, irrelevant co ntent, confusing interface, and downright ugly design, th at caution is justified. First, It is important to keep in mind that in order to be effective, multimedia must be built on sound human factors. The novelty of multimedia might be appealing, but its appropriateness must be assesse d. It is not uncommon for developers to exploit the multimedia capabilities of computers (the “bells and whistles”) to fascinate or dazzle the user, and not because it supports the inst ructional activity (Johnston 2002). The heart of any multimedia production is content, yet the nature of the medium means that one must also caution against de signing a production that is content-heavy (Lord 2002: 402). On the other hand, one should take advantage of the unlimited capabilities to present multiple layers of inform ation to the learner, based on their level of interest. It is important to be aware that text is read more 28% slower on screen than print, and comprehension is reduced (Hannafin and Hooper 1989), therefore in computer interactives, text or narra tion should be condensed into palatable blocks (Lord 2002: 403). In addition, the placement of content also determines whether or not the user attends to it. More important information should generally be placed towards the center of the screen. With regard to screen design, the primar y recommendation is to keep the screen as simple and uncluttered as possible. Pres enting too much information at one time can be confusing and overwhelming. Another im portant aspect of sc reen design is the


53 location of various components. The placem ent of menu options, navigational buttons, and the like, should be cons istent throughout the program. Every element of the graphic design should be carefully considered, and not based on aesthetics or content alone Consider, for example, the design choice of using a colorful screen design for th e “Race” module. The spect rum of colors communicates diversity, while the grey gradient background re presents the fact that the issue is not “black or white.” The “What is Anthropol ogy?” module uses a te xtile theme as the backdrop for the many images of individuals from a variety of cultures, suggesting the diverse tapestry culture that is bound the common threads of human nature. Examples of screens from the kiosk’s program can be found in Appendix H. In addition, I have prepared a guide for desi gning programs for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery to ensure that future projects will integrate smoothly into the current interface. These Multimedia Exhibit Interface Standards can be found in Appendix E.


54 Chapter Four: Conclusions As has been discussed in this thesis, the development of interactive multimedia exhibits builds on many of the core princi ples of instructional design and more conventional museum exhibitions, but it also requires an underst anding of electronic media -their potential and limitations, and their implications for the presentation of information, interpretation and interactions. Applied Work in Museums and Multimedia Development Museums have been the natural home for ethnographic exhibits since explorers, missionaries, and anthropologist s began collecting artifacts and displaying them away from their natural context. In the early years of Am erican anthropology, more anthropologists were employed by museums th an by universities, and there continues to be a significant number of anthropologists wo rking in museums (see Stocking; Hinsley; for reviews of the history of American anth ropology and museums). However, within the profession, anthropologists working in museum s tend to be assigned less prestige than their counterparts in higher education. The museum profession has also not been seriously considered as a si gnificant dimension of app lied/practicing anthropology, even


55 though its central task – the in terpretation of anth ropological material and concepts – is surely a significant task of applied anthropology. This is slowly changing, especially as anth ropologists realize th at the survival of the discipline depends on its ability to prove its relevance in a rapidly changing world. Michael Ames suggests that an thropologists working in muse ums are less insulated from public criticism than are their counterparts work ing in universities. “Museums,” he says, “have been subjected to the pressures of de mocratization more than universities because they have been more closely integrated in to the daily lives of their communities and therefore more fully appropriated by those communities.” He continues, “Perhaps, therefore, we should look to museums for hi nts as to how our profession may evolve over the next several decades” (Ames 1992: 37). Similarly Susan S. Bean asserts that “…cultural representation in museums, long re legated to the fringes of anthropology, has become a site of innovation, experimentation and leadership in the proactive era of postmodern ethnography” (Bean 1994: 891). Museums are pliable educational and social institutions that appear to move in several directions at the same time (G laser and Zenetou 1996: 27), anthropologists working in museums should be too. Stronger linkages with communities will continue to be a priority of museums, as communities become increasingly involved and interested both in their cultural heritage and in the polit ics of how that heritage is represented. These relationships can be facilitated by the help of applied/practicing anthropologists, experienced in both issues of representation and appropriate and effective methods of communication, in which multi-media applications are playing an increasingly large role.


