3 SEPTEMBER 1999
ORDER OF INFORMATION IN OBJECT LABELS
PROTOTYPING RESEARCH REPORT 7
Dates of evaluation: 31 July, 4 & 5 August 1999
Brief for Evaluation
Different methods of organising core information (artists’ names, dates, materials, place
of manufacture, acquisition number, etc.) will be tested on visitors. We are looking
specifically at what order this information should come in and how much should come
before the main commentary text.
This piece of research is about the principles of text layout rather than the specific design.
Description of prototype and testing situation
Four alternative text formats for four objects were produced. The content of each format
was the same and only the arrangement of content differed. The objects were: a
Chinoiserie chair from Badminton House, the Chinese Musicians ceramic centrepiece,
the Beckford cup and cover, and a bust of Charles II. The objects were considered in
turn, with a sample of around 25 people for each.
Each label had the title at the top followed by four alternative formats:
A. 1. Commentary (larger font size)
2. Date & museum details
3. Acquisition details
B. 1. Date & materials
2. Museum details
3. Commentary (larger font size)
4. Acquisition details
C. 1. Museum details in prose (larger font size)
2. Commentary (larger font size)
3. Acquisition details
D.
1. Museum details, including date
2. Commentary (larger font size)
3. Acquisition details
See Appendix 1 for a sample set showing the four layouts.
Testing was carried out in the Best of British galleries. The four alternative formats for an
object were positioned side by side across a board, which was hung on a stand so that it
would be at comfortable reading height when visitors were sitting on a stool in front of
the stand. The stand was always placed in front of the object the labels referred to so that
it was in full view of visitors.
The four formats were numbered on the back from one to four in a random manner. They
were then arranged from left to right from one to four, so that the formats were not
always presented in the same order. The order of the four formats was rotated after a
minimum of six interviews so that the position of any particular one might not overly
influence the visitors’ choice and the overall findings (e.g. everyone preferring the label
on the left because that was the one they read first).
It was explained to visitors that the four labels in front of them contained the same
information but it was, in each case, presented in a different order or manner. The
question was ‘Which order of information do you prefer for the type of item in front of
you?’. A prompt ‘With an item like this, what information is the first you would look for,
what is most important to you?’ was used. Visitors were then asked to read the labels and
to make their choice.
After the 39th interview it was decided to ask visitors to estimate how many visits to
museums they had made in the past year (‘from last summer to this one, including this
visit’). This decision was prompted by a comment from a visitor. The researcher
conjectured that frequent museum visitors might have become habituated to a particular
generic format, which they might, conservatively, tend to select. It was imagined that
less frequent visitors might be freer in their choice of format and that the choice of
frequent visitors may not suit the average visitor.
Description of the sample
106
Male = 38
Female = 68
Under 25 yrs = 30
Age
25-34 yrs = 19
35-44 yrs = 21
45-54 yrs = 20
55 plus yrs = 16
English as first language Yes = 63
No = 43
Number of people
Gender
Visitors were from: UK (38), USA (22), France (5), Malta (4), Italy (4), Poland (3),
Taiwan (3) and two each from: Hungary, Finland, Belgium, Japan, Kenya, South, Africa,
Holland and Brazil and one each from: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Greece,
Canada, Turkey, Israel, Russia, Spain, Mauritius and Australia.
Findings related to the brief
The table below illustrates the findings from the four objects. It can be seen that Format
B is a strong first choice, being selected first for all four. For those considering the chair,
the ceramic centrepiece and the Beckford cup and cover, Format B was given well over
half of all choices. Format B is a weaker first choice for the Charles II sculpture, getting
under half of all choices, although still more than any of the other formats.
