12Using Mobile Technologies for Multimedia Tours
in a Traditional Museum Setting
LAURA NAISMITH
M. PAUL SMITH
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
UNITED KINGDOM
Abstract
Mobile technology can be used to deliver learner-centred experiences at a museum without compromising its aesthetic appeal. This chapter presents a study in which two Flash-based multimedia tours were developed for the Hypertag Magus Guide system and trialled with twenty-five visitors to the University of Birmingham’s Lapworth Museum of Geology. Trial participants found the system fun and easy to use, though they requested headphones in order to hear the audio more clearly. They provided several suggestions to improve the tours including creating stronger links between the tour and the museum’s objects and incorporating more interactive and competitive elements. We found that a structured multimedia tour approach was appropriate for visitors who can connect with the museum’s narratives, though more flexibility was required to meet the needs of other visitor types.
Introduction
The Lapworth Museum of Geology is one of the pre-eminent geology museums in the United Kingdom. Established in 1880, its collections now number around two hundred and fifty thousand specimens, with particular strengths in vertebrate and invertebrate palaeontology and mineralogy. The collections are characterized by having a particularly large volume of supporting historical information (for example, documents, photographs and maps), that is housed in the museum’s archives. As shown in Figure 1, the principal display area for the collections is the main hall of the museum, which is one of only two geology museums in the UK to retain its original Victorian/Edwardian design and fittings.
FIGURE 1 Main Hall of the Lapworth Museum
The museum is used as a resource by students at all levels of formal education, as well as by adult interest groups and the wider community. Hence, there is a broad variation in the experience and knowledge that visitors both bring to and take away from the museum. In attempting to provide flexible opportunities to support the range of their visitors, the museum is faced with several challenges. The building in which it is housed has a Grade II listed status, indicating that it is a particularly significant building. This, in addition to other historical and aesthetic considerations, means that the museum cannot be easily altered or extended, thus limiting the ability for the museum to easily introduce conventional interactive displays. These design constraints also restrict the supporting content of the exhibits to a small amount of in-case information and traditional paper-based worksheets.
Learning in Museums
The Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council (MLA) of the UK provide a highly inclusive definition of learning:
Learning is a process of active engagement with experience. It is what people do when they want to make sense of the world. It may involve the development or deepening of skills, knowledge, understanding, awareness, values, ideas and feelings, or an increase in the capacity to reflect. Effective learning leads to change, development and the desire to learn more. (MLA 2004)
In museums, visitors are encouraged to explore and discover in order to learn the processes of inquiry and even of learning itself (Hawkey 2004). The ultimate goal of this exploration is the creation of new knowledge and personal meaning – what Falk and Dierking (2000) term “free-choice learning.” Free-choice learning “tends to be nonlinear, is personally motivated, and involves considerable choice on the part of the learner as to what to learn, as well as where and when to participate in learning” (p. 13). Museums support free-choice learning by helping to reinforce existing knowledge, helping to make abstract concepts “real” and providing each visitor with a unique experience (Falk and Dierking 2000).
Previous research suggests that there are patterns in how visitors select and engage with a museum’s objects in order to create meaning. A study commissioned for the West Midlands Science and Industry Collections Project (Morris, Hargreaves, and McIntyre 2004) revealed four distinct modes of this behaviour:
- Browsers select random objects and then require explanation. They are likely to select visually arresting objects that appeal to their sense of awe and wonder.
- Followers latch on to the museum’s explanatory narrative themes. These visitors need points of engagement and connection as provided through thematic groupings with narrative structure.
- Searchers gather information on particular collections or exhibitions. They are likely to search by keyword rather than by thematic narrative.
- Researchers seek detailed information about specific objects, including links to authoritative, scholarly commentary and information on the location of related collections.
Browsers and Followers, who made up the largest proportion of visitors in this study, do not need to interact with many objects in order to have a meaningful experience, while Searchers and Researchers want to be able to search across entire collections. Browsers and Followers are likely to prefer information delivered in a rich sensory format, while the principal need of Searchers and Researchers is easy access to detailed information.
Using Mobile Technology to Support Museum Learning
A common problem faced by museums is that visitors often do not make good use of the range of learning opportunities that they offer. Various reasons have been cited for this, including a lack of preparation and follow-up (Oppermann and Specht 1999) and supporting materials that cannot easily adapt to the range of learner interests and needs (Not and Zancanaro 1998). Mobile technology can support visitors by providing both location-based information and guidance through this information based on the learner’s interests and needs.