56 The place of multimedia within anthropologi cal teaching and research is one of today's hot topics, although at the present time there seems to be li ttle real discussion of the implications of these developments. The central debate, as might be expected, hinges on the question of which is a more appropr iate use of interactive multimedia in anthropology, research or teaching? In a somewhat dated presentation, visual anthropologist Ma rcus Banks (1994) initiates a dialog about interactive multimedia that highlights key ideas that continue to be relevant. Banks voices sharp criticism of interactive multimedia and his claims are not entirely unfounded. He asserts that interactiv e multimedia “ above all else a medium of script limitation and bounding [that] …calls on the twin rhetorics of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’ to disguise its cont rol and command of authority” (Banks 1994). In light of these limitations, Banks advises anthropol ogists to “forego work on educational interactive multimedia developments and concentrate instead on research applications.” It is true that the developers of multimedia programs decide “what the user wants to know” and the user can either take it or leave it and possibly leave without getting what they want. This same argument can be levied against a published book, museum exhibit, or anthropological film. As in all of these methods for the delivery of anthropological content, th e learner is interacting w ith a teacher only second-hand, through an incredibly narrow communicative me dium, and moreover, the interaction is essentially one-way. In response to Banks’ criticisms, Biella (1994) proposes a less skeptical view of interactive multimedia's educat ional potential in anthropology, though he also focuses on its use primarily as a research tool. Multim edia (specifically hypermedia), he says, is


57 particularly valuable because the rearrangeme nt of data and the a ssessment of pertinent new data improves analysis, often in ways th at are unanticipated and nonlinear. Further, complex applications (multi/hypermedia that has many alternative paths and interconnecting nodes) exhibit considerable sensitivity and responsiveness to an individual user’s sk ills and interests. Despite its limitations, Biella believes th at the multimedia format is appropriate and can provide good pedagogic results given certain instructional goals. In addition, he points to the fact that pr int-based materials have a rela tively modest data-storage capacity and limited interactive capabilities in comparison to that of computer-based hypermedia. Indeed, the instructional goal of an application should always be the ultimate determinant of its form, and while interactive multimedia cannot anticipate its users’ every need, it is not incapable of being helpful to its users. Banks also anticipates a scenario in wh ich “decisions on classroom instructional materials and curriculum will be decided by faceless people somewhere else in cyberspace.” This development is an evil ne cessity, he notes, because due to time and financial constraints, a group of specialists ( not the instructors of the courses), will “…provide new ‘instructional’ materials that [will] take advantage of the new technology and…speak/visualize to a new generation of students weaned on MTV.” Banks is describing a trend that is, in fact, taking place. The Future of the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Kiosk The present is an opportune time to reassess and reevalua te the kiosk project, and revise its multimedia program. New gallery exhibits will be unveiled in just two short


58 weeks, necessitating a review of the program’s conten t and providing the opportunity to add new modules in conjunction with the new gallery exhibits. The kiosk project can claim both successes a nd failures. Many, but not all, of the problems and “technical difficulties” experienced were overcome. Circumstances, such as receiving the touchscreen computer a full 8 months after it was originally expected, most definitely hampered the project’s progress. It would not be fruitful to enumerate all events that were encountered that brought a bout the kiosk as it appears today, more so than I already have. Instead, I will present he re my views of what remains to be done to continue to improve the project, while menti oning some of the ways that I think potential future pitfalls may be avoided. In a sense, it was known that the project w ould not be “finished” at the end of the grant period. The nature of the project is ongoing and much work remains to be done. However, it should be stated up front that the ki osk project has yet to realize its potential. While it has been widely used by visitors and students, who have clea rly learned from it, as yet, no further student-generated projec ts have been added. The logistics of incorporating multi-media training into Visual Anthropology and Museum Methods classes have proved difficult to achieve, gi ven the enormous demand on instructional time and other resources. It is only when th e kiosk is used to create multimedia projects by anthropology students that the true learning potential of the kiosk w ill be placed in the hands of the users. As I mentioned at th e beginning of this thesis, I hope that the information I have presented here is some how useful toward ac hieving that ends. I believe that had I completed a detailed work breakdown stru cture earlier in the project’s development, we would have likel y projected a more re alistic and accurate


