understanding the information needs of visitors to museums

Museum Management and Curatorship,Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 139–157, 1998 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0260–4779/99/$ - see front matter

PII:S0260–4779(99)00012-6

Understanding the Information Needsof Visitors to Museums

Ben Booth

Introduction

The analysis described in this paper is based on a review of information needsat the Science Museum in London1. The study was carried out because althoughbetter information provision had been identified as a priority, there was uncer-tainty surrounding what should actually be provided and the appropriate techno-logies to use. Previous reviews at the Science Museum had identified the needfor improved facilities for visitors and a particular priority within the ScienceMuseum’s customer service initiative was to provide the public with the infor-mation needed to plan and enjoy their visit. Information provision is particularlyimportant because of the Science Museum’s obligation to interpret contempor-ary science and technology, often in areas where the objects themselves are notself-explanatory. The analysis presented here concentrates on developing andunderstanding the visitor information requirements, while a complementarypaper describes the technological approach to providing this information to visi-tors2.

From its origins in the Great Exhibition of 1851, the Science Museum hasevolved into one of the world’s foremost museums of science and technology,and together with its sister museums at York (the National Railway Museum)and Bradford (the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television), thethree museums constituting the National Museum of Science and Industry(NMSI) now have over 400,000 three-dimensional objects, 3 million images, andseveral million paper items in their collections. Between five and ten percentof the three-dimensional objects are on display at any one time, and there areover 2.7 million visitors a year at the three sites. The Science Museum collectionscontain the majority of the three dimensional objects in the NMSI, whilst mostof the two-dimensional items are located in the Northern museums. About 1.6million people visit the Science Museum each year. In common with othermuseums the Science Museum both displays objects which are of particularimportance in their own right (for instance such icons as The Rocket steamlocomotive), and uses objects and related information to interpret scientific dis-coveries and principles to the public.

The visitor profile for the Science Museum has been established through sur-veys carried out by MORI3. Just over one third of visitors are from the Southeastof England, with a further third from abroad, and the remainder from other partsof the United Kingdom. In common with other United Kingdom museums4, the

140 Understanding the Information Needs of Visitors to Museums

overall visitor profile is heavily slanted towards social groups A/B and C1, withonly 19 per cent of visitors from groups C2/D/E. A little under 60 per cent ofvisitors are male, while just over three quarters of visits are either made byschool parties or family groups consisting of children and adults. The remainderof the adults are visiting for professional purposes (for instance teachers plan-ning visits), for general interest, or are enthusiasts. There are few teenage visi-tors. The overall pattern is therefore one where 75% of visitors are either schoolchildren or family and friends accompanied by children. The majority of theremainder are ‘general visitors’ with perhaps a maximum of 10% of ‘specialistsand enthusiasts’. These groups form well defined constituencies which wouldbe expected to have discrete information requirements. Teenagers, females, andsocial classes C2, D and E are under-represented. (Figure 1).

Information provision is at the core of the Science Museum’s mission state-ment, the principle objectives of which include improved customer service,better collections access and the development of outreach facilities, and all havea substantial information content. Earlier surveys in the Science Museum hadrevealed that improvements were required in its internal signage and navigationaids, and that the Museum could play a more pro-active part in encouraging thepublic to make the most of what is available during visits. The Science Museumreceives over 100,000 personal enquiries per year, and further investigation

1. Summary of visitor profile (after MORI 1994). (Note: 1995–96 visitor numbers were1.6 million).

141Ben Booth

showed that a modest improvement in the facilities available to enquiries staff,or the provision of interactive terminals for use by visitors, would greatlyimprove the way those enquiries are handled.

Establishing the Visitor Information Requirement

Sections below describe several surveys undertaken to obtain data from whichit was possible to analyse different aspects of the visitor information require-ment. The subjects include visitors to the Science Museum, specific needs forgallery based systems, visitor ‘guidepoints’, enquiries directed to the Museum,and an analysis of the use made of the Museum’s World Wide Web pages. Com-parative studies are described, consisting of an analysis of visitors to the LondonNational Gallery’s Micro Gallery, and a survey of enquiries to museums carriedout by the National Museums of Scotland.

Visitor Services Evaluation

The visitor services evaluation5, carried out by Carne Martin for Simons Palmer,the Science Museum’s advertising agency, was designed to “evaluate all aspectsof the service provided for visitors to the Science Museum, other than the exhib-its themselves, and provide guidance for further development”. The studyfocused on information provision, catering and shops, and their cost. Only adultswere interviewed, but the needs of adults accompanying children were part ofthe study. The survey was carried out through the medium of 50 in-depth inter-views and a group discussion. The participants were selected to reflect a rep-resentative cross-section of the overall visitor profile, and the study provides aclassification of the types of visitor interviewed and their specific informationrequirements (Figure 2). Overall the Carne Martin study concluded that whilst

2. Types of visitors identified by the Carne Martin Study.


visitors generally enjoy their time at the Science Museum, information provisionneeds to be substantially improved. The study went on to recommend that theinformation desk should be moved and reinforced by an associated informationarea, and that better signage should be provided, together with customisedroutes and other navigation aids. For some visitors a range of additional infor-mation would be desirable, and interactive and multi-media technology wouldbe an appropriate way of providing some of these facilities (Figure 3).

