Listening to Visitors: Research Findings on Mobile Content

Alyson Webb, Frankly, Green + Webb ltd, UK, Laura Mann, Frankly, Green + Webb USA, USA


What kind of mobile content is most engaging for museum visitors? There is a body of recent literature on the opportunities and challenges of developing mobile interpretation for museum visitors (Samis 2007, Samis and Pau 2009, Petrie and Tallon 2010, Gangsei and Svenonius 2011) but surprisingly little research on mobile content itself.

At a moment when the technological barriers to offering a mobile guide are decreasing but the cost of content development remains high, we would be well-served by a thoughtful, evidence-driven look at mobile content. What resonates with visitors and what doesn’t? Do visitors expectations for mobile content differ between art museums, historic sites, and science museums? Where are we missing opportunities to connect with people?

This paper presents the results of mobile content research from a range of London cultural sites including the National Gallery, the Science Museum, and others.

Our paper will present key findings from the research and insights into patterns and trends that appear across the studies. Some of the findings confirm conventional wisdom while others suggest new approaches or unexpected priorities. But taken as a whole, the findings provide us with a set of operating principles for the development of successful mobile content.

Keywords: mobile, content, research, audio guide, mobile


What kind of mobile content is most engaging for museum visitors? And what impact does it have? There is surprisingly little research data on this question.

Discussion and development around mobile experiences has broadly – with a few honourable exceptions – focussed on the opportunities afforded by technology to offer ever more information to more visitors at a lower cost. In other words there was a perceived ‘problem’ with audio guides that could be resolved by technology – for example by enabling visitors to use their own devices, adding more functionality, more information, or adopting cross platform content publishing.

This tendency has been particularly pronounced – and the rate of change most rapid – over the last 15 years but in truth, as Tallon (2009) underlined, this has been an underlying theme in mobile guides since their origins in the late 50s. In organisations that are cash poor and inherently risk averse this is, perhaps, unsurprising. Creating content, as publishers and movie-makers know all too well, is expensive and risky.

But change is coming. Guides are no longer a stand-alone oddity of a product – they are just one of many digital platforms/services available to museums. Digital Media teams, operating often with very limited resources, need to develop a more strategic approach in order to decide which platforms to use and what type of content is required to ensure the greatest impact. Furthermore they need to be able to articulate and evidence that strategy in order to ensure buy-in (and budgets!) across the wider organisation with colleagues who are not always as digitally literate as we might hope.

In this context, it is vital that we start to ask deeper and more challenging questions around mobile guides: who are they reaching, what impact are they having and what content serves the visitor and the museum best?

The focus of this paper is a detailed study of an audio guide service and more specifically audio guide content carried out at the National Gallery in 2012/2013. Findings from mobile interpretation studies carried out at HMS Belfast and the Science Museum London are used to underscore or offer additional insight into particular issues particularly where we have begun to see broader patterns or differences that can illuminate specific issues.

The National Gallery Mobile Research Project: Background

The National Gallery has offered a random access guide to its permanent collection since the mid 1990s. The current service includes highlights content in multiple languages, family content, and themed content, plus ‘basic’ commentaries in English on almost every work displayed on the main floor of the Gallery. A significant proportion of what amounts to more than 45 hours of content was produced before 2000.

By late 2012, Charlotte Sexton (then Head of Digital at the Gallery) had taken responsibility for the audio guide service and, alongside, was developing a gallery-wide Digital Engagement Strategy. She approached us to support her on the mobile strand of this strategy and to develop a solid evidence-base for mobile that could be used to inform their decision-making and model future opportunities.

This paper will highlight a number of key findings from that study, focussing most closely on content, draw some comparisons with studies at other sites carried out across a similar period and offer some conclusions about what this research tells us about mobile content in museums more broadly.

The Research

Initial discussions identified some key research questions around which Gallery audiences were using the service and how it was affecting their experience; who wasn’t using the guide and why. We wanted to ensure that the results were not only actionable but relevant to the existing Gallery objectives and easily communicable across the organisation. As a result we decided to map our findings against the Gallery’s existing visit segmentation (by Morris Hargreaves McIntyre).

Alongside the research questions we also identified a group of assumptions about the service and the content that were widely shared across the organisation and needed testing. These were concentrated around content issues: in particular that much of the content was not simply old but old fashioned, dull and unlikely to meet the current interpretation and learning objectives. Clearly, these assumptions held huge implications for the mobile service: creating new content on this scale would be a huge undertaking.