59 timeline (the originally proposed timelin e appears in Appendix I) and would have redefined the scope of the proj ect as appropriate. A clear co nceptualization and statement of a project’s goals is a critical reference point can help keep th e project on track and prevent dreaded “scope creep.” Although I was able to complete the overall program, the number of modules included was more limite d than we had hoped. We simply had too many “good ideas” but not enough time and resources to realize them. There are several things that remain to be done in order to more fully realize the potential of the gallery’s kiosk. € First, the online survey needs to be revised. A significant number of respondents aborted taking the survey without answer ing all of the questions. It is probable that th e screen is simply too crowded and overwhelming (see Appendix J for an image of the current survey). I would propose that the survey be re designed so that one question is presented per screen. In this way al so, the survey can branch to bypass or present questions based on answers to previous questions. For example, visitors to the uni versity need not be questio ned about their academic major, and repeat visitors could be as ked to indicate the reason they opted to return to the gallery. Furtherm ore, additional questions, aimed at soliciting feedback specifically a bout the kiosk’s program, could be included, though the option of whether or not to proceed to more questions should be offered to the respondent.


60 € It would also be useful to further de velop the kiosk’s program so that we could track the user’s path through the program and time spent exploring individual modules. In this way, fo r example, we could identify popular topics and interactions, or note if learners may be having problems understanding the presentation, indicated by repeated visits to previous pages. € Of course, more modules need to be added, including the ones already begun, as well as newly-created student projects. There are a limitless number of appropriate topics a nd creative approaches possible for additional modules. However, add itional (and substantial), funding will be needed to further develop the kiosk project. The crea tion of interactive multimedia is most definitely a labor-intensive, not to mention expensive process. It takes approximately 100 hours of research and production time to put together 50 minutes of real ti me classroom multi-media instruction. Similarly, it took at least that long to develop each of the modules on the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery’s kiosk. Ultimately we can gauge the success of th e kiosk against its original mission to employ multimedia to promote real connections to the gallery’s physical exhibits and to the field of anthropology by the gallery’s visitors At this time, it is difficult to separate its impact from the gallery as a whole; a more formal evaluation is still needed. However some pertinent information and lessons can be learned by examini ng the visitor log and online survey.


61 According to the results of the online survey, and the written log, many USF students visit repeatedly and independent of any classroom assignment. As one student visitor noted “This is my s econd visit. I came back for a better understanding.” Less than 25% of the respondents were first-time visitors. It seems ev ident that the gallery exhibits increase visitor intere st in the field. It “makes you want to study anthropology,” remarks one student, while another admits after a visit to the gallery, “now I want to take a class in anthropology.” The online survey reveals that only a small minority (4%) of the visitors felt that they did not gain a bett er understanding of the field of anthropology from the gallery’s exhibits. Another 24% said that they learned a lot, while the majority (72%) indicated that they had learned so mething about the anthropology during their visit. Comments recorded in the visitor log reveal that the gallery is applauded for presenting many perspectives by some, but also criticized for being biased, by a few. It would be valuable to explore these sentimen ts further, such as the remarks below, through visitor interviews. One specific reference to the kiosk sugge sts that the kiosk is functioning as intended. The student writes, “Right from the start, there is a touchscreen that explains the basis of anthropology, and why it is studied. This opens up a lot of information in just a few screens, then allowing you to automatically be more interested in the exhibit itself.” The student continues, “Given the exhibit I have now seen, I would say that the discipline of anthropology is the study of how we are all one species, bu t how we all adjust to the same world just based on location. And someho w, we can all figure out a way to interact with each other. I would highly recommend this exhibit to everyone, because in a small space, it gives a great deal of inform ation that is useful to any human.”