Gallery Information System Evaluation

In anticipation of developing efficient object-based information systems for usein the Museum’s galleries a study was carried out by the Science Museum PublicUnderstanding of Science Research Unit6. This was aimed at defining visitorneeds in terms of what was required for an information system to be linked toenhanced displays in the Land Transport and Flight galleries. A random sampleof 158 visitors was questioned, 86 in Land Transport, and 72 in Flight. In orderto provide a rigorous assessment of those visitors’ requirements they wereinvited both to indicate the kinds of information they would like to have avail-able, and to rank a pre-prepared list of types of information, by being questionedin two ways. Overall, the gallery information system study established that thekey object-based information for visitors are the age of the object, its purpose,general factual information, and its construction and mode of operation. Therewas little interest in the physical dimensions of the objects on display, infor-mation about other objects in storage, or how they came into the Museum, andtheir former ownership. Visitors were generally positively disposed towards theidea of a computer-based gallery information system. In addition to providing

3. Information requirements identified by the Carne Martin survey.

143Ben Booth

information about the objects themselves, the visitors felt that a gallery infor-mation system could help them to navigate around the Museum, and providerelevant information from other museums. Furthermore it could be enhancedwith multi-media including film. Visitors were also interested in the possibilityof accessing from their homes on-line information to help them plan their visitsin advance.

Guidepoint System

One of the findings from the experimental Science Information Service (SIS)was that the members of the general public had difficulty in finding their wayround the building and in discovering the full range of exhibits and programmeson offer7. Prompted by these findings, the Museum’s Interactive DevelopmentUnit proposed a Guidepoint system of public terminals to provide the publicwith directions and simple information8. The essential and desirable features tobe embodied in the information to be made available from the public terminalsare summarised in Figure 4. These include for each gallery a plan, and infor-mation about the facilities on offer and exhibits on display, alongside a rangeof guided tours to suite different interests. Terminals would be located through-out the Museum. In addition to providing a basic range of information, it wasproposed that they should be multi-lingual, and be able to be quickly updatedto reflect unanticipated changes to what is available.

Analysis of Enquiries to the Museum

The Science Museum handles over 100,000 enquiries per year from personalvisitors to the Museum, as well as those by post, telephone and e-mail. Thefollowing analysis of enquiries is based on the findings from a three-month trialof the Science Information Service (SIS) and on a survey of enquiries carriedout to help rationalise enquiry handling9. The Science Information Service oper-

4. Essential and desirable facilities of the guidepoint system.


ated over three months, from February 1991 as a trial public information servicecatering for questions concerning contemporary science and technology. Theservice was located in a prominent position near the main entrance to theMuseum and presumably attracted a considerable amount of public attention.Whilst the service itself was then not deemed to be cost-effective, it provideda wealth of information about the types of information which visitors to theScience Museum request. A breakdown of these enquiries, by subject area andby the form of response required, is provided in Figure 5. Departmental records,together with those kept by the reception and enquiry desks (which handleenquiries from visitors in person), form a valuable resource on the nature andvolume of enquiries. Following on from the SIS survey, the analysis of enquirieswas aimed at achieving a rationalisation of what was widely perceived to be anunsatisfactorily ad hoc situation. The survey identified where enquiries tendedto be answered, the volume of those enquiries, and their nature. In total theMuseum was found to be answering nearly 10,000 enquiries per month(Figure 6).

5. Groupings of types of enquiries to Science Information Service and proposed meansof responding to the enquiries.

145Ben Booth

6. Summary of types and number of enquiries by department.

The results from the Science Information Service experiment and theenquiries survey are broadly in agreement regarding the relative proportions ofthe enquiries, and their nature. The majority of enquiries are concerned withthe Museum’s facilities, ticketing, navigation around the Museum, and with basicquestions about what is on display. The evidence suggests that this type ofenquiry could be answered through some form of interactive system which visi-tors would use themselves, or by non-specialist staff with access to a computersystem and the appropriate reference sources. There remain, however, a signifi-cant number of enquiries concerning educational facilities and schools projects,specialist queries about the collections, and queries related to contemporaryand historic science. Some of these could be answered through an automatedsystem or the provision of targeted handouts, but others require some skilledstaff intervention. A minority of queries required a high degree of specialistknowledge and had to be forwarded to a subject specialist.

World Wide Web Statistics

The usage figures from the Science Museum World Wide Web pages providedata about on-line access to information about the Museum and its collections.Whilst the World Wide Web has attracted a great deal of media interest and isseeing an exponential rise in use, its long-term importance as a communicationmedium is as yet uncertain, and the interpretation of access statistics remainsinexact. Use of the Museum’s World Wide Web pages was surveyed over a per-iod of four months from mid-September 1995 to mid-January 1996, and the aver-age number of accesses per page per month was calculated. Though the totalpage accesses do not provide information as to the number of interested visitors


(a single visitor may access one page or many hundreds) the relative numbersof accesses are perceived to provide an indication as to the relative popularityof World Wide Web sites, and of pages within those sites. Figure 7 (based onan analysis carried out by Peter Bailes at the Museum) shows the relative popu-larity of different groups of pages.

Overall, the statistics for World Wide Web usage suggest some broad trends.There is a high level of interest from ‘virtual visitors’ to the Museum and thereis also significant interest from those who are planning visits to the Museumeither to view the galleries or to use the research facilities. Use by schools issurprisingly low. These conclusions provide some indicators regarding remoteaccess to the Museum, but more work is needed on the interpretation of WorldWide Web statistics in general and in understanding how and by whom theMuseum’s pages are being used.

The Micro Gallery at the National Gallery

The Micro Gallery at the National Gallery in London is an interactive systemproviding images and related information covering the whole collection of 2200paintings10. The facility consists of 12 workstations, each with a touch screeninterface and laser printer. The system has been widely acclaimed on technicalgrounds and has proved to be very popular with visitors. In order to providesome objective information about how people use the system, and whether ithelps them to enjoy works of art, the system’s implementors carried out in 1992a survey of visitors to the Micro Gallery11. This visitor survey was conductedthrough 500 self-administered questionnaires, of which 374 completed formswere returned. In addition, an observer made detailed notes of the use of theMicro Gallery over a single day. The survey showed that around 2.5% of thesevisitors to the National Gallery used the Micro Gallery, and that more than halfof them inteded to use it in the course of some type of formal study. For the

7. Average monthly accesses to Science Museum World Wide Web pages over 4 monthperiod 18 Sept 1995 to 17 Jan 1996.

147Ben Booth

majority of users (both scholastic and otherwise) the Micro Gallery enhancestheir enjoyment of the paintings but is not a substitute for seeing them. Thegreater proportion of those going on to visit the galleries had found in the systemthe paintings which they wanted to see, and the majority had printed somethingout. 20% produced a personalised tour. To this extend the Micro Gallery isclearly a success as almost all those who used it indicated that they will do soagain on their next visit.

Survey of Enquiries to Museums

In the summer of 1993 the National Museums of Scotland carried out a surveyaimed at testing assumptions about what information is required to answerenquiries to museums12. This survey was carried out in the context of the ongo-ing cataloguing project and of the developing database which combines collec-tions information across Scottish Museums. The survey took place by post andwas targeted at those museums (mainly in the United Kingdom but some abroad)where staff were known to the authors and were therefore likely to respond.The results showed that overall 69% of the questions asked concerned objects inthe museums’ collections, with the remainder covering a wide range of subjectsincluding educational projects, opening hours, and local history. Of the object-related questions the main area of enquiry was for information concerning aspecific object or object type. Less common were queries relating to people,places, detailed descriptive aspects, and administrative matters (acquisition,loan, etc.) which all had similar scores. Other aspects, including dates, associa-ted events and bibliographic categories had a low incidence. The object relatedqueries are listed in Figure 8.

The authors of the report identified a significant weakness in the value of theresults in that internal queries were not reported, and that bibliographic querieswere under-reported as they would often be referred to the museum’s library.Also it seems likely that with a professional bias towards collections-related mat-ters, the staff who were surveyed tended to concentrate on object-related quer-

8. Breakdown of object-related queries.


ies. Nevertheless the survey does give an indication of the spread of enquiries,and (more reliably) the range and distribution of queries concerning objects. Itreveals that the majority of questions relate to specific objects, and to people,places, descriptive aspects, and administrative matters.

Literature Review

A review of the published literature was conducted to ensure that in providingimproved visitor information at the Science Museum account would be takenof the experience of others. The areas covered included systems designed toprovide information about the objects on display and the facilities the museumoffers, and the provision of aids to navigation around the museum. Little wasfound to have been published about external access although there was alreadysome interest in OPAC access to specialist information and in the World WideWeb. However, the conventional medium for interpreting museum displays hasbeen labels or text and image panels, supplemented by printed material rangingfrom short leaflets to full scale catalogues. The disadvantages of these methodsof communication have been clearly stated by Roles13, who argues that visitorsmay lack the skills to understand complex written material, or their first langu-age may not be English. Furthermore, Roles argues that museums should playa more active part in communicating, informing, entertaining and inspiring, andthus should aim to reach beyond an audience largely made up of social classesA/B and C1.

