On 30/07/2007, at 5:29 PM, DLewisARFM at aol.com wrote:

> Greetings all --
>
> I'm a new subscriber here.   I spent a bit of time perusing the  
> archives (fun
> topics) but didn't specifically find this query addressed, so I  
> tought I'd
> bring it up.
>
> We are in the final stages of fabricating free-standing exhibit  
> kiosks.
> All total there will be five separate kiosks (on per each time  
> period of the
> exhibit).   Each kiosk will house artifacts, interactives, and  
> exhibit text, and
> a computer/media-player element.    My question is about this media- 
> player....
>
> Initially I envisioned using a free-standing computer. I'm a Mac  
> person so I
> was considering a Mac Mini or a iMac, (perhaps with a touch- 
> screen), and using
> a web browser operating in a kiosk-mode. My exhibit fabricator is  
> strongly
> suggesting we use a self contained, compact flash media-player (he's
> recommending one of the "Medeawiz" all-in-one players).   He's  
> arguing that a media
> player is easier to program, less maintenance, and less expensive  
> than a
> free-standing computer.
>
> The proposed content on the player would primarily be video  
> (visitors would
> select one of four or six videos) but it would be nice to have the  
> flexibility
> to have vistors select/view additional exhibit text, photographs,  
> perhaps some
> accessions data, etc....   The web-browser scheme gives me the  
> ultimate in
> flexibility, I'd present the content as "web-pages" but then I do  
> see the
> advantages of a CF player.
>
> Questions -
> 1. Has anyone played with the Medeawiz players?   Can it handle non- 
> video
> content such as text pages or photographs?   I'm downloaded the  
> user manual
> (fairly spartan) and I see it has a 600x800 pixel touch-screen and  
> can handle
> multiple "tracks."   If I wanted to display five or ten photos (and  
> have visitors
> click though them one-at-a-time) would I load each photo as a  
> different track?
>  Is there a means to have visitors "scroll" though photos/text,  
> (using a
> scroll-bar or perhaps pages with arrows, hyper-links, whatever) or  
> would the
> photos/text/slide-show need to be converted to a video file?

Hi David,

There was a good thread mid-March on this list with the subject  
"videos in exhibits" which touched on some of your concerns. I have  
used the Medeawiz players (and others, both "solid-state" and hard- 
drive based) to replay video in exhibits.

My use of the Medeawiz was to continuously replay an attract loop and  
break out of that when a visitor touched an exhibit label mounted on  
the exterior of the display case, behind which was mounted a through- 
glass capacitive touch switch. The sort of device is ideal for this  
application and has performed reasonably well.

However in my opinion, and in this case,  the wealth of software  
options available to you (QuickTime, Flash, Director and web  
scripting languages) if you were to build a computer-driven kiosk  
would compensate for the reduced reliability associated with using a  
modern computer. You can create the interactive yourself without  
learning new tools and you have access to a broad community of  
developers and users who can give you hand if required. Perhaps your  
exhibit fabricator has been involved in a nightmare project in the  
past and quite reasonably is advocating a conservative approach using  
dedicated hardware.

The reasons that dedicated video players are preferred for simple  
video playback applications in museums are:

1. They are cheaper than a *new* PC (but perhaps the same price as a  
used computer that could play back the same digital video clip)
2. They can be a pleasure to set up - particularly if you have used  
them before and/or the documentation is thorough and well-written (or  
they can very frustrating)
3. They should be more reliable as there are no moving parts (but any  
electronic component can fail)

In terms of the reliability issue museum exhibits typically present a  
poor operating environment for general purpose computers as the  
interior surfaces are often left in an unsealed state by the  
fabricators, the interior attracts dust and is often never cleaned  
and the equipment spaces are often unventilated leading to overheating.

Software and operation system reliability issues when PC's are used  
to drive exhibits are all-to-often, unfortunately, caused by staff  
errors and a failure to undertake basic maintenance.
On the other handle it is asking for trouble to routinely upgrade the  
operating system, drivers, anti-virus software etc on a dedicated  
machine that is not networked and that is only ever called upon to  
run a single software application every day.

