It was interesting to explore the ICA digital guide. I appreciate the flexibility of this platform - how it is able to act as a guide while one is physically in the gallery space, but also a platform that users (maybe art enthusiasts, researchers, etc) can explore in their own time from any location. Many traditional museum audio guides seem tied to a physical space for the experience to feel fruitful (eg. typing in a number of an artifact then hearing a guide about it). I feel that this guide was able to use images and contextual information in a way that makes the experience informative without necessarily needing to be in the gallery space. I also appreciated the multimedia approach to the guide, and how text, image, video, and audio are used in coherence to create an experience that can be catered to users with different preferences. I enjoyed being able to click into individual items in the exhibition to get a deeper understanding. The audio recordings offered a change of pace and made the experience less monotonous. However, I am curious about the responses. Under Last Garment, we hear a response from someone. Where did this response come from? Who are they? We only get their name. I am wondering about the extent to which providing more information about the person behind the audio response matters. Do we necessarily have to know who they are? Will that bias our perception of the response in any way? Eg. listening to a response by a curator versus a college student. The ‘related’ exhibit section was useful in viewing the artworks in different contexts and gives users a chance to delve deeper if they wish to do so. Overall, the guide was successful in: Using multiple forms of media for a less monotonous experience

  • A balance of context, interpretation, and response
  • Catering to users who have different preferences in terms of engagement
  • Creating a centralized platforms for all museum aspects for the user to explore