Thesis: SCIENCEWORKS
What is ‘Immersion’ and why is it important? The term immersion can be used to describe the emotional reaction had by an individual when presented with an environment. For example, with VR, if a user is completely captivated by or interested in what they are seeing, they are immersed in their experience. Museums often try to be engaging with a variety of displays and interactive pieces. This can includes but is not limited to models, videos, interactive pieces, augmented reality, and virtual reality.
The actual methods of creating an immersive are less specific. Anything from colour, to shape, to sound can pique a consumer’s interests, and most of the time it is entirely subjective and therefore dependant on the individual.
Some of Victoria’s museums are more engaging than others depending on what they are based on and how they present their information. ScienceWorks has some immersive qualities, but it’s far from perfect. An individual’s experience at ScienceWorks is largely dependent on a number of factors ranging from the time of day, prior experience, and present company.
The objective of ScienceWorks is to provide a basic educational (and enjoyable) experience using a combination of digital and physical installations. It combines both theoretical and practical learning to appeal to a wider demographic, and heavily promotes social engagement and discussion.
ScienceWorks is targeted predominantly towards children and young teenagers, catering to families and schools excursions. ScienceWorks assumes their demographic has a wide variety of interests and so includes many different branches of science including sound, medical, and technological.
Audit List:
Sound:
“Sound is becoming an organic element in museum exhibitions, which are increasingly encouraging participation, interaction and experience in communicating cultural information to the visitors.” (6)
Constant loud noise is counterintuitive when trying to experience an educational institution, which unfortunately is where ScienceWorks suffers. Understandably, large groups of school children make a lot of noise. At ScienceWorks however, it felt excessive. A study in 2001 (2) discovered that constant low frequency content at 40 dBA impaired the reading/working capacity of 32 subjects, of which also reported high feelings of annoyance. The effects were more pronounced for subjects rated as high-sensitive to low frequency noise.
A Monday morning at ScienceWorks averaged about 90dBa in the most concentrated areas, peaking at 97dBa closer to the source. The constant loud noise level can be exhausting, and interferes with our ability to read. It’s believed by Dr Steven Yantis that “directing attention to listening effectively ‘turns down the volume’ on the input to the visual parts of the brain” (para. 2, (5)). High levels of disruptive ambience can be harder to ignore, and spikes in frequency and volume reduces the chance of becoming habituated.
The the result of which reduces an immersive experience to one of frustration. Being unable to devote complete attention to a task makes it difficult for an audience to become immersed in any of the exhibits scienceworks provides. ScienceWorks has some installations that were counter-intuitive to creating an immersive experience. The most notable example being the swimming videos in the sport section. The high volume of these videos combined with low quality audio resulted in an uncomfortable listening experience, which continued to be abrasive even when several meters away. Turning them down, providing noise cancelling headphones, or even removing the sound would have been beneficial. This would have helped to create a more pleasant atmosphere and also combat the level of noise pollution.
Immersive sounds:
Demonstrative, ie: wind pipes.
Music (LightTime)
Anything coming through Headphones.
Distracting sounds:
Loud/Distorted videos.
High Noise Floor.
Screaming Kids.
Atmosphere:
“Atmosphere is a mental thing, an experiential knowledge that somehow is stretched out between the object and the subject”. (7)
The ScienceWorks experience depends on who you ask. When ScienceWorks first opened in 1992, their vision was to create “a place for young people to play with science”. This is certainly still the case. Upon experiencing it first hand however, It became apparent that not all of ScienceWorks’ guests enjoyed the mini-museum by learning about science. ‘Umwelts’ are described by Jakob von Uexküll as “subjective universe[s]” (para 1.(4)), a term which helps to explain the various experiences had by different age groups at museums like ScienceWorks. The children at ScienceWorks were completely happy to run around, touching and moving anything they could. Many didn’t stop to understand what they were doing or what ramifications their actions had. Many were only interested in things they could displace or press. One child even thought that an installation showcasing the weight of a can on different planets was a display of “future cans’. He was perfectly happy to move on, satisfied with the narrative he created for himself, immersed in his own little world with an experience completely unique to anyone else. This “subjective variability” is where ScienceWorks shines. They provide an atmosphere in which an individual can experience their own umwelt. Kids can see it as an electronic playground where they can run and shout, while adults can see it as an educational institution fit for growing minds. This ‘variable’ atmosphere gives the installations at ScienceWorks multiple ‘levels’ of content which may be more or less interesting depending on the user’s personal interests and how they see it. Most content is also physically displayed for anyone less interested in reading about theory (eg; standing wave room).
Interactivity:
The most immersive installations at ScienceWorks allowed or even required some form of user participation to function. This could be as simple as pressing a glowing button, or designing a hyper-efficient future car propelled by pedal power. These interactive installations garnered far more attention than the displays promoted by simple text panels.
According to a paper published in 2005 (1), museum visitors were less likely to engage with information provided by simple text panels and prefered to learn from digital multimedia and/or physical models. The study concluded that the most immersive installations supported the visitors “manipulating physical and digital material in a visible and interesting manner”.
This information is also supported in practice if you observe ScienceWorks during a school excursion. Many of ScienceWorks’ installations included lifelike models supported by digital media. These installations got the most attention from the younger audience, many of which completely ignored the text displays. Because ScienceWorks blends physical and digital technology, it is able to create a more engaging experience for their demographic by conveying information in a way not typically found inside a classroom.
The easier an interactive piece is to operate, the more potential it has to become immersive. This is especially important for ScienceWorks because of it’s younger demographic. While advanced digital technology can completely ‘wow’ an audience, an interactive piece that looks completely alien will likely fall short if it’s too complicated to operate.
Professor Janet Murray (2011 p. 2-3) argues that when “functions are so mysteriously offered or so compromised by unintended secondary consequences we can find ourselves spending hours in frustrating trial and error in order to accomplish simple tasks” (3). Frustration and immersion can rarely co-exist so a simple interface is important to ensure an immersive experience. Most of ScienceWorks’ digital works are simple to use while still allowing enough control to provide the user with a sense of agency.
Immersive Interactions:
Simple digital technology.
Anything interactive.
Non-Immersive Interactions:
Simple text boxes.
Basic Models with no interactivity.
Variety:
The ScienceWorks exhibition “LightTime” (which was an 18+ only event) offered a more tailored experience for an older demographic. LightTime removes many of the issues adults might have with ScienceWorks and presents them with a less oppressive experience. This involved replacing the traditionally imposing noise floor with electronic music, while also promoting an exciting atmosphere with ambient lighting and deep bass frequencies. The LightTime setup looked less like a museum and more like the entree to a theatre. This helped remove expectations of traditionally “boring” museums, and recreated ScienceWorks as a fun place for adults rather than a place to take their children.
The low ambient lighting of the “LightTime” exhibition created more allure towards the softly lit installations, and gave ScienceWorks a more intriguing texture. These textures made simple installations, even the non interactive ones, much more interesting by creating an atmosphere that hinted towards something greater.
Compared to the regular setup of ScienceWorks this was far more engaging, and gave feelings of excitement that didn’t exist during the day. In short it wasn’t as boring. The “boring museum” stigma has kept youths from returning to museums as they expect more of the same. The reluctance for museums to change their exhibitions is reflected by the fact that “there is a significant gap in museum visiting from the time when youths leave school to when they settle down and have children (1)” It’s likely that these youths found museums engaging when they were younger, but have since seen all they have to offer. ScienceWorks offers many of the same installations from almost a decade ago, and would benefit from a dramatic change. By including new varied exhibitions like LightTime routinely, it would become much more revistable.
Unfortunately ScienceWorks’ still lacks incentive for multiple visits a year. It takes only about an hour or two to see and interact with all the installations and they are rarely changed outside of special exhibitions like LightTime. Because the ScienceWorks experience is based on learning new science, there is very little that it can offer during a second visit in quick succession.
References:
(1) – Why youths aren’t visiting museums.
Black, G. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement, Routledge, Oxon, 2005, pp.38.
(2) – Low FQ noise disrupts performance.
Waye KP, Bengtsson J, Kjellberg A, Benton S. Low frequency noise “pollution” interferes with performance. Noise Health 2001;4:33-49
(3) – Complex interactive art can be detrimental.
Murray, J 2011 ‘A Cultural Approach to Interaction Design’,
Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice]
(4) – Umwelts/Subjective Universe.
Sharov, A.A 2001 ‘Pragmatism and Umwelt Theory’ Sharov, A.A, viewed on 27th August 2017.
<http://alexei.nfshost.com/biosem/txt/umwelt.html>
(5) – Effects of sound on vision.
Latham, C 2006 ‘Why do you turn down the radio when you’re lost?” SharpBrains, viewed 1st September 2017.
<https://sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/11/11/why-do-you-turn-down-the-radio-when-youre-lost/>
(6) – Sound In Museums
Bubaris, N. (2014). Sound in museums – museums in sound. Museum Management and Curatorship. 29
(7) – Atmosphere.
Pallasmaa, Juhani (2012), “Space, Place, and Atmosphere: Peripheral Perception in Existential Experience” in Borch, Christian (ed.). Architectural Atmospheres. On the Experience and Politics of Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 18