3/20/02

Method

o Conducted 20 interviews which included 23 visitors. Interviews were conducted on Thursday, 3/14, Friday, 3/15 and Saturday, 3/16/02. Female (N=11) and Male (N=9). Adults (N=19) and Teen (N=1).
o Visitors were all cued and recruited randomly. Total time with visitors (recruiting, looking at cluster, interview) took an average of 20-30 minutes. All visitors were given a small gift at the end of the interview.
o Most cued visitors looked at all of six exhibits.
oCluster 1 included Energy from Death with media element, Oxygenator, Termitarium, Termite gut, Hot Pile, Bacteriapolis, introductory label, pithy statements, and section title. (Digital images of cluster available)

Findings

What theme or common idea did visitors see?
o All but one person thought the group of exhibits had a common theme or idea.
o 13 of the 20 thought the common theme or idea was about energy (N=11) and eating (N=2).
o 3 of 20 thought the common theme or idea was about the circle/cycle of life.
o 2 of 20 thought the common theme or idea was about decomposition.
o 1 of 20 thought the common theme or idea was about micro-organisms.
o 1 of 20 did not think there was a common theme or idea.

Things to Consider
o We were not as successful with this evaluation compared to the Pre-Test evaluation of Energy/Eating. It was more obvious to visitors in the Pre-test that the exhibits were about energy/eating (Pretest: 17 of 20 compared to Cluster 1: 13 of 20). It also took visitors a little more probing to get them to a common theme/idea.

o When visitors said energy they usually were referring to

o Please refer to data sheet for visitor responses.

Which exhibits did visitors feel didn’t really fit the theme as well?
o 6 of 20 thought Bacteriapolis didn’t fit the theme as well.
o 3 of 20 thought Oxygenator didn’t fit the theme as well.
o 2 of 20 thought Termite gut didn’t fit the theme as well.
o 2 of 20 thought Termitarium didn’t fit the theme as well.
o 1 of 20 thought Hot Pile didn’t fit the theme as well.

Things to Consider
o For Bacteriapolis, most visitors mentioned that they didn’t understand what was going on or happening, wanted to know what was in there, and what energy had to do with it. Some also commented that there wasn’t much to do beyond looking at it. Most wanted more of an explanation. The good news is that we are planning on doing most of these things in the next prototype, so we’re on track.
o For Oxygenator, the only reason visitors really gave was that it seemed a bit out of place with the rest of the exhibits or that it was the only one who got energy from the sun and the rest of the exhibits got in energy from death. Beyond that we couldn’t get them to further articulate why.
o For the rest of the exhibits, I don’t feel we need to be too concerned about them.


Did visitors notice title, introductory label, and pithy statements?
Title
o 5 of 20 saw and read the title, "Life Uses Energy"
o 14 of 20 did not see or read the title, "Life Uses Energy"
o 1 of 20 saw but says they didn’t read it
Introductory Label
o 8 of 20 did see and read the introductory label
o 9 of 20 did not see or read the introductory label
o 3 of 20 saw but decided not to read the label
Pithy Statements
o 10 of 20 did see and read some if not all of the pithy statements
o 8 of 20 did not see or read the pithy statements
o 2 of 20 saw but decided not to read the pithy statements

Things to Consider
o Half of the visitors saw and read the pithy statements. A little less than half saw and read the introductory label. The title was the least seen or read of the three.
o About the title, some people mentioned the font color and type was hard to notice and read against the images. I think it would be a good idea to make it more obvious either through color, placement or size.
o Title should be closer to the introduction text so they are seen and read together.
o The pithy statement that mentions "photosynthesis" should be formatted like the other two to avoid confusion of possibly appearing to be another introductory label. This pity statement appeared to be the least referenced in the responses, we might want to reconsider using another pithy statement instead.
Pithy Statements: what did visitors think they were communicating?
o 15 of 20 visitors thought the statements were about energy (N=13) and importance of sun/light (N=2).
o 2 of 20 visitors thought they were about the cycle of life.
o 2 of 20 visitors thought they were about conservation/environmental responsibility.
o 1 of 20 visitors could not say what it was about.
Things to Consider
o When visitors said energy they usually were referring to

o Please refer to data sheet for visitor responses

Introductory Label: what did visitors think it was communicating?
o 17 of 20 thought the label was about different aspects of energy.
o 2 of 20 thought the label was about how all living things need to survive.
o 1 of 20 thought the label was about the cycle of life.

Things to Consider
o This finding is very similar to the Pre-Test 1(18 of 20 visitors) who thought the label was about different aspects of energy.
o When visitors said energy they usually were referring to

o Please refer to data sheet for visitor responses.

Did visitors think title accurately described the theme of this group of exhibits?
o 15 of 20 visitors thought the title accurately described the group of exhibits.
o 5 of 20 visitors did not think the title accurately described the group of exhibits.

Things to Consider
o Some visitor title suggestions were: