If the future is mobile, how is the museum community experiencing that future, what are their ambitions within it, and in which areas is further knowledge share required? It was specifically to gain an insight into questions such as these that the 2010 International Museums and Mobile survey was developed. This paper will present and analyse the responses of the 600+ museum professionals that participated in this research. The 2010 International Museums and Mobile Survey reached out to museum professionals internationally to share their perspectives and understanding of mobile interpretation at their institutions. Dividing respondents into four categories – those from institutions that already used mobile interpretation, those from institutions that were planning to use mobile interpretation tools, those from institutions that had no plans to use mobile interpretation tools, and those from vendors working in this field – the survey sought to gain an insight into the everyday realities of developing, delivering and sustaining mobile interpretation provisions in an institution. The survey questions related to the objectives of, and target audience for, an institution’s mobile interpretation experience; the challenges faced by institutions in planning and operating a mobile interpretation experience; and what strategies were used to measure the success of these experiences. Other questions probed the aspects of mobile interpretation in which individuals felt there were insufficient knowledge share, and also about what excited them most in this field. Over 600 museum professionals responded to the survey, sharing their views on the above questions. Responses were received from individuals working in institutions with a wide variety of backgrounds and profiles: institutions in over twenty countries are represented in the results; two thirds of all responses were from institutions that did not use mobile interpretation tools, and of which half were planning to in the twelve months, and half had no such plans. Whilst a quarter of responses came from within institutions that boast an annual attendance upwards of 250,000 visitors, more than half had annual attendance of under 50,000 visitors (and less than 1 staff member working in digital media). Drawing on this data source, this Paper will draw out the key trends that arise, and forward analysis on their context and implications for the community. It will explore opinions on issues ranging from whether mobile interpretation should be available at an additional cost to visitors, to how to define the target audience for a mobile interpretation tool (i.e. is it just “those that like audio guides”?). And from whether in five years time museums will still be required to provide a hardware platform to visitors for the mobile experience, to the obstacles those entering the field are facing today. Through this analysis, this paper aims to provide guidance to those museums entering this field for the first time, create awareness of those areas where further knowledge share is required (and hopefully identify those institutions best placed to provide such knowledge), and ultimately provide a valuable tool on which to further inform debates in this field. A presentation from Museums and the Web 2011 (MW2011).

2. > MW2011

>
Going Mobile?: insights into the museum
community’s perspectives on mobile
interpretation.
>
Loïc Tallon. (Pocket-Proof, UK).
> Isabel Froes. (IT University of Copenhagen,
Denmark).
> In less than 480 seconds

3. www.museums-mobile.net/survey

5. If the future is mobile, how is the museum community
developing within that future, what are the
challenges they face within it, and in which directions
should we be seeking to evolve our collective
knowledge share?

6. > Objectives
> Challenges
> Future
> Research Needs

7. About the 2011 survey & respondents…

8. 738 museum professionals
participated.
2010: 230ish responses

9. Predominantly from institutions based in
the USA (80%)
27 countries in total, inc. Canada, UK,
Australia, France, Denmark, Japan, and
Peru.


10. not a random sample
it’s a comparative sample

11. Figure 03: Current use of, or existence of plans to use, mobile
interpretation tools at respondent’s Institution.

12. 35% were from History Museums.
23% working in Art Galleries.
49% worked in Institutions with an annual attendance of <
50,000 visitors.
10% came from Institutions with more than one million.
45% work in an Institution with less than one full
time staff working in digital programmes.
45% reported a staff of between one and five members.
10% had more than five members of staff dedicated to
digital.

13. When we publish the results, objective is to
report results w/o any analysis.
Leave a gap in which anyone can draw
their own conclusions / observations.
www.museums-mobile.net/survey

14. Nine observations…
1. Institutions are increasingly ambitious with mobile interpretation.
2. Mobile interpretation is increasingly seen as a means of attracting new
visitors / visitor groups.
3. Institutions are unspecific on the target audience is for their mobile
interpretation tools
4. Visitor take-up of the mobile interpretation tool is (still) the elephant in the
room.
5. Experimentation is a primary objective for institutions use of mobile
interpretation.
6. How to measure the success of a mobile interpretation tool remains
uncertain.
7. Experience changes everything.
8. Institutions with first hand experience are in the best position to fulfill the
community’s knowledge share needs.
9. It’s about the content, not the technology.

15. 2. Mobile is increasingly seen as a means of
attracting new visitors / visitor groups.

16. Figure 9: Which or the following are ‘Very Important’ objectives of your /
a Institution’s mobile interpretation tool? (Chart shows only top six most
popular responses of the thirteen available in the survey).

17. Figure 5: Proportion of respondents who selected to “attract new
visitors / new types of visitors” as an objective of their / an
Institution’s mobile interpretation tool.

18. Who are these new ‘visitors’?
On/off-site visitors/users.

19. 3.
Institution’s are unspecific on the target audience
is for their mobile interpretation tool.

20. Figure 6: Responses to which of the following best describes
the target audience(s) for their institution's mobile interpretation
tool?

21. Are these really a target audience?
• All visitors. (63%)
• Visitors who want an in-depth experience.
(42%)
• Visitors that like audio guides. (39%)
• Adult visitors. (38%)
A general audience for mobile?

22. 4. Visitor take-up of the mobile interpretation tool
is (still?) the elephant in the room.

23. Figure 11: Ranking out of nine for the challenges of developing
and operating a mobile interpretation tool at an institution. (9 =
highest ranking)

24. Figure 7: Ranking out of nine for the challenge of
Encouraging take-up of the Mobile by Visitors. (9 =
highest ranking).

25. Visitors are not yet fighting in line
to take our mobile experiences…
Walkman link.

26. THANK YOU!
www.museums-mobile.net/survey
And please participate in the 2012 survey!
Artwork by Leo Caillard, Art Game. 2011.
http://www.leocaillard.com/