62 Recent historical events have shown th at understanding and respect for cultural diversity are sorely needed, and I believ e that such views can be successfully communicated in museum exhibits, electronic me dia, and visual projects, such as those that are and could be created by USF students. Museums have a unique role to fill in society – as resources for life-long informal and supplementary public education for all ages. Glenn Guttleben, of the Exploratorium, San Francisco, suggests that, “If you are looking to do something that is useful to humankind, to make the world a better place… You should think about museums.” ( in Glaser & Zenetou 1996: 4) In museum circles, it is often said that museums interpret the pa st so that we may understand the present in order to meet the challenges of the future. Multimedia, such as the kiosk project, promise to extend and enhance the lear ning experience of museums, and can make a difference in how people view the world around them. One student writes, “It made me open my ey es to something new that I didn’t pay attention to before. The exhibits portrayed the people [of other cultures] in a new light and made you want to rethink the way you looked at these people. It showed that a lot of these people that we look at as maybe lower th an us or maybe weird th ey really aren’t too far off from us. The diff erences are small and few.” For students engaged in produc ing projects about anthropol ogical topics that are destined for public presentation, such as th e exhibits designed by students in Museum Methods and projects created by students in Visual Anthropology, it is important to recognize that these projects do no t merely represent culture; they also construct it -even if the limited exposure is within the micr oworld of the Anthr opology Exhibit Gallery.


63 The kiosk is a public showcase where we can challenge the image of anthropology that the averag e undergraduate student holds. Through the kiosk we can show that anthropology is about more than just “stones and bones,” and that it has significant relevance to the “real world.”


64 References Cited Alessi, Stephen M., and Stanley R. Trollip 1991 Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Alexander, Edward P. 1979 Museums in Motion: An Introducti on to the History and Function of Museums. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History. Ames, Michael M. 1992 Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press. Banks, Marcus 1994 Interactive Multimedia and Anthr opology: A Sceptical View. Accessed online at http://www.bodle Bean, Susan S. 1994 Museums and the Reformulation of Ethnographic Practice. American Ethnologist 21(4): 886-891. Peter Biella 1994 Codifications of Ethnography: Linear and Nonlinear. Accessed online at lab/welcome/codifications.html. Bird, S.E. and C. Von Trapp 1999 Beyond Bones and Stones. Anthropology Newsletter, Dec: 9-10. Boylan, Patrick J. 1999 Universities and Museums: Past, Present and Future. Museum Management and Curatorship 18(1): 43–56. Clark, Donald 1995Introduction to Instructional Syst em Design. Accessed online at


65 Clark, Donald 1999 Learning Domains or Bloom's Taxonomy. Accessed online at Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Elotouch Systems, Inc. 2002 Touch Solutions: U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum. Accessed online at Falk, John H. 1998 Visitors: Toward a Better Understandi ng of Why People Go to Museums. Museum News (March/April) 77(2): 39-43. Gagne, R. 1985 The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Garfield, Donald 1989 Dimensions of Diversity. Museum News (March/Apr il) 68(2): 43-48. Glaser, Jane R., and Artemis A. Zenetou, eds. 1995Museums: A Place to Work, Planning Museum Careers. New York, NY: Routledge. Harris, Neil 1995 Exhibiting Controversy. Museum News (September/October) 74(5): 36-39&57-58. Hinsley, Curtis M. 1981 Savages and Scientists: the Smithsoni an Institution and the Development of American Anthropology, 1846-1910. Wa shington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Hirzy, Ellen Cochran 1992 Excellence and Equity: Education and th e Public Dimension of Museums. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, ed. 1995 Museum, Media, Message. London: Routledge. Ivers, Karen S. And Ann E. Barron 1998 Multimedia Projects in Education: Designing, Producing, and Assessing. Engelwood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.


