24 AUGUST 2000
TEXT: OBJECT LABEL FORMAT
PROTOTYPING RESEARCH REPORT 32
Date of evaluation: 21 August, 2000
Brief for evaluation
The Museum wishes to establish:
• Whether italics or non-italics is better for the production information (materials, maker,
etc.) that comes after the commentary on object labels. This will be assessed in terms
of legibility and whether it is clear that the hard information is a different type of
information to the commentary.
For example:
Italics
Consumers admired Chinese porcelain for its startling whiteness and translucency…
This gave a white ground for decoration but it was fragile and chipped easily.
Tin-glazed earthenware (Delftware), painted in colours
Made in Bristol, England
Roman
Consumers admired Chinese porcelain for its startling whiteness and translucency…
This gave a white ground for decoration but it was fragile and chipped easily.
Tin-glazed earthenware (Delftware), painted in colours
Made in Bristol, England
• What format visitors prefer for the title on object labels:
A. the key word in capitals on a single line with further descriptive text on the next
line in upper and lower case
e.g. PLATE
imitating Chinese porcelain
B. the key word in capitals followed by descriptive text running on (i.e. not separated
onto the next line) and going onto a second line if necessary
e.g. PLATE imitating Chinese porcelain
C. sentence case for all, going onto a second line if necessary
e.g. Plate imitating Chinese porcelain
Description of prototype and testing situation
The test was conducted in a seminar room adjacent to the Silver Gallery in order that
labels could be swiftly changed in front of objects arranged on a table. Interviewees were
th
recruited from the Silver Gallery. Five items of 18 -century Chinoiserie were used: a
plate, vase, and punch pot, together with photographs standing in for a centrepiece and
covered vase.
The labels for the five objects were presented as a strip. Four different strips were used.
One each for the three different title formats and one further strip where the title was in
Format A and the production information was in italics (on the other strips the production
information was in Roman).
For the italics test: The two strips of labels were used, one having the production
information in italics and one without. Both had the title in Format A. Visitors were
asked to choose an item which interested them and then to read the two text formats
related to it, after which they would be asked some questions. The questions were:
• Can you work out why, on one label, some text is in italics and some not ?
• Which format is easier to read? Which do you like best?
• Do you feel strongly about that choice? You are quite definite?
For the title format test: The three format options were presented to the same visitors and
they were asked to consider which one was easiest to read and, also, looked good as a
text layout. Again, they were asked whether they felt strongly about their preference.
Description of sample
20
Male = 10
Female = 10
Under 25 yrs = 2
Age
25-34 yrs = 5
35-44 yrs = 4
45-54 yrs = 4
55 plus yrs = 5
English as first language Yes =11
No = 9
Number of people
Gender
Visitors were from UK (10); Portugal (3); Austria(2); Belgium (2); Spain (2); and
Australia (1).
Fourteen visitors were interviewed in groups of two and three in a group of three.
Findings relating to brief
Use of italics for production details
Eighteen of the twenty visitors strongly preferred to have access to production details in
italics. Visitors were very firm in their choice of italic script for this information saying
that it defined categories of information (commentary and production details), that it was
easier to read and that it helped them to decide what to read on the labels.
Of the two visitors who did not express a preference for italics, one said that he could see
why it was done but did not feel strongly about it. The second visitor said that he did not
have his reading glasses with him so the continuity of roman type seemed easier but that
if he had been wearing his glasses he would probably have chosen the
italic version.
Label title format
Seventeen of the twenty visitors strongly preferred Format A. That is, name of object in
capitals on the first line with brief description (around four words) in upper and lower
case underneath on a second line. Commonly offered reasons for this choice was that it
made it easier to read and to quickly capture information about the name of an object.
Several visitors commented that, though the names of the objects presented to them were
commonplace (plate, vase etc.) in a very big museum like the V&A, with many items in
it, some items were not at all commonplace and they might only want to know what a
thing was called - its name. That is, they often wanted answers to a ‘What is that?’
question and Format A would help with this and it was very important that any subsidiary
information was on a second line.
Two visitors preferred Format B. That is, name of object in capitals with brief
description in upper and lower case on the same line. One visitor said that there was ‘not
much difference in the information’ and the other that ‘it helps with the flow of
information’.
One visitor preferred Format C (all upper and lower case, running on), saying that she
‘wondered what the point of using capitals was’.
Issues raised by visitors/the evaluation
Both findings indicate that visitors prefer a text layout which allows them to do
something - to act. The action they want to be able to do is to visually discriminate
between different types of printed information so that they can refine their choice of what
to read if they do not wish to read an entire label. This response is very likely based on
past museum visiting experience as no visitor would read all of the labels of the objects
they see and often labels do not let visitors choose to read selectively, should they want to
do so.
Consistency in differentiating between different types of information on object labels
will allow visitors to learn, through constant use during a visit, to recognise different
categories of information and their placement. This would make life easier for the
pedestrian reader who wished to read selectively and, very likely, mean that more text
was read than if consistent visually defining scripts were not used.
Evaluator’s recommendations
• Use italics for the production information which follows the commentary on object
labels.
• Use capitals on a single line for the naming of objects (e.g. PLATE) with any brief
description in upper and lower case on a subsequent line, or lines (Format A).
Actions
• Italics will be used on for the production information on all object labels (plinth and
case labels).
• Capitals will be used for the naming of objects (e.g. PLATE). Wherever possible, the
descriptive information in the title will be put on a separate line. On occasions where
it is not possible, it will run on from the object name.