Various forms of multi-media technology have been used to enhance conven-tional labels and illustrative material. Typically such a facility will consist of anaudio-visual or multi-media presentation designed to place the objects in con-text, or an interactive exhibit intended to explain the principles behind whatis on display. In some examples of this medium it is also possible to find outmore detailed information about the objects on display. Usually such facilitiesare provided through bespoke software with the information to be displayedencoded within the application, rather than being provided in a separate datab-ase. Approaches to these issues using multi-media technologies are described ina publication from the Arts Council of Great Britain14.

Examples of linear presentations are those at the United States Golf Museum15,and the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC16. If the facility is added toselect a branching route through the material, it is possible to provide a ‘walkthrough’ of a virtual world such as that illustrating the city of Malmo, where a‘three-dimensional’ view increases the involvement of the user17. Even with thelow-cost technical solution employed by the Commonwealth Institute, London,it is possible to show both text and images and the information can be updatedas required18. Because of the high cost of developing this type of bespoke systemmost only provide access to a limited sample of the collection. An exception isthe Micro Gallery at the National Gallery in London, described above, whichemploys a hypertext application to provide access to all of the collection ondisplay totalling over 2000 items.

An alternative method of providing access to information about a large collec-tion is through the provision of an interface to the main museum informationdatabase. Examples include those in the National Museum of Denmark19—witha touch screen interface to supplement the minimally-labelled ‘visible storage’—

149Ben Booth

and the Musee D’Orsay, Paris20, where a direct interface into the database isavailable. On the other hand, direct public access to raw data poses technicalproblems in the design of access and interface software, while the data itselfmay in part be unsuitable for public access if its primary purpose has been toaid collections management or if it has been compiled as a specialist resourcerather than for the general user. The Hypermuse Project21 is an initiativedesigned to resolve this through developing a hypertext interface to museumdata held in relational format.

Several museums employ screen-based systems to make available informationabout temporary exhibitions and events. Non-interactive displays may be static,or change at pre-determined intervals. One such system at the British Museumhas a facility to allow information desk staff to change the displayed informationon-line. At the Minneapolis Institute of Art the Visitor Directory22 is an inter-active system which provides information on current exhibitions, daily andweekly events, gallery design and location, self-guided tours, and programmesfor families and children. About forty percent of the 500,000 visitors to its gal-leries use this facility, and on busy days the three kiosks (designed for wheelch-air, child and adult users) are in constant use. The Smithsonian Institution hasan interactive display which provides information about the various constituentmuseums, their facilities, collections, special events and exhibitions, and sourcesof additional information. Audio tours employing tape or CD are widely usedthere.

External (and internal) use of museum libraries is often provided through anOPAC, a text-based but easily used online public access catalogue23 and in Lon-don the Natural History Museum is developing online access to scientific data.Many museums now use the World Wide Web to provide information to externalusers24, and Dufy25 has argued that museum Web sites are ahead of much ofcommerce. With over 250,000 accesses per year the Science Museum sees itsWeb pages as a significant means of communication26. In the longer term, mass-market technologies such as interactive video delivered via cable and publicaccess kiosks may be an effective means of reaching the wider public who donot have direct access to data networks.

There is considerable interest in the potential for collections information tobe made available over the ‘information superhighway’27. Schools in particularare looking at the possibilities for students and teachers to plan their visits, whileit provides a means of access for those who are prevented from physically visit-ing the museum. Through the SMILE (Science Museum Internet LearningExperiment) initiative the Science Museum is evaluating a range of possi-bilities28. Developments in museums and related areas mirror the sciences,humanities and scholarly world in general, where much has been made of thepotential of the new communication technologies29, while governments on bothsides of the Atlantic have also seen this area as important30.

Developing the Requirement

Background

By combining together all of the different information surveys undertaken at theScience Museum it is possible to construct a comprehensive picture of visitor


information needs, and the consolidated evidence benefits from the overlapbetween various surveys, which provides confirmation and validation of theresults. Information provision is thus divided between what is required withinthe Museum, and the demands of remote access. Furthermore, it is possible toidentify three different groups of visitors and information needs: the generalvisitor who requires information on opening hours, prices, the Museum’s facili-ties, what’s on, notable exhibits and navigation aids in the Museum; the edu-cational visitor who requires (in addition to the above information for generalvisitors) more detailed information to help plan visits to the Museum and project-based information; and finally the specialist visitor who requires (in addition tothe information for general visitors) detailed information concerning theMuseum’s collections and access to its expertise, together with links to othersources of information.