66 Johnston, Jerome 2002 The Qualities of Good Software. Accessed online at Karp, Ivan and Stephen D. Lavine 1991 Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics a nd Politics of Museum Display. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Karp, Ivan, Muller Kreamer, Chri stine, and Stephen D. Lavine 1992 Museums and Communities: The Politic s of Public Culture. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kelley, Robert F. 1992 Museums as Status Symbols: A Specu lative Examination of Motive Among those Who Love Being in Museums, Those Who go to Museums and those who Refuse to go. In Visitor Studies: Theory Research and Practice (vol 4). A. Benenfield, S. Bittgood, and H. Shette l, eds. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design. Pp. 24-31. Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. KT History. Accessed online at meetkt/meetkt-history.html. Koester, Stephanie Eva 1993 Interactive Multimedia in American Museums. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Inforrnatics. Kurin, Richard 1997 Reflections of a Culture Broker: A View from the Smithsonian. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lord, Barry 2002 The purpose of Museum Exhibitions. In The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. Barry Lord and Gail Dexter Lord, eds. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Pp. 11-28. Lord, Barry, and Gail Dexter, eds. 2002 The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. Wa lnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Lull, James 1995 Media, Communication, Culture: A Global Approach. New York: Columbia University Press.


67 Maroevic, Ivo 1995 The Museum Message: Between the Document and Information. In Museum, Media, Message. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, ed. London: Routledge. McLeod, Susan H. 2003 The Affective Domain and the Writing Process: Working Definitions. Accessed online at http://j Owen, Janet 1996 Making Histories from Archaeology. In Making Histories in Museums. Gaynor Kavanagh, ed. London: Lei cester University Press. Pp. 200-215. Piacente, Maria 2002 Multimedia: Enhancing the Experience. In The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. Barry Lord and Gail Dexter Lord, eds. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Pp. 222-233. Randi Korn and Associates, Inc. 1999 Summative Evaluation: Executiv e Summaries, Discussion, and Recommendations. Accessed at techexhibits_/audienceresear c_/evaluationrepor_/phaseitimingand_1/ default.htm. Riegal, Henrietta 1996 Into the Heart of Irony: Ethnographi c Exhibitions and the Politics of Difference In Theorizing Museums. Sharon Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, eds. Oxford, England: Black well Publishers. Pp. 83-104. Rodmell, Emily 2001Bringing the Past to Life. Oracle. Feb. 29, 200: 8-9. Solinger, Janet W., ed. 1990 Museums and Universities: New Paths for Continuing Education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Stocking, George W. Jr., ed. 1985 Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Thomas, Michael C. 2000 A Dissertation is a Project to Manage: Or How To Avoid Dissertation Hell. Accessed online at News/project.html.


68 Tramposch, William J. 1998 Exact Imaging: The Museum as a Jour ney. Museum News (March/April) 77(2):4449. Wilson, Stan Le Roy 1995 Mass Media, Mass Culture: An Intr oduction (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill, Inc.




70 Appendix A: Project Management Process


71 Appendix B: Project Management Process Questions DEFINITION PHASE What is the purpose of the project? What are its objectives? What results should it achieve? What resources are needed? State the Project What is the action and the end result? Why are we doing this? When do we need to be done? How much will/can this cost? Develop Objectives At the end of the project, what results will we have? What value will be gained? What constraints do we face? What requirements must be met? Develop WBS What must be delivered or accomplished? What must we do to meet this objective? How will we do that? Identify Resource Requirements What knowledge and skills are needed? What equipment, facilities, and supplies are needed? What special or unusual resources are needed? How much? What cost? PLANNING PHASE Who will be responsible? WhatÂ’s the projectÂ’s sequence and timing? How and when will resources be allocated? How will project success be ensured? Assign Responsibility Who has resources for this terminal element? Who has knowledge or information? Whose commitment do we need?