Museum learning has personal, physical, and sociocultural dimensions (Falk and Dierking 2000). Mobile technology may also be used to build more engaging learning experiences by directly facilitating these dimensions by their personal, portable, and networked nature. Previous work has shown that mobile technology can help to increase engagement with the visitor’s physical surroundings (Naismith et al. 2005), increase the confidence, motivation, and involvement of pupils and staff visiting art museums (Burkett 2005) and promote interactivity with artworks (Proctor and Tellis 2003).
The following requirements for the design of mobile technology and content for a general audience were gathered from the literature:
- Technology should be easy to use and unobtrusive; it should enable the experience rather than detract from it (Hawkey 2004).
- Content should work with the objects, to direct the visitor’s attention and require their feedback (Fisher 2005).
- Visitors should be offered choice wherever possible (Falk and Dierking 2000).
- Visually arresting objects should be incorporated in order to help Browsers transition to Followers (Morris, Hargreaves, and McIntyre 2004).
- A strong narrative should be provided to help structure the content. Multimedia should be incorporated where possible and appropriate (Mayer, 2001; Morris, Hargreaves, and McIntyre 2004).
- • When using multimedia, the audio and video must be coherent (Proctor and Tellis 2003).
- The use of specialist language should be avoided where possible; unfamiliar terms need to be explained (Fisher 2005).
- Promote engagement with objects through personal challenge (i.e., quizzes) and play (Fisher 2005).
Aim of this Study
The primary aim of this study was to explore the use of mobile technology to deliver learner-centred experiences to visitors, while retaining the traditional look and feel of the museum.
Methodology
Overview
The main hall of the Lapworth Museum occupies approximately two hundred square metres. Most prominent are the four large wooden display units, each containing sixteen display cases arranged into two rows in the centre of the room. There are eight additional wooden display units containing a total of twenty-four display cases, as well as sixty display cases along the perimeter of the room. Objects may also be placed on temporary displays, or mounted directly to the wall. In total, there are 148 different display cabinets or display areas. The display cases are glass-fronted, and there is usually at least six inches between the objects and the glass. Many of the cases have no low-voltage power available within them and there are few power sockets available towards the middle of the room (Shucksmith 2005).
The current configuration of the museum suggests to the visitor an essentially linear path through the museum’s displays. This corresponds to viewing the objects in chronological order. Mobile technology, however, affords the opportunity to tell different stories about the museum’s objects without extending or altering the museum’s infrastructure.
Study Design
STAGE 1: SELECTION OF POSITIONING TECHNOLOGY
It is important to preserve a “sense of place” when using mobile technology (Exploratorium 2005). In order to achieve this, we sought to source appropriate positioning technology in order to support context-sensitive delivery of information and activities based on physical location.
In order to cater to the needs of visitors at different educational levels, we intended to provide content in the form of tours. A tour would consist of a series of stops linked to either specific cases or individual objects. Positioning technology would then be used to identify to which stop the user was closest, in order to provide relevant information.
The small size and compact layout of this indoor museum prevented any serious consideration of absolute positioning techniques, as were used in the CAERUS project with the Winterbourne Botanic Garden (Naismith and Smith 2004; Naismith et al. 2005), as it would be necessary to determine in which direction the visitor was facing to suggest appropriate content. Instead, we considered various low or no-power tagging technologies that could be used either at the case or object level. As it would be necessary for the visitor to take some action in activating the tag, we could be fairly certain in identifying the correct location and orientation.
STAGE 2: TOUR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
Two multimedia tours were developed to target different audiences. The primary motivation behind the focus on tours was to promote nonlinear exploration of the museum. By incorporating some of the museum’s visually arresting objects (for example the Tyrannosaurus rex skull) within a narrative theme, we could also assist visitors in making the transition from Browsers to Followers.
The limited capabilities of the inbuilt Internet browser on the Pocket PC device presented challenges to the development of sophisticated multimedia content in HTML. An alternative to HTML content creation is the use of Macromedia Flash. Flash uses the concept of a movie, and allows control of content layout on a frame-by-frame basis. A simple scripting language can be used to control movement between frames. Flash also has the advantage of supporting the import of media files and producing a single output file, as opposed to the multiple files required with an HTML-only approach.
