Visitor Research as a Component of Design for All

Visitor research is not just an important tool for developing cultural policy or simply in vogue at the moment; it also provides empirical data on our assumptions. For many years, this kind of information was collected on the basis of guestbook analyses, selective surveys (often with a scholastic focus) and “gut feelings,” and it tended to overlook differences between individual visitors and groups. What we need is structured data on users and on their motivations and reception in order to evaluate concepts and products, measure cultural participation and to identify optimisation potential.

Over the last few years, the House of the Wannsee Conference Memorial and Educational Site (GHWK) has been expanding its focus on visitor research. Current examples of applied methods, projects and data sources include the use of eye-tracking glasses and physiological sensors in order to study how the exhibition was received in 2022 (an article on the evaluation of the pilot study can be found here, in German: Gedenkstätten-Rundbrief Nr. 112, 12/23, S. 9-20). Surveys were also conducted at Nollendorfplatz, Ostkreuz and Wannsee railway stations. Random people there who had never been to our memorial were asked what they associated with the memorial site, what they wished to find there and what their reasons were for not visiting. Unfortunately, these studies, as well as the more than 4,000 interviews that have been conducted with individual visitors since 2019 as part of the cultural monitoring program (KulMon), online questionnaires, stakeholder and focus group discussions on contemporary relevance, and the expectations and motivations of Jews, cannot be addressed here. 

To explore the question of how the permanent exhibition is experienced by a diverse audience, we are presenting a preliminary impression here of the mixed methods approach that began in summer 2023. We look at how visitors rate our permanent exhibition and how they use the exhibition. Which texts do they read, how long do they use special features such as audio stations and do these features encourage interaction? 

Observations: How Do Our (Individual) Visitors Navigate Their Way Through the Permanent Exhibition?

In addition to the aforementioned eye-tracking project in Rooms 1 to 4, the GHWK decided in favour of using two tools: observing users (visitor tracking) and short interviews on how visitors perceive the exhibition (surveys). In collaboration with the sociologist Volker Schönert (CEO of VisitorChoice), 148 visitors were observed moving within Rooms 5 to 8. In addition, 111 exhibition visitors were interviewed for 5 to 10 minutes in short surveys. 

The aim of the observation was to record tendencies and basic patterns of navigation and perception within the permanent exhibition. Trained observers recorded detailed information in observation protocols on the movement patterns of visitors in Rooms 5 to 8. The observers kept a reasonable distance to the subjects and were discrete so as not to disturb or confuse anyone. They recorded, among other things, how long a person lingered in a certain area and how much “interaction” occurred at the respective stations, i.e. whether visitors spoke to each other or pointed out special features. Such interaction reveals how engaged and active visitors are in the exhibition; a high level of interaction can sometimes have the effect of promoting learning and understanding. 

The information graphics illustrate the measurement findings for each individual station. When evaluating and categorising results, it is wise to remember that most visitors had previously visited Rooms 1 to 4 and thus already absorbed a large amount of information and impressions. Therefore they may have already reached their saturation point by the time they entered Room 5. Based on the information gathered on all the observed visitors (n = 148), the total time spent in Rooms 5 to 8 amounted to about 11 minutes. Given the large number of exhibition features, including texts, film and audio sequences, documents, etc., this figure is quite low and suggests that, in general, visitors pass very selectively through the rooms observed in this study. These conclusions are supported by the following graphic, which shows only the observed visitors who actually noticed or used the corresponding stations. 

The analysis of the interviews shows that the exhibition design works for both people with and without prior knowledge of the subject. Comments frequently included the words “modern”, “not overloaded”, and noted that the information was not overwhelming. The majority of those surveyed at the end of the exhibition were impressed both by the content and the atmosphere of the exhibition. They described it as both factual and emotional. Some, however, criticised, the “overly sober presentation of people and events; too little emotion.”

Several interviewees commented positively on the exhibition’s interactivity. However, a smaller number of respondents expressed their preference for more “traditional” forms of information presentation, such as texts and photographs. 

Most of the interviewed exhibition visitors rated the atmosphere of the exhibition positively. Words such as “appropriate” and “respectful” were frequently used to characterise the atmosphere. They also noted that the exhibition had an emotional, sometimes oppressive effect. The structure of the exhibition was described as clear and plausible. However, some of the respondents admitted to having difficulty with the spatial orientation, for example at the beginning of the exhibition or regarding the audio guide reference numbers.

Nearly all the visitors surveyed in the short interviews rated the comprehensibility of the exhibition texts as excellent: 79 % said they were “very easy to understand” and 19 % said they were “easy to understand”. 

Several people requested more information on the general history of the museum and references to the present – they wanted the exhibition to address racism and discrimination. It was also suggested that the exhibition include English and Hebrew translations of documents. 

Potential – What Can We Do in the Future?

Unfortunately, we do not have comparable data on previous permanent exhibitions; the results are nevertheless valuable indicators of usage, satisfaction and optimisation potential. 

Although the data collected using the methods outlined above are subject to imprecision as a result of both social desirability bias (response bias) and the limitations on observable behaviour (e.g. was the person looking at an exhibit or the accompanying text?), qualitative methods - such as focus groups - can be employed to gain deeper insights into how individual aspects of the exhibition are received and what impact they have. 

In principle, the field of visitor research is proving extremely beneficial for the future because it allows us to identify what topics and aspects to consider when developing future programs. This applies not only to missing content, but also to effective redundancy: although certain topics are mentioned in the permanent exhibition, they may be overlooked by visitors because of their position within the room sequence, or due to the exhibition design or overcrowding. The use of AI tools to analyse large volumes of text, such as those added to the digital guestbook in different languages (currently over 45,000 lines), also promises to be an effective aid when used in combination with a wide variety of other methods. This will allow us to make even more reliable determinations about audience composition, cultural participation and reception behaviour and help us better understand motivations, relevance and barriers.

Author