72 Appendix B: Project Management Process Questions (Continued) PLANNING PHASE cont. Sequence Deliverables In what order must terminal elements be completed? Schedule Deliverables How long will each terminal element take to complete? When, in calendar time, will each terminal element start and end? Schedule Resources Are resources committed to meet the schedule? Protect the Plan For this terminal element, what could go wrong? What could cause this potential problem? How can we make this likely cause less likely? What will we do if the potential problem happens anyway? What will trigger the contingent action? IMPLEMENTATION PHASE How does the work start? How is the project progressing? What actions are needed to either reso lve problems or cap italize on opportunities? How well did we do, and what did we learn? Start to Implement How will the project team know to start? How will the team work together? How will everyone know what is expected? Monitor Project How is project progressing against: Objectives? Milestones? Schedule? Budget? Modify Project What do we need to do to: Maintain/return to schedule? Meet objectives? Respond to threats and opportunities?


73 Appendix B: Project Management Process Questions (Continued) IMPLEMENTATION PHASE cont. Closeout and Evaluate Who will be involved in th e close out? When? Where? How did project do against: objectives, plan, WBS? What was learned? What will be done differently next time?


74 Appendix C: Fair Use Provi sion of the Copyright Act §107. Limitations on exclus ive rights: Fair Use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecor ds or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes su ch as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the fact ors to be considered shall include a) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; b) the nature of the copyrighted work; c) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not it self bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


75 Appendix D: Kiosk Stat ement on Copyright The purpose of this Anthropology Exhibit Gallery kiosk is to introduce interactive media to the teaching of anthropology at the University of South Flor ida. This kiosk features multimedia educational materials developed by USF students. The copyrighted materials contained herein have been included excl usively for nonprofit educ ational purposes, and therefore meet the provisions of the Fair Use Doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you should encounter any materials here that you feel violate the conditions of fair use, please contact the Department of Anthropology. A ny materials determined to be wrongfully used in this display will be removed.


76 Appendix E: Multimedia Ex hibit Interface Standards for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Program Program-Wide Features 1. Attraction Screen Loop 2. Welcome Screen 3. Closing Screen 4. Main Menu Screen 5. Menu Button 6. Quit Button 7. Input Feedback 8. Progress Indicator 9. Time-Out Note Individual Module ("e-Exhibit") Features 10. Next Button 11. Back Button 12. Multimedia Controls Program-Wide Features 1. Attraction Screen Loop Goal: The function of the Attraction Screen Loop is to attract visitors to interact with the kiosk. In addition, the Attracti on Screen Loop acts as a screen saver, protecting the touchscreen’s monitor from burning-in a static screen image. Guidelines: The Attraction Screen Loop should be a continuous loop of at most 15 seconds, and consist of a series of different screen images. Any de tectable visitor action (touching the screen, or keystroke or m ouse click, when keyboard and mouse are accessible) must stop the Attraction Screen L oop and cause the Welcome Screen (see #2 below) to come up. The program must auto matically return to the Attraction Screen Loop after a period of user in activity (timing as appropria te for individual modules). 2. Welcome Screen Goal: The function of the Welcome Sc reen is to greet visitors. Guidelines: The Welcome Screen should include in struction “Touch Screen to Begin”


