tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post3993189265354020304..comments2024-03-27T05:04:39.476-07:00Comments on Museum 2.0: Game Friday: Fighting FrustrationNina Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-84909296558450854462007-05-25T15:28:00.000-07:002007-05-25T15:28:00.000-07:00Good point, Seb. It would be interesting to learn...Good point, Seb. It would be interesting to learn how the folks at the Exploratorium who created the APE (active prolonged engagement) project signaled to visitors that the APE exhibits were intended for longer use. I know they did have success designing exhibits such that visitors used them for 10-20 minutes with consistency. <BR/><BR/>Museums are so full of stuff that I feel like visitors approach every interactive with suspicion: is this thing worth it, or should I move onto something else? Not exactly conducive to open explorative play.Nina Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-52570695350029119162007-05-25T14:40:00.000-07:002007-05-25T14:40:00.000-07:00Hi NinaIt is also about setting. In-gallery intera...Hi Nina<BR/><BR/>It is also about setting. In-gallery interactives are usually designed to be short play - so that visitors get moved through the gallery quickly, not lingering in one spot for too long, so that others get a go etc.<BR/><BR/>The thing is that visitors are <I>completely</I> aware of this and when they approach in an interactve, they know they aren't supposed to play for too long.<BR/><BR/>I'd be interested to hear the results of a study into whether this perception of 'appropriat behaviour' carries through to online museum interactives - I have a feeling that it might . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com