It should be noted, however, that Flash outputs a file with a SWF extension, which cannot be displayed on the Pocket PC handheld device without additional software. A free ActiveX control from Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/devices/development_kits.html) can play the SWF file if it is embedded within an HTML file. This control is licensed for development purposes only, and is not available for commercial release.
STAGE 3: VISITOR EVALUATION
The next stage of the study was to evaluate the demonstrator system for efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. The objectives of this evaluation were to:
- assess the general usability of the system
- assess how the system affected user behaviour and ability to navigate around the museum
- assess desirability of the system amongst different user groups
- assess desirability of different types of content amongst different user groups
Twenty-five visitors to the Lapworth Museum participated in a trial of this system in November 2005. Table 1 describes the organization of participants in the trial.
Visitor Type | Tour | Number of Visitors |
|---|---|---|
A. Adult Visitors | Climate Change | 5 |
B. Undergraduate Students | Climate Change | 6 |
C. School Visitors | Predators and Prey | 14 |
Eight handheld devices were used during the trial, six running the Pocket PC 2002 operating system and two running the Pocket PC 2003 operating system. The Hypertag Magus Guide application and Macromedia Flash Player ActiveX control were preloaded on all devices, along with the content for the chosen tour.
Trial participants gathered in a central meeting space for a scripted overview and demonstration of the Magus Guide system. The trial participants were then free to wander around the museum and use the Magus Guide as they wished, though it was suggested that they attempt to follow the tour as set. Informal observations were made while the participants were in the museum. Participants were instructed to return the handheld devices when they had either completed the tour, or were satisfied that they had experienced the full functionality of the system. A short questionnaire was then administered, followed by a semi-structured interview on their experiences.
The trial participants covered a range of demographic groups. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the trial participants by sex, age, and experience of the museum. Trial participants spent between fifteen and thirty minutes in the museum.
Results
STAGE 1: SELECTION OF POSITIONING TECHNOLOGY
Table provides a summary of the three main technologies evaluated: Barcodes, RFID, and Infrared.
Barcodes are an established and familiar technology, and have been used extensively for many applications, including retail purchasing and general stock control. Pridden (2003) provides an extensive review of the advantages and disadvantages of using barcodes in a traditional museum setting.
As the barcodes would be placed on the individual cases or objects, the Pocket PC would need to be equipped with a barcode reader to identify the code and take appropriate action. A secure digital (SD) compatible barcode reader, and supporting software, was acquired from Socket Communications (http://www.socketcom.com). As the iPAQs used in the trial have an inbuilt SD slot, it was possible to use the barcode reader without any supporting hardware.
Barcodes were ultimately deemed unacceptable due to a number of factors. Though the process of generating the barcodes is relatively straightforward and inexpensive, it would be necessary to purchase a separate barcode reader for each Pocket PC used by the museum. Additional software development would also be necessary to use the barcode number to display the appropriate multimedia content. The barcodes would need to be affixed to the cases with some kind of adhesive, which could potentially cause damage. They are also easily damaged and, as they are quite familiar in industry, may project a “low-tech” impression to visitors.
RFID is also used extensive in the manufacturing industry. Hsi and Fait (2005) describe a custom-designed RFID application that was used to enhance visitor experiences at the Exploratorium science museum in San Francisco. An RFID demonstrator kit was acquired from Socket Communications. A selection of passive (i.e. unpowered) tags was provided, each with a read distance of approximately 2.5 inches. The tags were smaller and more visually appealing than the barcodes. The reader, however, was compact flash (CF) compatible (as opposed to SD), which required an additional expansion sleeve for the iPAQs. As with the barcode reader, it would be necessary to develop additional software to use the RFID code to display the appropriate multimedia content.
RFID was ultimately deemed unacceptable. The total cost of ownership was higher than that of barcodes, without providing any additional benefits. The iPAQ, expansion sleeve, and RFID reader together were quite bulky and difficult to manipulate. The RFID sensor was actually located on the back of the reader, meaning that the user had to hold the iPAQ flat over the tag, as opposed to the more intuitive point and click operation of the barcode reader. The short read distance of the tags meant that it would not be possible to place them in the cases, thus the same problems with affixing the barcodes to the cases would be encountered.
