A (wordy) preview of our discussion questions for tomorrow. Hope it might be useful food for thought:
The common thread of the readings is the evaluation of history resources and user experience with them. Some of the material involves evaluating digital experiences while the rest involves feedback from museum-goers. Both are severely understudied. I think it may be especially useful to compare the two.
-Could digital analytics be useful tools for understanding a larger audience? Should digital projects proceed to cater to new audiences? What could be lost or gained in the transition?
-What unexpected responsibilities might content producers face because of the “entrance narrative?”
-Visitors under 25 like introspective experiences. If that is also what history museum visitors expect from history resources, could we learn something about presenting history by studying how younger individuals interact with history resources?
-How should user “mood” be analyzed when evaluating digital experiences? How does this differ from evaluating that of a visitor to a physical exhibit?
-How does museum location affect an audience and their expectations? How does this impact their feedback? How is this affected when the exhibit is digital?
-What do you think of incentivizing surveys? If this “encourages responses and rewards time spent,” could other museum content benefit from incentivization?
-Conversely, could incentives to provide feedback alter the nature of that feedback?
-What unexpected responsibilities could content producers have if visitors “feel more positively” about the actions of historical actors by virtue of understanding them better?
-Should museums be afraid of displaying “unfinished” work and collecting feedback on it? What about digital history resources?
-How might user feedback be affected if they are aware or unaware that a particular project is “unfinished?”