If these physical and environmental issues are addressed, and you are  
using a compact rugged little computer such as a Mac-Mini then the  
reliability issue versus a dedicated CF card player should reduce to  
the reliability of the hard drive.

Considering the system as in integrated whole, over its lifespan, if  
you a PC (as in personal computer) based approach you will not be  
tied to one particular touchscreen vendor and this is an important  
consideration if the display needs to be replaced in the future, as  
if the proprietory display is no longer available and your exhibit  
has been tightly fabricated around a particular touchscreen you may  
need to adapt the joinery.

>
> 2. I noticed the thread in the MCN-L archive about the Brooklyn  
> Museum having
> a Firefox kiosk browser -- does that work on a Mac, (I fear  
> not!?)   Anyone
> have a Mac web-browser with a good (easy to use) "kiosk mode?"    A  
> year or two
> ago I stumbled upon iCab (www.icab.de) and it looked like it'd do  
> the trick
> -- has anyone played with it?
>
> 3. As it stands now, for each kiosk we're specing a small (all-in-one)
> player/touch screen, and then adding a second larger "slave"  
> monitor for other
> visitors (family groups) to view the content.    Anyone have any  
> thoughts about
> that?    Would one (mid-sized) touch screen be better than one  
> small input device
> and a second larger slave monitor?

My clients have preferred a small (ie 17 inch screen) touchscreen for  
operator mounted low and at angle with a larger 40 inch LCD monitor  
mounted higher up and vertically as in their experience there will  
often be a group of less technically adventurous visitors (parents,  
grandparents) who are happy to stand back and watch someone else  
interact with the display.
>
> 4. I haven't dealt much with touch-screens, is there much
> maintenance/re-calibration that needs to be done to the Medeawiz  
> player screens?   Assuming we go
> with the free-standing computer option, are touch screens fairly  
> easy to
> connect and program to a Mac?

I have used 3M's capacitive touchscreens on a number of projects,  
where I have supplied the hardware, or been asked to evaluate the  
options and this brand has performed very reliably.
Unfortunately 3M do not appear to have a Mac OS X driver. My  
experience with SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) touchscreen technology in  
museum contexts is that they appear susceptible to dust buildup  
around the screen bezel causing regions of the screen to go dead.  
This problem may have been specific to the particular way these  
screens were mounted or the particular vendor.

In terms of building touchscreen interactive software from the  
computer's point-of-view the touchscreen works like a mouse so if a  
driver is available for your platform then implementing your  
interactive with a touchscreen is straightforward. You can start  
building your prototype with a mouse but you need to think about how  
the clicks are handled as a touchscreen must emulate the mouse  
buttons and with the 3M drivers at least there number of options as  
to how this can be configured. Inevitably people find that interfaces  
that work well with mice are too "fussy" for use with fingers and the  
target area of the icons must be increased.

>   Is Elo Touch the brand that everyone would
> recommend?   And if going with the free-standing computer option,  
> should we dump the
> touch-screen concept all together and go think about a trackball?

Wow - I wish I had read ahead to the part where you are trying to  
talk yourself out of using touchscreens :-)

Trackballs are cheaper than a touchscreen and are a great solution if  
you are on a tight budget per interactive, but if you were my client  
I would insist you use a "museum quality" ie "industrial quality"  
unit unless you want a lot of downtime.

I'm sure people on the list will have much more practical experience  
than I have with the usability issues associated with these two  
different input device alternatives, however a nicely designed  
touchscreen interface can be very beautiful and provide a very  
compelling experience for the visitor.


Michael Borthwick Consulting Pty. Ltd.
Museum Video Systems
Postal: GPO Box 1950, 380 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3001
Physical: Level 1, 384 Bridge Road, Richmond
Mobile Ph: + 61 418 345 800
http://www.michaelborthwick.com.au







Reply via email to