The Hypertag Magus Guide system was selected for this study (http://www.hypertag.com/igsolutions.html). Fisher (2005) evaluated this system in four different UK museums, so there was already some indication of its possible effectiveness. The Magus Guide system includes custom-designed battery-powered Infrared tags, as well as supporting software both to identify the tag and to display the appropriate multimedia content. Infrared capabilities are inbuilt into nearly all handheld devices, and have traditionally been used to transmit information from one device to another. This meant that it was not necessary to purchase a reader for each device, which substantially lowered the total cost of ownership.
Figure 2 shows a sample tag. Activating a tag required pointing the handheld device at it. When activated, the tag flashed a blue light, accompanied by an audible click in the software application. As the tags had a read distance of approximately one metre, it was possible to place them inside the display cases. In total, seventeen of these tags were acquired for this study.
FIGURE 2 A Sample Magus Guide Tag
STAGE 2: TOUR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
Two tours were developed, a fourteen stop “Climate Change” tour directed at a general, non-specialist audience and an eight stop “Predators and Prey” tour directed at a younger, non-specialist audience. The Climate Change tour contained text, images and audio, while the Predators and Prey tour contained text, images, audio and video. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate screen shots from each of these tours.
FIGURE 3 Screen shots from the Climate Change tour
FIGURE 4 Screen shots from the Predators & Prey tour
As the Lapworth Museum did not have wireless network coverage, it was necessary to store the files on the iPAQs. This is supported by the Local Redirect feature of the Hypertag Magus Guide. It was originally intended that each tour would be developed as a single Flash file and embedded into an HTML file. Code could then be included in the HTML file to play the Flash file at a specific frame. Unfortunately this feature did not seem to be supported on the Pocket PC and it was necessary to create a separate Flash file for each stop on the tour.
Though the content was not linked to a website for the purposes of the trial, it would be possible to include these on the Lapworth Museum website without further modification.
STAGE 3: VISITOR EVALUATION
Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation of the response to each questionnaire item, in the range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). One sample t-test was performed on each mean, with 3 (Neither Agree nor Disagree) as the constant value. All statements showed a significant difference from Neither Agree nor Disagree (P < 0.05).
Positive Aspects of the System
Most visitors found the experience of using the Hypertag Magus Guide system to be fun and engaging. Participants were able to stay on task during the trial and did not seem to attempt to use the handheld device for other purposes. They found the action of swiping the tags easy and intuitive and felt that they could use the system independently in the future. The mix of media present in the designed content was highly desirable, particularly the audio segments.
From a management perspective, the tags themselves were small and easy to set up and move around the museum as required. Though battery powered, there was no need to replace any of the batteries during the trial.
Negative Aspects of the System
The audio was very difficult to hear clearly in the changeable environment of the museum, and many trial participants commented on the necessity of headphones. Headphones were also felt to promote a more personal experience and address the potential “embarrassment factor” of using the system alongside other museum visitors. It was also observed that the application itself is quite noisy, with many clicks and beeps, which could disturb other museum visitors.
The original decision not to offer headphones was made in an attempt to promote social interaction and prevent isolation and a heads-down experience (Hsi 2003). Proctor and Tellis (2003) identify the same issues in the decision by a museum to offer either a headset or wand for an audio-based tour. Their conclusion is that the “effectiveness of these educational experiences is based on the appropriateness of the technology used for the stated educational or interpretive goals.”
Aspects of the System that Need Improvement
The introduction to the system was a bit too informal for many participants and there was some initial confusion as to where they should start and what buttons (if any) needed to be pressed. The digital map on the handheld device was both difficult to read and labour intensive to produce. Suggestions to address both of these problems included having a large poster or a handout that both outlines the use of the system and labels the stops in order.
During the trial, the white square tags were sometimes difficult to distinguish from the labels in the cases, and many participants commented that they would have appreciated more obvious visual indicators. They suggested that this could be accomplished by painting the tags in a distinctive colour, numbering the tags or both.
While the content was generally well received, some of the images selected were not well suited for the small display screen. There was also a tendency for participants to become so engaged in the experience of using the handheld device that they did not look at or interact with the actual objects in the cases. Participants commented that this could be remedied through direct instructions (for example, “Look at the [object name] in the case”), stronger linking between the object labels and the information available on the handheld device (sometimes just the common name was used in the tour, while the label contained the scientific name), and incorporating short quizzes. Increased interactivity and competition was particularly desirable amongst younger visitors. This aligns with Fisher’s (2005) recommendations for designing content that works with the objects and having a screen that promotes engagement through personal challenge and play.