Object
Format
Total
A B C
D
Chair
6 16 4 1
27
Ceramic centrepiece 5 14 2 3
24
Cup
5 18 3 1
27
Sculpture
5 11 5 7
28
21 59 14 12 106
Total
The table below illustrates that Format B, which has four paragraphs detailing date &
materials, Museum details, commentary, and acquisition details, is the clear first choice
for visitors with fifty-six per cent selecting it. Format D (Museum details, commentary
and acquisition details) is clearly not favoured. Format C (Museum details in prose,
commentary, acquisition details) is also clearly not favoured. Format A, starting with
prose commentary was first choice for one fifth of the sample. The ease of reading and
obtaining information associated with descriptive prose (which is also in a larger font
than the acquisition details etc.) is clearly attractive to a significant section of the
museum audience.
Format
A
B
C
D
Total
%
20
56
13
11
100
No.
21
59
14
12
106
Choice of formats according to frequency of museum visiting
Sixty-seven visitors were asked to estimate the number of times they had visited a
museum in the past year, including the visit they were undertaking at the time of
interview. It was found that the people sampled were very experienced museum visitors
with only ten per cent making one visit in a year (this visit) and twenty-two per cent
making one to two visits in the past year. Some visitors said that they made lots of
museum visits because they were always going on organised tours for their holidays.
The range of visits made was one to 25. The average (mean) number of visits made was
nine. The median (middle value) visit number was six while the modal (most common)
number was ten. The table below illustrates the visiting pattern of this sample.
Visits repor-ted
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 13 14 15 20 25
No. of visitors
7 8 5 5 6 6 1 1 10 1
1
5
8
3
Considering the size of the sample, the museum-visiting pattern did not appear to affect
the Format choice. For Format A the range of visits was one to 20 with seven as the
average. For Format B the range of visits was one to 25 with nine as the average. For
Format C the range of visits was one to 15 with seven as the average. For Format D the
range of visits was four to 20 with 12 as the average.
Comments from visitors
From those choosing Format B (56%)
• Dates are important first and then techniques and who did it - the logical order for me.
• It’s more interesting to have the description first and then the talk. Dates are important.
• I tend to look for dates and a description of what was made first. I usually take the bits
I want and the date is always first.
• You see the date first and then details and then the general. The date is important and
then who made it. I really like the story part - it’s just for information.
• For me - date, general and then the technical. I always look for the date first so this is
the nearest to best for me. I then look at where it is from but I only read bits of labels
unless I’m really interested.
• It’s important to date the thing first and what it’s made of. I like the general stuff after
the details because it’s just opinion really and it should have to wait till the specifics
are given. Most of the time I read bits but always the name, date and who made it.
• I like the date first and the information is separated out into categories. I like the
museum talk - it all fits into pigeonholes.
• The date is really important and then details.
• I look at the date first then because it’s furniture (chair) I want to see what it’s made of.
The context at the end is good.
• I like the dates and what it’s made of first for this sort of thing (chair).
• I like to know the material - it helps me to see if I want to keep on reading.
• You get the description first and then the general stuff and that’s good.
• I’m impressed by the age of a thing so I always look for the date first. With this you get
the basic information in two lines. In this place you won’t read everything - if
something catches your eye you get the date and material and the chap who knocked
it out and that draws you on.
• It just goes right down. You get the date and designer straight away and then the
description and how you [V&A] got it.
• I like item, date and material, maybe I’m used to that - then what it is and then tell me
about it. Age is important - it holds attention.
• Short paragraphs are easier to read - you can pick up information.
• It’s good to have more breaks so you can pick it out - I go for dates and background.
• I like dates and that arrangement chunks the information. I would probably skim the
second paragraph.
• It gives the date and materials before you get the rest.
• There is not much difference between them but this is best because it has more
paragraphs and the extra segments will help me to skim. The date at the top is very
relevant for me and for something like this [centrepiece], the material.
• I like it because I’m an art history student and it’s separated in paragraphs and you find
what you want very easily - usually the maker, then date and other things.
• I generally look at things first [he did so] and this seems the rhythm I’m used to reading
- when, what, who, what it means and who owns it. I go eight to 12 times a year to
museums and this is the label I’m used to. I can skip well with this one. I usually
select from a label but odds are I’ll finish it if I start.