77 Appendix E: Multimedia Ex hibit Interface Standards for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Program (Continued) 3. Closing Screen Goal: The function of the Closing Screen is to communicate to the vi sitor gratitude for visiting the gallery, and provide confirmati on that they have completed their online session. Guidelines: The Closing Screen appears when the user touches the Quit Button. If the Closing Screen is touched (clicked on) anyw here on the screen, the program will re-start at the Welcome Screen. If the Closing Sc reen is up for 10 seconds without the being pressed, the Attraction Screen Loop sequen ce must begin automa tically. The Closing Screen will point visitors to the Vi sitor Log to record their comments. 4. Main Menu Screen Goal: The function of the Main Menu Screen is to present to the user the available eexhibits to select from. The us er will be taken directly to th e first screen of the e-exhibit of their choice upon striking a menu option. Guidelines: The Main Menu Screen appears when the user touches the Welcome Screen. If the Main Menu Screen is up for 90 seconds without the being pr essed, the Attraction Screen Loop sequence must begin automa tically. Each module is represented by a graphical button that is consistent with the "look and feel" of the eexhibit it corresponds with. The user will be taken directly to the first screen of the e-e xhibit of their choice upon striking a menu option. 5. Menu Button Goal: Visitors should be able to access the Main Menu at any tim e from any e-exhibit, or if they approach the kiosk and the program ha s not been reset (to the Welcome Screen or the Attract Screen) by the most recent user. Guidelines: The Menu Button must display the Main Menu Screen. The Menu Button must be displayed at the same location on th e screen within all e-exhibits – top left.


78 Appendix E: Multimedia Ex hibit Interface Standards for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Program (Continued) 6. Quit Button Goal: The function of the Quit Button is to enable visitors to exit the program at anytime. Guidelines: The Quit Button must display the Clos ing Screen. The Quit Button must be displayed at the same location on the scr een within all e-exhibits – top right. 7. Input Feedback (for button presses a nd object/menu choices) Goal: Visitors should receive feedback when they provide any input so that they always know when they have successfully communi cated with the interactive exhibit. Guidelines: Both audible and visual Button Pres s (or Input) Feedback must be played/displayed at the time of successful vi sitor input. Audible Bu tton Press (or Input) Feedback must consist of a short sound (same throughout entire program) for actual button presses (e.g., touch screen choices, m ouse clicks on objects/menu choices, buttons, etc.). Visual Button Press (o r Input) Feedback must consis t of a change in the visual representation of the button or object being selected. Possibi lities are: thickened border, reverse color, change background color, etc. 8. Progress Indicator Goal: Visitors always should be confident that the exhibit is still functioning correctly. Pauses in a program should not cause a visito r to wonder if it is broken or give them reason to abandon the kiosk due to uncertainty or impatience. Guidelines: Any operation taking longer than 3 seconds must provide a graphical progress indicator or dialogue box with language inviting the visitor to "Please wait." 9. Time-Out Note Goal: Warn visitors before the exhibit re-starts from lack of input give them a clear notice of how much time until re -start, so that if they want to continue they know they must respond.


79 Appendix E: Multimedia Ex hibit Interface Standards for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Program (Continued) 9. Time-Out Note (cont.) Guidelines: After a reasonable period with no vi sitor input (as appropriate for each eexhibit), the Time-out note mu st be displayed (when a vide o or animation is playing, no input is expected). The Timeout Note instructs the user to "touch screen" to continue. If no input is received within 15 seconds, the ex hibit resets and retu rns to the Attraction Screen Loop. Individual Module ("e-Exhibit") Features 10. Next Button Goal: The purpose of the Next Button is to allo w users to advance to the next screen Guidelines : The Next Button must advance visitors to the fo llowing screen (either the next screen in a sequence, or if a tree-structu red navigational model is being used, then "next" may mean "up a level" to the previous menu when it appears on the last screen of a module). 11. Back Button Goal: The purpose of the Back Butt on is to allow users to return to a previous screen or to repeat an interactive or multimedia experience. Guidelines : The Back Button must return visitors to the previous screen (either the previous screen in a sequence, or if a tree -structured navigational model is being used, then "back" may mean "up a level" to th e previous menu when it appears on the first screen of a module). The Back button must not be used to replay multimedia within the same screen (see #12 below). The Back Button should also operate as an UNDO function where appropriate. If it is not appropr iate or possible to retu rn the visitor to the previous screen, then the Back Button must be disabled and should be dimmed or not visible on the screen.