As noted above, family groups and school parties account for 75% of theScience Museum’s 1.6 million visitors pa; the remainder consist of those witha general interest, and a small percentage (perhaps 5–10%) who have a specialistinterest. The potential for ‘virtual visits’ is at present uncertain. The generalvisitor requires a ‘notice board’ display at the entrance to the Museum with‘what’s on’ (ticket prices, opening hours, etc.); orientation points inside theentrance to the Museum; information points around the Museum; and means ofremote access to help them plan their visits in advance. The educational visitorneeds orientation points at the school parties entrance to help them facilitatetheir visits; provision of project-based information; remote access to plan visitsin advance and obtain project-based information. Facilities for the specialist visi-tor are based on a study centre providing access to detailed information aboutthe collections, bibliographic information held by the Library and elsewhere,and remote access to other specialist information. The overall requirements forthese facilities are summarised in Figure 9 and are described in detail below.

Information at Entrance to the Museum

The visitor services evaluation discussed above found that at the entrance tothe Science Museum potential visitors needed to know what was available onthe day of their visit, the time and location of any special events and informationabout new exhibits and galleries. The aim of this facility is to help visitors beginto plan their visit while they wait to pay for their tickets, or to encourage themto visit if they are still undecided. As well as providing the information visitorsalready realise they need, it also provides an opportunity for the Museum toadvertise any facilities it may wish to draw to the attention of visitors.

Orientation

The visitor services evaluation also discovered that once within the ScienceMuseum, visitors needed to orient themselves in order to locate their primaryobjectives or plan their visits. This requirement also emerged from the analysisof enquiries made at the information desk in the Museum (see above). The infor-mation requirement at a basic level includes an alphabetic list of facilities, gal-leries and key exhibits and a range of pre-programmed and bespoke tours. Itwas suggested that pre-programmed tours should be designed to suit different

151Ben Booth

9. Summary of visitor information requirements.

ages and interests, and different lengths of stay in the Museum. The facility toproduce bespoke tours would also enable an individual visitor to build up a tourto include those objects and galleries which were of particular interest. Thepotential need for a source of more detailed information (such as is providedby the Micro Gallery) is described in the ‘Information Centre’ section below.

Information Points

The visitor services evaluation, taken with the related ‘Guidepoint’ proposal,identified the need for information points to be positioned throughout theMuseum. The main requirement at these locations is for a clear plan of theScience Museum showing the locations of the lavatories, cafe and exits, as wellas galleries and exhibits, but there is also a need for a route into other formsof information. These requirements, were also documented by the analysis ofenquiries.

Detailed Information to Support Exhibits

The survey of multi-media developments in museums has showed that appli-cations to support exhibits were usually specific to the items on display, anddid not provide additional types of information. However the gallery informationsystem survey conducted in the Museum found the need for a broad range ofobject related information and for facilities similar to those to be provided bythe information points. These include information about the objects, their his-


tory, the science behind the objects, information about the layout of theMuseum, and a wide range of related information.

Visible Storage

The need for an on-line catalogue to support ‘visible storage’ was not noted asan explicit requirement at the Science Museum. However, tightly packed dis-plays with little or no room for conventional labels or interpretation, supportedby data terminals providing information, have been successfully used at othermuseums31. The requirement is included here because it has from time to timebeen mentioned as a possible development for the Museum. The informationto support ‘visible storage’ consists of basic object details and cross-referencingto connect related items.

Information Centre

This requirement was also not specifically identified in any of the ScienceMuseum surveys, but the evident need for additional information did emergefrom both the visitor services survey and the gallery information system survey.There is an implied need to satisfy specialist enquiries by providing detailedinformation. Visitors are likely to spend longer (perhaps 20 minutes) using aninformation centre, in contrast to the usual 5 minute attention span for an inter-active display32. This need may best be met by a facility not dissimilar to theMicro Gallery at the National Gallery, to provide on-line access to detailed objectinformation, and possibly also to information in other museums, libraries andarchives. In addition, access to the full range of facilities provided for orientationand at visitor guidepoints would be desirable here.

Remote Access—to Assist in Planning Visit

The high volume of enquiries handled by the Science Museum relating to queriesfrom potential visitors, taken together with the findings of the gallery infor-mation survey, and the World Wide Web statistics (see above), indicate a highdemand for information from people planning to visit the Museum. For the mostpart this is concerned with opening hours, prices, events, the main attractionsand facilities, and how to get to the Museum.

Remote Access—Technical Enquirers

Around 20% of enquiries to the Science Museum are of a specialist nature, andrequire information to be derived from bibliographic or object-related resources.This type of enquiry is usually focused around the collections and otherresources of the Museum. A second category of enquiry is from researchers whointend to visit the Museum to study objects or consult the records at first hand.They will wish to know the range of material and facilities available, togetherwith opening hours and ticketing arrangements.

153Ben Booth

Remote Access—Schools Enquiries

Subject-based enquiries by schools are documented through both the enquirysurvey and Science Information Service survey, accounting for around 10% ofthe total number of enquiries, and there is an additional volume of enquiries(not differentiated from public enquiries) from schools relating to opening hoursand facilities in general. There are project-related enquiries from both teachersand students, and requests from teachers for information packs with which toplan visits.