• Dates are the most important thing - they’re first and then I would really like general
information so this is OK.
• I like the divisions - you can just go to the bits you want. The date is not particularly
important to me.
• It lets you skip. You want to get information and facts quickly and then get drawn in.
• I like the date immediately and then the medium.
• Date first is best. It’s easier with more paragraphs.
• Knowing about context and date first is better than finding out later. It also looks more
professional.
• It’s easier to read and you get the facts straightaway. How much I read depends on
interest and if I have to work [A-level Art student].
• It gives me the important things first and I have lots to see - if I’m interested I can read
more.
• I want to know dates first then materials, artist and general chat. But I really like the
date first. I probably read half of all the labels I look at all the way through.
• When it is made, and what it is made of, gives you an idea of the period it comes from an historical context.
• I like to know what it is instantly without having to read the history.
• I go for the date first.
• You see the date, designer and then get further information.
• Definitely - I want the overall idea first. I don’t usually read right through but the
bigger letters here would get me interested in all of it. It starts with the collector and
designers so you know what goes on.
• You know right away what things are. I’m interested in the general information.
• It gives you a choice - basic information and the rest. You get the description of the
object first. With this you don’t have to filter out information.
• The description of the object is good and easy to read out to a blind person [her
companion was blind].
• I like the paragraphs - I like to see what things are. Dates don’t always mean much but
I like to put things in the context of what history I know.
• It’s organised.
• It shows the date - that’s important for an idea of the period of the time.
• The order is good - I like the date and materials first.
• It’s split into paragraphs so it is easy to read. Mostly I read a label if it has a name on it
I know or if an object is very interesting.
• It’s organised. The date is important. I like to guess what date something is and if I get
it that’s cool.
• The date and designer are important and a good number of paragraphs.
• The date first is good. English can get difficult for me.
• It has more sections and is more explicit. It helps me to read English [Italian visitor].
• The date and artist are of first importance to me and then the description. If I don’t
want your description I can do one of my own.
• It starts off short and is very good if you don’t have time to read the detail.
• I think first of how old it is and it tells you straight away. I read everything if I’m
interested. I also like to know why it was made.
• I like the split of details - the sections. I like the interpretation after the facts. The
shape of that is nice.
• I get all the dates quickly.
• The date first and then the sculptor - I don’t care what it is made of. I want to know
about the sculptor, then the subject and then any story about the piece. I don’t like
museum numbers at the bottom.
• The paragraphs separate things.
• The date is really important - put it in bold. The broken out points are good.
• It is well ordered and accessible.
• It is split up and easy to read if you are not English.
From those choosing Format A (20%)
• It’s better - it’s didactic.
• It’s pedagogic.
• What grabs me is the date first and then informal information. If it’s a statue I like the
history of the piece. For this [chair] where it came from and its history is important.
It’s always nice to have the date first. I tend to read all the label - it’s important to
understand what you are looking at first and then the technical stuff. In the main hall
you have a story of a statue which was a present to a chain of six people. That sort of
grabbing information is good.
• You get the general information first - I only read for the nuance of what I’m looking at.
• I like being told what I’m looking at straight away. I want the history and then the rest.
• You get the narrative first and it tells you a wee bit about it and you might only want to
go as far as that, but you have the rest there. There is such a lot in the museum - you
want to know briefly about it - you want a general idea.
• You find out about it first and then get the history of it. There are so many things in the
museum and this is easiest.
• It gives you the information first and then if you want to know more. I can just read the
first paragraph if I want.
• I like what it is first. I visit museums a lot because I go on tours.
• I’m definitely not interested in the date first. On this one I would like it all larger print
because it’s easier to read.
• I prefer this because it gives general information.
• I like a friendly introduction of general interest.
• I like a bit of detail about the object and then all the details. This gives you interest
about what you are interested in. I only read what something is made of - dates are
not important, they are just numbers.
• It’s more interesting - the way the writing starts off.
• I need a title to say who the subject is [sculpture]. I like this layout because the
explanation follows the title. I like the way it is expressed with the details last.
• I like to know the history - what I’m looking at - first before a list of facts.
• The museum information is a list - technical stuff which should go at the bottom - it’s
off-putting at the top. This tells the story first.
• I like the descriptive writing.
From those choosing Format C (13%)
• It’s easier to read and I grasp it all at once.
• I like the easy language - I just read the bits I like.
• It follows on and is more straightforward.
• It’s for people of all levels - straightforward and easy to understand. When you are
looking at lots of things in a museum you don’t want to be bombarded.
• The date was early on and I like the narrative presentation.
• The others are clinical and this one gets into telling me about it - it’s factual and
detailed but graceful at the same time.
• The only thing I look for in the details is the date. I like the narrative form otherwise
the presentation of details is very dry - and the date came early on.
• It suits me - it just tells you. It’s especially good for someone who knows nothing about
the cup.
• The story - I’d rather know about the history than all the museum stuff. I don’t often
read labels - I like to look.
• I want to know about the sculptor himself first and it gives a little information first. I
like easy expression when I read labels.
• It tells you the date and fabric. I go straight to general information first as a rule and
don’t like packages of museum details in a text.
• It’s presented generally and is an easy entrance to finding out about the sculpture. A list
of facts is dry - OK for study but not for visiting.
• It is better when you see a sculpture to know the date and sculptor and it is better in
ordinary writing.
• You get the important information first. My difficulty with English makes these
sentences easier to comprehend.
From those choosing Format D (11%)
• I like dates first and its layout.
• It gives you the essentials about the piece - well if you don’t want to read it all. My
reading depends on the time of day.
• I like the order of information.
• The date is very important and the maker and they would help me to understand the
general text.
• The date is the first thing I look for. I like to see how things were used.
• It gives me all my information quickly - the relevant stuff. I definitely would read the
narrative. I skim labels. Your labels in the costume gallery are difficult - the
numbers are too small.
• I like the list first.
• It’s more straightforward and the most important thing is the date. The date helps you
to slot things in place.
• It’s very clear and you can pick out what you want to know. It’s the European way of
labels.
• The list is there and if you are not that interested you can jump to the bottom. This is
what I’m used to.
• I like the date and the details separated.
• The labels should all be longer, perhaps double, in the general background section.
This arrangement is most accessible.
Evaluator’s comments and suggestions
• Format B is the clear favourite and should be considered for labels in the British
Galleries Project. Visitors value it for two reasons, as the comments listed below
show.
• Firstly, they value Format B for the way it picks out the date by separating it out from
the rest of the other ‘hard’ information (except for the materials). Visitors appear to
use the date to give themselves access to their personal conception of a period in
history and are most anxious to be given one. It is evident from the comments that
during a visit to the Victoria and Albert Museum quite a lot of cognitive activity
related to the building and adjusting of personal historical frameworks must be
undertaken. Visitors who selected other formats also mentioned their interest in dates.
• Secondly, visitors value Format B for its four paragraphs, as opposed to the three
paragraphs offered by each of the other formats. Visitors see the four paragraphs as
giving them lots of freedom for ‘chunking’ (grouping information) and skim-reading
behaviours. This allows them to feel more in control of both how they access
information and select it.
• One fifth of the sample liked Format A for its initial introduction in narrative style.
There are two attributes in force in this context. While many of the comments made
about format A valued its general, narrative introduction saying it was easy to read, it
was also easy to read (physically) because it began in a larger font (although no
larger than the commentary in the other labels). Visitors clearly value the narrative
approach and this would be valued on another level of labelling within the galleries.
Actions
• The order of information that will be used for object labels will be based the aspects of
Format B liked by visitors, i.e. date and materials will come immediately after the
title, and the information will be presented as four groups. There is one alteration that
incorporates the aspect of Format A (visitors’ second choice) that visitors liked,
namely the narrative commentary coming early on.
• The order of information will be as follows:
- Title
- Date
- Materials
- Narrative commentary
- Other ‘hard’ information, e.g. artist/designer/maker, place of manufacture,
commission details etc.
- Acquisition details
- Museum number
• The four groups, excluding the title, will be:
1. Date and materials
2. Commentary
3. Other ‘hard’ information
4. Acquisition details and museum number
There will be a space between each group to facilitate visitors’ skim reading and
to help them absorb the information.
• The ‘hard’ information will be presented using short phrases not free-flowing prose.
• The aim will be to increase the font size of the date and materials so that they stand out
more than the other ‘hard’ information.
APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLES OF LABEL FORMATS
These are shown in the font size and format used for testing.
A
CUP AND COVER FROM WILLIAM BECKFORD’S
COLLECTION
The collector, William Beckford, commissioned a large number of
cups like this one, in imitation of Italian Renaissance examples.
The design of the metal mounts is based on a type of Islamic
decoration known as moresque. It shows Beckford’s advanced
taste, as it was not until around 1850 that this style became widely
used in silver design.
Hallmark for 1815-1816
Designed by William Beckford (born at Fonthill, Wiltshire in 1759, died in
Bath, 1844) and Gregorio Franchi (born in Portugal 1770, died in London,
1828)
Sponsor’s mark of James Aldridge (active 1798-1843)
Made in London
Cup and cover in agate, the stem of chalcedony, set with rubies and mounted
in gilded silver
Museum No. 428-1882
B
CUP AND COVER FROM WILLIAM BECKFORD’S
COLLECTION
Hallmark for 1815-1816
Cup and cover in agate, the stem of chalcedony, set with rubies and mounted
in gilded silver
Designed by William Beckford (born at Fonthill, Wiltshire in 1759, died in
Bath, 1844) and Gregorio Franchi (born in Portugal 1770, died in London,
1828)
Sponsor’s mark of James Aldridge (active 1798-1843)
Made in London
The collector, William Beckford, commissioned a large number of
cups like this one, in imitation of Italian Renaissance examples.
The design of the metal mounts is based on a type of Islamic
decoration known as moresque. It shows Beckford’s advanced
taste, as it was not until around 1850 that this style became widely
used in silver design.
Museum No. 428-1882
C
CUP AND COVER FROM WILLIAM BECKFORD’S
COLLECTION
This cup was designed by the collector, William Beckford (born at
Fonthill, Wiltshire in 1759, died in Bath, 1844) and his companion,
Gregorio Franchi (born in Portugal 1770, died in London, 1828). It
was hallmarked in 1815-1816 and carries the sponsor’s name of
James Aldridge, a silversmith who was working in London
between 1798 and 1843. The cup and cover are made of agate, the
stem of chalcedony. They are set with rubies and mounted with
gilded silver.
Beckford commissioned a large number of cups like this one, in
imitation of Italian Renaissance examples. The design of the metal
mounts is based on a type of Islamic decoration known as
moresque. It shows Beckford’s advanced taste, as it was not until
around 1850 that this style became widely used in silver design.
Museum No. 428-1882
D
CUP AND COVER FROM WILLIAM BECKFORD’S
COLLECTION
Hallmark for 1815-1816
Designed by William Beckford (born at Fonthill, Wiltshire in 1759, died in
Bath, 1844) and Gregorio Franchi (born in Portugal 1770, died in London,
1828)
Sponsor’s mark of James Aldridge (active 1798-1843)
Made in London
Cup and cover in agate, the stem of chalcedony, set with rubies and mounted
in gilded silver
The collector, William Beckford, commissioned a large number of
cups like this one, in imitation of Italian Renaissance examples.
The design of the metal mounts is based on a type of Islamic
decoration known as moresque. It shows Beckford’s advanced
taste, as it was not until around 1850 that this style became widely
used in silver design.
Museum No. 428-1882