There was also a need to offer more flexibility within the system. In addition to the logistical problems of having many visitors start at the same place, older visitors were somewhat resistant to following a prescribed tour and wanted to be able to focus their visit on one or two areas of interest.
From a management perspective, installing the software and loading the content onto each iPAQ was quite time-consuming. It was necessary to repeat this procedure for each trial session, as the batteries on the handheld devices sometimes drained completely, losing all of the applications and content in memory.
Differences Amongst Age Groups
The adult trial group consisted of regular visitors to the museum. Whilst there were some technical problems during this first trial that were later remedied, overall the participants were generally enthusiastic, thought that this system could add to the museum experience and were willing to try it again. Unlike the younger visitors, however, they felt that they needed someone in the museum to be on call for technical support.
The adult visitors could successfully manipulate the technology but, as noted previously, there was some resistance to the idea of going on a formal tour. As specialist visitors, they were more likely to adopt Searcher and Researcher roles rather than Browser and Follower roles. There was some concern that the range of visitor needs was going to make it difficult for the museum to cater to everyone.
The group of undergraduate students responded particularly well to the structure of the tour, and quickly adopted the Follower role. They felt that this approach helped the content to “make sense,” and that the content was pitched “about right” for a general audience. There was some interaction between the students during the trial, but it was primarily an individual experience. With respect to the technology, there was some initial confusion about where and how to get started, but by the end of the trial all of the students felt that they would be able to use the system again independently.
While the undergraduate students felt that this system enhanced the museum experience and made it more fun, they were pragmatic about their likely future usage of it. They would need the system to support them in a Researcher role in order that they could use the information provided for projects or essays. In their opinion, this would involve gathering specialist information on a select number of cases rather than a structured tour.
The school visitors were highly engaged by the technology. They immediately gravitated towards the handheld devices and did not wait for a formal explanation, preferring instead to figure it out as they went along.
This large group was split in two for the trial and very different behaviour was observed between the two groups, possibly due to the presence of the teacher in the second group. Not all of the students seemed to be following the tour, and several observations were made of students adopting a Browser role by trying to scan for tags on objects they deemed interesting (for example, the deer head). They were highly engaged by the device and the content, though their interaction with the actual exhibits was minimal. A common behaviour was to swipe a tag and then find some place to sit and interact with the device.
Students made several brief but supportive comments (“good,” “really interesting”), and the teacher remarked that this system was “the best thing I’ve seen” for museum visits. The teacher felt that more structure was needed, however, in order to transform it into an effective learning experience. He and the students were very keen on the idea of introducing competitions (with awards) in order to focus attention on the objects and exhibits. The teacher also felt that competitions could be designed in the form of levels in order to cater to students with varying levels of ability. Students also suggested the incorporation of “weird facts,” a finding echoed by Fisher (2005), which may help to appeal to a Browser’s sense of awe and wonder.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have seen that it is feasible and desirable to use mobile technology to deliver learner-centred experiences in the Lapworth Museum of Geology without compromising the aesthetic appeal of the museum. The structured multimedia approach taken in this study is appropriate for visitors who can adopt a Follower role, though more flexibility is required to meet the needs of Browsers, Searchers, and Researchers.
The Hypertag Magus Guide provides an easy to use mechanism for visitors of all ages to access web-based content, which can be stored locally on handheld devices in the form of HTML or Flash movie files. It is, however, necessary to provide headphones in order to hear the audio clearly. Overall, trial participants required minimal technical support and found the use of the system to be fun and engaging.
Limitations
The results of this study are based on a small trial consisting mainly of young male participants. The response of young females to this system is unknown. Additionally, all participants were geology enthusiasts to some degree. Further research is required to determine whether this system could be used to engage people with no previous relationship with either the museum or geology in general.
Vision for the Future
The results of this study have exceeded expectations in terms of the potential benefits of mobile technology for museum staff and its popularity with visitors. One of the benefits that will be developed in the future is the ability to respond quickly to global geological events, such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. With a modest investment in content generation by staff, it would be possible to produce thematic displays rapidly, interpreting the event using the museum collections while simultaneously publishing to the museum website and loaning resources from the museum’s archives to local schools. Developing partnerships with media organizations would further increase the scope for embedding video clips. A further avenue to be explored is the generation of online worksheets and quizzes that can be taken back to the classroom to provide the basis for ongoing learning, creating an experience that is more seamless from classroom to museum, and back again.