Remote Access—Virtual Visitors

‘Virtual visitors’ who use on-line access as a replacement for a physical visit tothe Science Museum have been using the virtual galleries since they becameavailable on the World Wide Web in April 1995. During the first year there wereover a quarter of a million accesses and at the beginning of 1998 there werearound 23,000 visits per month to the site. Despite concerns about how tointerpret such figures there is clearly a demand for this facility. Virtual visitorslike to browse the galleries, to see images of objects, and find out about thoseobjects and related information. Whilst the virtual visits are at present limitedto the three sites of the NMSI, it would be relatively easy to link seamlessly thevirtual galleries of different museums, perhaps combining several museums ofscience and technology.

Summary of Requirement

In the Science Museum most visitors require some information at the start oftheir tour on what there is to see and do. Once in the Museum they need assist-ance to find their way around, and more detailed information to support exhib-its. Some visitors also require more detailed information. Potential visitorsaccessing information externally need to know what the Museum has to offerand practical information about how to get to the Museum, opening hours andticketing. Teachers, students, specialists and enthusiasts need to query theMuseum’s information resources remotely and plan their visits to the Museum.Finally there is the group of ‘virtual visitors’ who are unable to visit the Museumin person. All these need to be addressed.

Delivery of Visitor Information

The present paper focuses on defining the information requirements rather thanon the means of delivering this information. To put this into context the shortsummary below describes what needs to be considered when implementingsuch a system. (A full description of the approach proposed for the ScienceMuseum and a discussion is available [see Footnotes 1 & 2]). In implementingsystems for visitor information a decision would have to be taken on whethera technological approach is appropriate. The evidence gained from user surveysat the Museum, coupled with the target audience of family groups, school partiesand specialist enquirers, suggests that such systems would be effective and wellreceived. Technical implementation will involve bringing together and making


accessible data resources, deciding on the appropriate type of terminal andsoftware interface, setting up internal telecommunications networks (if notalready available) and providing external access to information. All theseelements will have to be brought together to provide the variety of informationoutlets described above. If this is to be handled on an ‘enterprise wide’ scalethen an overall data and technical architecture will also need to be devised33.Whilst the cost per visitor use of such facilities are likely to be only a few pence,the overall costs of any single facility (including data, terminals, telecommuni-cations, maintenance, etc.) is likely to be in the tens or even hundreds of thou-sands of pounds and a full feasibility study would be essential before proceeding.

Summary and Conclusions

School parties and family groups consisting of children accompanied by adultsaccount for about 75% of the public who come to the Science Museum. Of theremainder the majority are visitors with a general interest and a small percentage(estimated at less than 10%) have either a professional or specialist interest. Thegeneral visitor needs to know what the Museum has to offer on the day of theirvisit, to see the items on display, and to navigate around the Museum, whileeducational visitors (both teachers and students) require information about spe-cific topics and help in planning their visits. Specialist visitors, on the otherhand, require detailed information about the Museum’s collections and accessto a wide range of information resources both in the Museum and elsewhere.

Overall the picture which emerges is the need for a range of different infor-mation outlets, including an information display at the entrance to the Museum;orientation points inside the entrance and information points throughout theMuseum; information centres for specialist and educational visitors; and systemsto support exhibits and visible storage. External access to information is requiredto assist in planning visits to the Museum; to answer specialist queries; to answerqueries from schools and to help schools plan visits; and to support a ‘virtualvisit’ experience. Whilst it was found that a variety of technologies could havesome applicability for remote access, it was also necessary to match the tech-nology to the audience. In common with other museums the Science Museumvisitor profile is heavily skewed towards social groups A/B and C1, but certainnew technologies, particularly cable, may have some applicability for reachinggroups C2, D and E who are currently are the greatest users of terrestrial, cableand satellite TV. Virtual tours were found to be potentially useful in accommo-dating those who are unable to visit the Museum, and in providing a means bywhich several related but geographically dispersed collections can be broughttogether. This was judged to be an area where further investigation is required.

In addition to defining the conceptual structure of the Science Museum infor-mation this review has also served to emphasise that the traditional model of asingle text database, or optionally a text database with linked images, is nolonger adequate. There are likely to be several linked databases of museum infor-mation, which will include still and moving images, together with sound, andwhole applications environments to aid navigation of the museum or providevirtual tours. The potential for ‘added value’ applications which could enhancethe basic service was identified as an area for future investigation. For instancemany of the systems have the potential both to serve the main groups of visitors

155Ben Booth

and provide for those with language difficulties or disabilities. Many also presentoptions for marketing or booking the Museums services, goods and events, thusmaximising the use of these facilities and, where appropriate, generating rev-enue.

This analysis has been based on a detailed study at the Science Museum, sup-ported by visitor information reviews from other museums and galleries. It islikely that visitor information needs at other museums and attractions will besimilar, and that the conclusions from the Science Museum in terms of types ofvisitors, groupings of information, technical approaches and costs of informationare more generally applicable. Further work should be done to test whether theconclusions presented here are applicable to other types of museum and gallery,or attractions such as stately homes, field monuments and nature reserves.

