In this post, I am going to examine and reflect on the navigation and architecture of the gallery. Navigation is arguably the most important aspect to get right for the visitor. I think Kuula's software and navigation are fairly intuitive. However, to move around the gallery, one must click on a link (jump point) that takes you to a different 360 viewpoint.
I think, because of the nature of a VR tour experience, the visitor can be fairly forgiving when it comes to the number of links they have to click to get to the important information. But I think this gallery really stretches the user's patience. For example, to get to the end gallery for HE Fine Art (fairly representative of site visits) one must click on nine links! six more than an acceptable three. To negate this, I added a map, but that still entails six clicks to get to the same point. This is still unacceptable.
The number of visitors per click reduce considerably over that journey and is really interesting to unpick (and backs up a lot of research into this area).
CLICK NUMBER OF VISITORS (31/08/21)
Long route
0 1843 (start)
1 672
2 427
3 213
4 303
5 390 (first link in HE fine art gallery)
6 415
7 383
8 401
9 94 (furthest link in HE fine art gallery)
Via Map
0 1843 (start)
1 570 (map)
2 390 (first link in HE fine art gallery)
3 415
4 383
5 401
6 94 (furthest link in HE fine art gallery)
The starting figure is split three ways between the HE, FE galleries and the map. After that, the number of visitors reduces a lot over the next two/three clicks. Click numbers for four to eight (long route) and three to five (map) deviate quite a lot due to people revisiting links as they move around the gallery. However, 94 visits to the furthest link tell us that the number of individual visitors declines by the time they get there.
I don't have access to more detailed click data so it's hard to work out exactly how people are moving around the gallery and producing the unusual numbers. But the reduction from the first to the last click in the gallery (390 to 94) shows that the number of clicks drop significantly and must represent a degree of visitor fatigue.
I attempted to bring down the overall number of clicks by introducing the map. However, a map that represented all the rooms in the gallery would have looked incredibly complex, especially as there is a lot of overlap ...one of the useful things about virtual galleries is that they can occupy the same space, but it makes creating a map of the structure very difficult!
The number of clicks-to-data is something I must address seriously going forwards. It may be acceptable in this context, but certainly not in a more commercial environment. Perhaps, a creative way around this will appear. Any ideas?
I based the galley design on the architectural features of the Blackpool School of Arts art deco campus. Especially its foyer and staircase. I think this would have worked well, from a navigation point of view, if I had stuck to the original concept, as I did for the FE galleries...
However, when I was presented with the scorpion (created by a HE fine art student), I saw an opportunity to mix things up a bit and utilise it as an oversized sculpture in the HE foyer, because I thought the space seemed a bit empty. Unfortunately, this removed the central jump-point which would have made navigating to the different galleries a lot easier. Instead, I was left with a corner view, such that the columns covered the signs and doorways to some of the galleries.
I decided to go with the giant scorpion and accept that it was going to compromise some of the navigation, but I thought it was worth it at the time and felt it made the experience more interesting. I am not so sure now. I think the nod to LBTGQIA+ and Pride Month, in the FE foyer, is more subtle and sophisticated (and of course it doesn't hinder the navigation).
The navigation through the individual exhibition spaces works very well visually, with the jump-points based around a cellular plan. I used an asymmetric approach to the design and you'll notice that the doors and layouts are offset which means the viewer can decide whether to access the rooms fully or not. This is probably the most successful part of the gallery and is most likely down to classical architectural design theory being put into practice. Indeed (as I have mentioned before) I have a growing interest and respect for architecture, that I want to pursue more as the VR Gallery Project moves forward.
If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.