Implications for Practice
This study has provided valuable insight into ways in which organizations such as the Lapworth Museum may develop the next generation of content and interpretation. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of remaining challenges in using mobile technology to provide meaningful learning opportunities on a large scale (Naismith and Corlett 2006).
Firstly, the technical reliability of mobile devices remains a concern. Whilst using the Hypertag system was easy and intuitive for most users in this study, the work involved to keep the Pocket PC devices charged and properly configured was significant. By keeping the device interactions simple and moving towards the use of user-owned technologies, both this workload and the cost-of-use could remain manageable. It is also important to note that it is not always necessary to seek technological solutions to the users’ problems; for example, that of navigation. What is necessary, however, is to provide appropriate training and support to ensure that staff members are confident in promoting the available learning opportunities and in dealing with unexpected challenges. Designing and developing new mobile learning content requires a flexible and learner-centred approach that promotes interaction with the environment, whilst keeping the device interactions quick and simple. Finally, it is possible to future-proof project efforts by anticipating changes to various factors such as delivery options and device features, creating content that is independent of the specific delivery mechanism whenever possible and by paying attention to international standards for content creation, sharing, and reuse.
References
BURKETT, E. 2005. Using handheld computers to stimulate critical studies in a-level art. Coventry: BECTA. http://www.evaluation.icttestbed.org.uk/learning/research/secondary/interest/collaboration.
Exploratorium. 2005. What are you puzzling about? In proceedings, Electronic guidebook forum 2005: Issues and questions about wireless learning technologies and handheld computers in and beyond museums, San Francisco.
FALK, J., and L. DIERKING. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
FISHER, S. 2005. An evaluation of learning on the move and Science Navigator: Using PDAs in museum, heritage and science centre settings. London: NESTA.
HAWKEY, R. 2004. Learning with digital technologies in museums, science centres and galleries. Bristol: Futurelab.
HSI, S. 2003. A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19:308-19.
HSI, S., and H. Fait. 2005. RFID enhances visitors’ museum experiences at the Exploratorium. Communications of the ACM 48 (9):60-65.
MAYER, R. 2001. Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MUSEUMS, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). 2004. Inspiring learning for all. http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk.
MORRIS HARGREAVES MCINTYRE. 2004. Learning journeys: Using technology to connect the four stages of meaning making. Manchester: Morris Hargreaves McIntyre.
NAISMITH, L., and D. CORLETT. 2006. Reflections on success: A retrospective of the mLearn conference series, 2002-2005. In proceedings (ed. M. Ally), mLearn 2006: Across generations and cultures, Banff, Canada.
NAISMITH, L., M. SHARPLES, and J. TING. 2005. Evaluation of CAERUS: A context aware mobile guide. In proceedings (ed. H. van der Merwe and T. Brown), mLearn 2005: Mobile technology: The future of learning in your hands, Cape Town, South Africa.
NAISMITH, L. and P. SMITH. 2004. Context-sensitive information delivery to visitors in a botanic garden. In proceedings, ED-MEDIA world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland.
NOT, E., and M. ZANCANARO. 1998. Content adaptation for audio-based hypertexts in physical environments. In Hypertext ’98: Second workshop on adaptive hypertext and hypermedia. Pittsburgh: ACM.
OPPERMANN, R., and M. SPECHT. 1999. A nomadic information system for adaptive exhibition guidance. ICHIM ’99, 103-109. Washington: Archives & Museum Informatics.
PRIDDEN, I. 2003. Object tagging at the Petrie Museum. http://www.petrie.ucl.ac.uk/barcodes.pdf
PROCTOR, N., and C. TELLIS. 2003. The state of the art in museum handhelds in 2003. In Proceedings of museums and the web 2003. Toronto: Archives & Museums Informatics.
SHUCKSMITH, J. 2005. Proposals for the Lapworth Museum Project: Thoughts and comments on how to create an interactive environment for the visitor within the Lapworth Museum. Wave Solutions, University of Birmingham.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded through a grant from Microsoft UK Ltd. to the Centre for Learning, Innovation and Collaboration (CLIC, formerly CETADL) at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom.