This paper describes research done on a variety of virtual museum experiences. It details the various web-based technologies used, such as VR, Web3D, AR, handheld devices and many more, each coming with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. For the most part, the paper discusses virtual representations of museums to be used outside the physical space of the museum, but it does point out that “70% of people visiting a museum website would subsequently be more likely to go and visit the ‘real’ museum” (Styliani), meaning that interacting with an online representation of the museum tends to encourage physical visitation. The research also discusses the ability for virtual museums to afford those who are disabled or otherwise unable to make it to the physical museum and opportunity to experience the collection, thus acting as an accessibility feature in it of itself. However, there are some drawbacks to virtual museum experiences, such as the need to be computer literate in order to operate them, and the potential gap in communication between the engineer creating the product and the museum’s vision for it. For the most part I believe the paper’s main points; however, I would think that a problem might arise in which users feel so satisfied with the at-home virtual tour of the museum that they don’t feel the need to visit the actual physical museum. The paper discusses the significant rate of post-website visitors; however, it does not speak specifically to the number of visitors who go to the physical museum after interacting with the virtual museum. I do definitely think that virtual museum experiences provide a broader range of accessibility to the masses though, and likely increase engagement with the virtual collection.
This paper made me think of a new functionality for our project. At this point we’ve designed the ability to see “similar pieces” in the digital collection and routes that once contained these pieces. However, it could be interesting to entertain the idea of creating a virtual representation of the piece in the exhibit how it once was. I know another group is doing something similar to this, so maybe we could simply combine our designs. A key difference between our design and the paper is that ours would be an in-museum and retrospective virtual experience. Not only would this avoid the logistics of getting virtual visitors to become physical visitors, but it would enhance the virtual experience by situating it in the space it’s recreating. This would be a large redesigning process, but we could even integrate a virtual version of the route. Since one of the main goals of our design is for users to be able to feel as though they are creating something with their movement through the museum, a virtual route would be an exciting product to end with and to share with friends.
Citation
Styliani, Sylaiou, et al. “Virtual Museums, a Survey and Some Issues for Consideration.” Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 10, no. 4, Dec. 2009, pp. 520–528., doi:10.1016/j.culher.2009.03.003.