iCurator Contextual Inquiry and Task Analysis
for Group 5, CS 160, Fall 2001
Kevin Wang: design (lead)
Leila Takayama: documentation
Chuck Moidel: software (lead)
Scott Carter: user testing
Url of this document: http://ratbert.bmrc.berkeley.edu/courseware/cs160/fall01/Projects/Group5/CI.html
 
The Problem and Our Solution
 

Art museums are often a daunting challenge to visitors, whether they are visiting for their first time or one hundredth. On weekends, museums are usually crowded and thus curator-guided tours are often over-attended. As a result, visitors gain little knowledge about the art, most pieces are left wholly unappreciated and ultimately the museum-going experience is unfulfilling. Museums are less crowded on weekdays but there are no curator tours. Visitors are expected to navigate the museum using nothing more than little placards denoting the artist, date and a couple of rather unsatisfactory sentences about the piece. Audio-guided tours are equally problematic — they usually select a few pieces and leave out a majority of the collection. Furthermore, neither audio tours nor curator-guided tours encourage group discussion or interaction. It is our opinion that art cannot be understood without knowledge of its context, nor does art succeed as a communicative medium without discussion. Our solution to this problem, a system we have dubbed iCurator, would allow visitors to automatically retrieve information on artworks, navigate their way successfully through galleries and communicate ideas and opinions regarding pieces to other patrons.

Contextual Inquiry: Process and Results

The Points of Departure exhibition at SFMOMA includes prototyped interactive educational media for the benefit of visitors based on research being conducted at the MIT Media Lab. Currently, visitors may check out (free with a deposit) iPAQs that are configured to provide on demand videos via a Web browser interface. These same videos are displayed via interactive “Smart Tables,” computers embedded in stands with touch-sensitive monitors, throughout the gallery.

In order to gauge the effectiveness and understand the current limitations of such state-of-the-art museum audio/visual guides, we interviewed three people as they perused the Points of Departure exhibition using the provided iPAQs to augment their experience. The subjects included one Berkeley Computer Science student, male, one recent graduate of Berkeley’s School of Information Management Systems, female, and one print designer originally from Australia. The interview process was informal and the participants were encouraged to interject if they discovered something that they especially liked or disliked.

Though it may be symptomatic of the layout of this particular exhibit, the three test subjects all reported feeling lost and on several occasions commented that it would be helpful to have a map and an indicator of where they were at the time. Because the iPAQs supported video on only a fraction of the artworks on display, to determine when a video was available subjects had to either look for iPAQ icons on placards next to artworks or match up a small, often difficult to interpret thumbnail from the interface with an artwork. The ensuing search to match up a video with an artwork often took subjects on arbitrary, and perhaps from the viewpoint of the curator, inappropriate paths through the gallery.

Once the subjects matched a video with an artwork, they usually had little problem watching and hearing the short movies. Subjects would often move their gaze from the video to the artwork and back again, signaling that they were getting a significant amount of visual information from the PDA (as opposed to purely audio tours). However, these videos often left subjects nearly as thirsty for information as did the paltry descriptive paragraphs next to some of the works. In addition, subjects seemed positive when presented with the idea that they might be able to search through a catalog of information on the art and artist. Also, the subjects expressed interest in a system that would allow them to jot down questions and sketches while in the museum and then e-mail themselves that information.

Subjects were less idealistic about the prospects of sharing thoughts and comments with others in the museum. It seemed that, more than privacy concerns, subjects thought that the system would contain too much irrelevant data to be useful. However, they seemed open to the idea of posting thoughts and questions to an online bulletin board moderated by the museum and a recommended rating system for artworks. Also, subjects wanted their comments and sketches visible on a public display only if they explicitly submitted such a request, and again had concerns regarding inappropriate submissions.

The interface of the device itself, though a standard browser, nonetheless caused some confusion. Subjects had difficulty backtracking through the interface, even though there was a message to that effect at the bottom of many screens. Subjects were often confused when required to use buttons both on the software and the hardware (on the iPAQ itself). We aim to have a better integration between the software and hardware. Finally, in one instance the subject navigated out of the supported software and into an administrative domain and in another the iPAQ froze completely and had to be manually restarted. In both of these cases the on-call staff proved helpful. In general, the familiarity of the web browsing experience helped users to interact with the iPAQ because they based their navigation upon an already existing understanding of web browsers.