Since this study was carried out the Science Museum has continued to developits World Wide Web site as a many faceted introduction to the Museum; thecollections management database as a core internal management tool; and theNEWNET pervasive technical infrastructure. In addition a major educationalinitiative on the World Wide Web is being pursued as part of the ‘National Gridfor Learning’ and trials of interactive kiosks are in progress. These new projectsare already reported to be well received by their intended audiences.

Acknowledgements

The study on which this paper is based was undertaken when the author wasHead of Information Systems at the Science Museum in London. Whilst manythanks are due to the Museum for permission to quote from unpublishedsources, and for generously contributing towards the costs of the research, theconclusions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent thepolicies of the museum. He is grateful to (amongst others) Pauline Dingley, DrGraham Farmelo, Sue Gordon, Alice Grant, Dr Roland Jackson, Dr SuzanneKeene, Tim Molloy, Judy Niner and Dave Patten for discussions which havecontributed to this analysis, and for keeping him posted on subsequent develop-ments. He is particularly indebted to Peter Bailes, Dr Ben Gammon, Steve Rob-erts and Lorraine Ward who have allowed him to quote from their previouslyunpublished work, and to Mark Pemberton for permission to quote from theMORI and Carne Martin surveys. Cognitive Applications have allowed extensivequotations from their unpublished report on the National Gallery’s Micro Gal-lery, while Jeffrey Defries has supported this project through to completion. SirNeil Cossons’s enthusiasm for the Internet and the potential of electronic mediahas created an environment where the proposals outlined here can flourish.

Footnotes

1. Booth, B.K.W. (1996). An investigation of museum data storage and access technologiesincluding case studies on archaeological records at the National Maritime Museum and visi-tor information at the Science Museum. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of London.

2. Information for visitors to cultural attractions (1998). Journal of Information Science, 24 (5),291–303.

3. MORI (1994). Attitudes towards the Science Museum. A Survey of Visitors. Research StudyConducted October 1994. Unpublished report. London: MORI; and MORI (1996). Visitors tothe Science Museum. Unpublished report. London: MORI.


4. Department of National Heritage (1996). People taking part. London: Department of NationalHeritage.

5. Carne Martin Qualitative Research (1994). The Science Museum. Evaluation of Visitor Services.Unpublished report. Carne Martin Qualitative Research, London.

6. Gammon, B. (1994). A gallery information system. Formative evaluation—Phase 1. Unpub-lished internal report. Science Museum, London.

7. Ward, L. (1991a). Science Information Service briefing notes. Unpublished internal report.Science Museum, London; Ward, L. (1991b). Science Information Service. Report on operationof pilot scheme. 4 February to 3 May 1991. Unpublished internal report. Science Museum,London; and Ward, L. (1991c). Science Information Service. Facts and Figures. Unpublishedinternal report. Science Museum, London.

8. Roberts, S. (1992) A visitor guidepoint system for the Science Museum. Unpublished internalreport. Science Museum, London.

9. Ward, L. (1992a). Review of Enquiry Services. Proforma. Unpublished internal report. ScienceMuseum, London; Ward, L. (1992b). Survey of Enquiry Services. Notes. Unpublished internalreport. Science Museum, London; and Ward, L. (1992c). Survey of Enquiry Services—Dis-cussion Document. Unpublished internal report. Science Museum, London.

10. Ellis, M. (1991). Micro Gallery Project Information. London: National Gallery.11. Cognitive Applications (1992). The Micro Gallery—A Survey of Visitors. Unpublished report.

Cognitive Applications, Brighton.12. McCorry, H. and Morrison, I.O. (1995). Report on the Catechism Project. Edinburgh: National

Museums of Scotland.13. Roles, J. (1995). My Brighton: Unlocking Access. In (A. Fahy and W. Sudbury Eds.) Information

the Hidden Resource. Museums and the Internet. Proceedings of the Seventh InternationalConference of the MDA, 175–180. Cambridge: MDA.

14. Arts Council Of Great Britain (1992). Very Spaghetti. The Potential of Interactive Multimediain Art Galleries. London: Arts Council of Great Britain.

15. Strohecker, C. (1993). A comparison of museum exhibits in three areas: art, sports and science.In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the MDA and SecondInternational Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums ICHIM ’93, 52–57.Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

16. Perlin, R. (1993). Education and access, the New National Gallery videodisc on American Art.In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the MDA and SecondInternational Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums ICHIM ’93, 79–85.Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

17. Bergquist, A. and Wilhelmsson, L. (1993). Malmo in time and space. In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedingsof the Sixth International Conference of the MDA and Second International Conference onHypermedia and Interactivity in Museums ICHIM ’93, 92–94. Cambridge: Museum Docu-mentation Association.