80 Appendix E: Multimedia Ex hibit Interface Standards for the Anthropology Exhibit Gallery Program (Continued) 12. Multimedia Controls Goal: Visitors should be able to stop or to repeat any multimedia experience, including video, audio, and animated segments. Guidelines: Two buttons should be available on all screens that feature multimedia components longer than 10 seconds. The "St op" button will interrupt the segment and will return the user to the appropriate screen within the e-exhibit (e.g., menu for individual module or previous screen). The "Replay" button w ill replay the entire segment from the beginning.


81 Appendix F: Proposed Timeline for Completion of Project Precedence Duration Start Finish Notes 1.0 Preliminary Planning 1.1 None .5 8/14 8/14 1.2 1.1 .5 8/14 8/14 1.3.1 None 1 8/15 8/15 1.3.2 None 5 8/21 8/25 1.4 1.2 .5 8/16 8/16 1.5 1.2, .5 8/16 8/16 1.6 1.2, 1.3.2 1 9/8 9/8 1.7 1.2 1 8/18 8/18 2.0 Equipment selected, purchased, set up 2.1 1.4 3 8/21 8/23 2.2 2.1 1 8/25 8/25 2.3.1 2.2 1 8/28 8/28 2.3.2 2.3.1 1 8/29 8/29 2.4 2.3.2 15 8/29 9/22 2.5.1 2.4 1 9/25 9/25 2.5.2 1.6 2 9/26 9/27 2.5.3 2.4, 2.5.2 1 9/28 9/28


82 Appendix F: Proposed Timeline for Completion of Project (Continued) 3.0 Encasement designed, built, installed 3.1.1 2.5.1 2 9/29 10/2 3.1.2 3.1.1 1 10/3 10/3 3.2 3.1.2 2 10/4 10/5 3.3 3.2 1 10/6 10/6 3.4 3.3 5 10/9 10/13 3.5 3.4 1 10/16 10/16 4.0 Educational content designed 9/15 1/15 4.1 1.6 4 4.2.1 4.1 4 4.2.2 4.2.1 4 4.2.3 2.4, 4.1 8 4.2.4 2.5.3, 4.1 8 4.3 4.2.2 4 4.4 4.3 8 4.5.1 4.4 4 4.5.2 4.5.1 20 4.5.3 4.5.1 8


83 Appendix F: Proposed Timeline for Completion of Project (Continued) 5.0 Program developed 5.1 4.4 4 9/15 2/2 5.2 4.5.2 20 9/15 2/2 5.3.1 4.4 20 9/15 2/2 5.3.2 4.4 40 9/15 2/2 5.4 4.4 30 10/15 2/2 5.5 5.4 10 10/15 2/2 6.0 Kiosk installed 6.1 2.5.1, 5.5 1 2/5 2/5 6.2 6.1 5 2/5 2/9 6.3 6.2 1 2/19 6.4 6.3 10 2/19 3/2 6.5 6.3 --7.0 Evaluation materials prepared 7.1 6.3 3 3/5 3/8 7.2 7.1 1 (30 days after 7.1) 3/9 4/13 7.3 6.3 1 4/16 4/16 7.4 7.3 1 (10 days after 7.3) (4/16) 4/30


84 Appendix F: Proposed Timeline for Completion of Project (Continued) 8.0 Support materials prepared (Subproject) 8.1 6.1 1 5/1 5/1 8.2 8.1 3 5/2 5/4 8.3 8.1 10 5/7 5/18 9.0 Train faculty and students in use of medium (Subproject) 9.1 8.2 2 Held in Fall semester 2002 9.2 8.3, 9.1 2 Held in Fall semester 2002 Project begin date 8/14/00 Project end date 6/1/01


85 Appendix G: Online Survey


86 Appendix H: Kiosk Screens


87 Appendix H: Kiosk Screens (Continued)


88 Appendix H: Kiosk Screens (Continued)


89 Appendix H: Kiosk Screens (Continued)


90 Appendix H: Kiosk Screens (Continued)


91 Appendix K: Kiosk Screens (Continued)


92 Appendix K: Kiosk Screens (Continued)


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.