Task Analysis Questions & Answers

Based upon three contextual inquiry interviews, our task analysis found more detailed information about our users, their relationship with the data provided, the tasks they perform, and the constraints of the tasks.

Who are the iCurator users? iCurator users are literate adult patrons visiting museums during open gallery hours. The frequency of their visits to the museum varies. Users also have a wide range of background and skill level with PDAs as well as with visiting museums.

What is the relationship between users and the data? The user’s relationship with the data depends upon how much more information the user wishes to know about each piece of artwork. One patron wanted much more content in the SF MOMA’s existing iPaq system while another patron did not want to be bothered with too much extra information. Patrons must initiate engagement with the information if they wish to pursue it so if they do not pursue more information or interaction then it is not forced upon them.

What other tools are available? Traditional tools that occupy similar purposes are museum curators, books about the artists and artwork, textual information posted in close proximity to the artwork, and audio tape tours. More modern tools include devices similar to the iPAQ system at SF MOMA as well as Smart Tables statically placed around the museum.

What tasks do users currently perform? Tasks that users perform are usually looking up more information about the artists, looking up more information about the creation of the artwork, finding more information about expert opinions about the artwork, and navigating through the museum.

What tasks are desired? Users seem to want ready access to lots of organized information about the art, but do not want it forced upon them. They also want maps of the museum and more personalized context awareness. A note jotting feature was desired as well as a way to send notes, textual and graphic information to the user’s email addresses to access after completing their visit to the museum.

What are the constraints on the tasks? Tasks are constrained by the amount of time that a user wants to spend at the museum, the willingness of the user to interact with different media while viewing the artwork, small screen size of PDAs, and by the desire to make as little distraction for other patrons of the museum.

What happens when things go wrong? Users go to museum personnel to seek assistance.

Analysis of New and Existing Tasks

Six tasks that could be performed using the iCurator are similar, but more interactive and simplified than existing tasks performed in traditional museum settings or with the aide of the SF MOMA’s iPAQ system.

• Task 1: Find out more about the historical context in which artwork A was created. (easy)

In a traditional museum setting, the patron would have to ask the busy curator a question or thumb through a book in a reading room to find this information. With the iCurator this task should be much simpler and less time consuming.

• Task 2: View the video of an interview with artist A. (easy)

This is similar to tasks performed on the iPAQs in the SF MOMA. However, the iCurator will have more information about the video’s content prior to the actual screening of the videos (for example: time length of video and synopsis of video).

· Task 3: Locate all pieces in the museum that are relevant to artwork B. (medium)

Traditionally, this would require the assistance of a curator or an existing extensive knowledge of the artwork on the part of the patron. With the iCurator, this task should be simplified though it will require some deeper navigation through the iCurator system.

• Task 4: Find out how to get from your current location to another work by artist B in a different gallery. (medium)

Normally patrons would walk through the museum and stumble upon pieces that are done by artists seen earlier in their visit, but the iCurator will make searching for specific pieces an active task.

• Task 5: Email yourself some information to read later about the issues intended to be addressed by artwork C. Include a sketch of a piece in your email. (hard)

This is an entirely new task that was proposed and supported by users interviewed using contextual inquiry. As pens are not allowed in some museums, it is currently very difficult for patrons to take notes for later review. This would be a new way of interacting with the artwork and would continue the museum-going experience to beyond the walls of the museum. Users could send text and sketches to themselves via email.

• Task 6: Read art historian commentary on artwork C. Then review previously submitted comments to archive discussion about artwork C and submit your own comments. (hard)

This is also a new task proposed and supported by users interviewed. It is a way for users to interact with other users to share opinions and ideas about the artwork. Art historian commentary will be available on the iCurator. Previous comments submitted by patrons will be archived and accessible to users. Users may also add in their own commentary or respond to the commentary of other patrons.

Interface Design

Rationale

The user interface for the iCurator was designed primarily to be used on small handheld devices by users with little or no PDA experience. PDAs are useful because they are easily portable (~10 oz.), have long battery life, support color, audio, and video, and are reasonably inexpensive. With this in mind, we expect to have a limited display resolution and a touch screen which the user can use to navigate by clicking on hyperlinks and vertical scroll bars, based upon the familiar model of web browsers. Inputs will be entered on the touch screen as well as with the physical buttons on the handheld device. The database of information about the museum and the artwork will be moderated and maintained by museum staff and curators.

Functionality Summary

1) Support contextual awareness. The iCurator will display information relevant to the user’s current location in the museum if the barcode scanner is used. Bar scanners will be placed under each piece of art, at entrances to galleries, benches, elevators, etc.

2) Supply additional information about artwork to patrons, including historical context, information about the artist, video clips about the artwork, etc.

3) Allow for note-taking and sketches to be sent as email so that patrons may remember their museum experience better or may look up information they found interesting during their visit.

4) Map out the museum with a memory of where the user has already been as well as where the user is currently standing.

5) Support interaction between information and the users by allowing users to email questions to curators as well as forward information (links, text, and sketches) to themselves via email.

Figure 1 (a) (b)

User Interface

The user interface will consist of (see Figure 1):

• A title bar on top that displays the title of the current article or art piece and its location within the museum.
• A toolbar along the bottom of the screen that contains five large buttons. The “Indices/ Search” and “Museum Index” buttons jump to the appropriate start pages while the “Help” button brings up contextual information on how to use features on the current page. The two arrows are navigation buttons that bring up a history of previously visited pages (see Figure 1b).
• The main window that can contain pictures of art pieces, maps of the museum, an onscreen keyboard for composing e-mails, and scrollable text. Almost every region of the screen, whether displaying an art piece, a map, or text, is contextually aware, so that when clicked by the user it will display more detailed information about the subject.

Figure 2 (a) (b) (c)

Scenario 1: Navigate to find more information about an art piece (easy)

A museum patron wanders off of the elevator on the fourth floor and walks into the Wang Gallery where they see a piece of art that they would like to know more information about. Using the iCurator they navigate from the Museum start page to the page about the specific piece.

Tasks:

1) From the Museum Start Page the patron clicks on the hyperlink for Map of Floor Four (see Figure 2a).

2) From the 4^th Floor Map the patron clicks on the location of the appropriate gallery (see Figure 2b).

3) From the Wang Gallery Page the patron clicks on the title or thumbnail of the desired piece of art (see Figure 2c).

4) Once at the page for the art piece the patron can click on regions of the photo to display a more detailed image or click on the links at the bottom of the screen to view articles, play videos, or hear audio clips. (see Figure 1a).

Scenario 2: Find the location of an art piece by title (moderate)

A museum patron visiting the museum for the first time wants to find the location of “Art” by Kevin Wang and learn more information about the piece. Using the iCurator they look through the Title Index and find the title of the piece and its location within the museum.

Tasks:

1) From the Museum Start Page the patron clicks on the “Indices/ Search” button on the bottom toolbar (see Figure 3a).

2) From the Indices/Search page the patron clicks on “By Title” to bring up a list of art pieces in the museum sorted alphabetically by their title (see Figure 3b).

3) From the Title Listing the patron clicks on the letter “A” and scrolls down until they find “Art – Kevin Wang 2000, 4^th Floor, Wang Gallery” (see Figure 3c).

4) Clicking on the hyperlink will display more information about the piece of art (see Figure 1a).

Figure 3 (a) (b) (c)

Scenario 3: E-mail a list of articles about a specific art piece (difficult)

A museum patron would like to read more about their favorite art piece after leaving the museum. Using the iCurator they locate the piece of art and browse the list of online articles about the piece. From the article page they choose to e-mail the article list to themselves so they can read it at a later time.

Tasks:

1) The patron locates the page on the piece of art using one of the techniques above.

2) From the page about the art piece the patron clicks on “Articles” at the bottom of the page (see Figure 4a).

3) From the list of online articles the patron clicks on the envelope in the upper-right corner of the screen (see Figure 4b).

4) From the e-mail page the patron uses the on-screen keyboard to enter their personal e-mail address and clicks the send button in the upper-right hand corner (see Figure 4c).

Figure 4 (a) (b) (c)