18. Ewings, S. (1993). The Commonwealth information database. A case study—multi-media on ashoestring. In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the MDA andSecond International Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums ICHIM ’93,140–145. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

19. Wanning, T. (1993). Ethnographic treasures on the computer. Electronic access to a totalmuseum collection. In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of theMDA and Second International Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in MuseumsICHIM ’93, 26–33. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

20. Le Coz, F. and Lemessier, F. (1993). Multimedia technology at the Orsay Museum. Institutionalexperience and future prospects. In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Confer-ence of the MDA and Second International Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity inMuseums ICHIM ’93, 377–383. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

21. Fahy, A., Poulter, A., Sargent, G. (1993). Hypermuse: A prototype hypermedia front-end formuseum information systems. In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Confer-ence of the MDA and Second International Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity inMuseums ICHIM ’93, 190–197. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

22. Sayre, S. (1995). The evolution of interactive interpretative media. A report on discovery andprogress at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. In (D. Lees Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth Inter-national Conference of the MDA and Second International Conference on Hypermedia andInteractivity in Museums ICHIM ’93, 41–51. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

157Ben Booth

23. Gelfand, J. and Booth, B. (1993). Scholarly communication in the Sciences: Managing challengesfor libraries and museums. In (Dietmar Brandes and Elin Tornudd Eds.) Proceedings of the 15thBiennial IATUL Conference, July 19–23 1993, pp. 9–30. Hamburg: Technical University ofHamburgh Harburgh.

24. Gordon, S. (1995). Museums and the Information Superhighway. In (D.I. Raitt and B. JeapesEds.) Online Information ’95. 19th International Online Information Meeting Proceedings,589–598. Oxford: Learned Information.

25. Dufy, R.A. (1995). Magic carpets and the tools of institutional knowledge: Why the MuseumCommunity is leading the field in networked multimedia. In (D.I. Raitt and B. Jeapes Eds.)Online Information ’95. 19th International Online Information Meeting Proceedings, 589–598. Oxford: Learned Information.

26. Smith, S. (1996). No glass cases here. Computer Weekly, June 6 1996, 40.27. Day, G. (1995). Museums Collections and the Information Superhighway. Proceedings of a

Conference held on 10 May 1995. London: Science Museum; and Fahy, A. and Sudbury, W.Eds. (1995). Information the Hidden Resource. Museums and the Internet. Proceedings of theSeventh International Conference of the MDA. Cambridge: MDA.

28. Jackson, R. (1995). Museum Education through the Internet—hype or genuine opportunity.In Ages of Learning. GEM Conference Proceedings 1995, 4–9. London: Group for Educationin Museums.

29. National Science Foundation (1990). Communication in support of science and engineering.A report to the National Science Foundation from the Council on Library Resources. Wash-ington DC: National Science Foundation; National Academy of Sciences (1993). Science, Tech-nology and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era. Washington DC: NationalAcademy Press; Royal Society (1993). Scientific Information Systems in the 1990s. London:Royal Society; Gould, C. and Pearce, K. (1991). Information needs in the sciences: An assess-ment. Mountain View CA: The Research Libraries Group; Meadow, A.J. and Buckle, P. (1992).Changing communication activities in the British scientific community. Journal of Docu-mentation, 48, 3: 280; British Library Board and British Academy (1993). Information Tech-nology in Humanities Scholarship. Oxford: Office for Humanities Communication; J. Paul GettyTrust (1993). Technology, Scholarship and the Humanities: The Implications of ElectronicInformation. Santa Monica CA: J. Paul Getty Trust; Joint Funding Councils (1993). Joint Fund-ing Councils. Libraries Review Group: Report. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council forEngland; and Michelson, A. and Rothenberg, J. (1992). Scholarly communication and informationretrieval: Exploring the impact of changes in the research process on archives, American Archi-vist, 55, Spring 1992: 236–315.

30. UK (1993). Realising our potential. A strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology. Cm2250. London: HMSO; USA (1993). House of Representatives. 1757. Washington DC. House ofRepresentatives; and CCTA (1994). Information Superhighways. Opportunities for public sec-tor applications in the UK. London: CCTA.

31. Hoover Voorsanger, C. (1992). An Automated Collections Catalogue: The Department of Amer-ican Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In (Roberts, D.A. Ed.) (1992). Sharing the Infor-mation Resources of Museums, 64–70. Cambridge. Museum Documentation Association.

32. Gammon, B. (1995). Interactive Exhibit Development. Making user-friendly exhibits. Unpub-lished internal report. Science Museum, London.

33. Booth, B.K.W. (1995a). Developing an Information Systems Strategy for the National Museumof Science and Industry. In (J. Wilcock and C. Lockyear, Eds.) Computer Applications in Archae-ology 1993, 95–99. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

understanding the information needs of visitors to museums

Documents