The research plan we developed in response included a phased plan of quantitative and qualitative methodologies to enable us to ‘triangulate’ our findings and build a deeper, clearer picture – filling in details, exploring gaps, and testing hypotheses.

The first phase of the research included:

  • A large-scale quantitative survey of over 700 participants across six languages to provide a statistically robust data set answering broad questions around who the users and non-users of the guide were, their motivations for/objections to using the service, the overall impact of the service and visitors behaviours in relation to mobile technology more generally.

  • Interviews with more than 200 visitors in six languages to dig deeper into the patterns we had identified in the quantitative data

  • Visitor Journey Mapping: We carried out a journey mapping workshop with visitor-facing staff to identify issues around areas such as user expectations, service design, and marketing.

The results from this larger study pointed to the fact that the guide supported and enhanced both visitor enjoyment and key learning objectives and was, therefore, a valuable component of the overall interpretation activities. A more detailed discussion of those findings was presented by Charlotte Sexton at the Museum Computer Network (MCN) Conference of 2013. Here it is sufficient to say that these overall positive findings supported the value of more detailed investigations that would provide support and direction to the future development of the service. (Sexton, 2013)

As a result, the second phase of research focussed on developing detailed qualitative insights into content design – to explore visitors’ preferences and responses to different content and interpretive approaches, and to understand the extent to which these different approaches supported Gallery learning objectives.

One Man’s Meat is Another Man’s Poison: The Challenge of Testing Content

Testing a creative product is hugely challenging. We are faced with, on the one hand, a desire to understand what audiences like best and what achieves organisational objectives, and, on the other, the knowledge that capturing, let alone acting on, audience responses to content is at best difficult and worst can lead to dull, ‘lowest common denominator’ content. Many of us will be familiar with that weariness that comes from seeing yet another formulaic movie – a sequel of a sequel, even a prequel. We are overjoyed to watch something new, fresh, unexpected, where the writer or director has shared their unique vision. We asked ourselves how we could provide useful insight without hobbling the creative process?

We began by creating an evaluation framework. The purpose for this was to identify what the guides would ideally do (the research objectives), how we would know if they did it (the indicator / research question), what difference this makes to visitors (the impact / outcomes) and, from these, to develop our methodology.

The framework proved an invaluable tool in a number of ways. It helped us pull back from the tiny details of production and focus on some bigger questions that could provide a broad set of parameters for future content producers to work within. It allowed us to find a shared language to discuss content issues and to be specific about both what the gallery wanted to achieve and what the visitor wanted from the experience without defining the creative solution.

The framework focussed on:

  • The type of information people want: the experience, information, inspiration, imagination, factual, contextual, historical, narrative, evocative etc.
  • The authorship/nature of the content: how formal / informal do people want the experience to be and what type of conversation should it be? Who do they want to hear from? Formal, educational, chatty, fun, social etc.
  • The nature of engagement: what do people want to learn, in what areas, and how deeply? Do they want to be informed or enabled?

On the basis of the framework, 13 pieces of content were selected that exemplified the different aspects we were testing: stops that were long or short, that used formal narrative, informal conversation, that were more didactic or experiential (for example a soundscape) and so on. With over 45 hours of material produced over the course of nearly 20 years there was plenty to choose from!

The research in phase one had relied on in-gallery recruitment. The content research, however, required participants to commit around an hour and a half of their time and this would have been a major disruption in the course of a normal visit to the Gallery. As a result, we pre-recruited participants via the Gallery’s Facebook page and a London community network (non-arts focussed) with the goal of attracting a broad range of respondents. 30 ‘sets’ of participants (individuals, couples, small parties of friends or family) completed the study and we attracted a good range of age, balance of gender and spread of nationality. The sample broadly split between non-users and occasional users of audio guides but skewed towards intellectual motivations and regular gallery visitors.

Once in the Gallery, participants were given a guide and asked to listen, in any order, to the stops we had selected. We wanted to capture their ‘in-the-moment’ responses to specific pieces of content – what they thought and felt as they listened and looked at a work of art. But we also wanted them to reflect on the experience as a whole – to compare different approaches and styles, express preferences, consider how different approaches had affected them, and identify what stood out as memorable.

We gave the participants a one page pre-printed response sheet for each stop that included a standard set of questions, to be completed as they listened, to capture their immediate in-the-moment responses. Once they had listened to all the stops, they were interviewed and asked to reflect on different aspects of their experience. This approach yielded rich and thoughtful responses.

What Resonated with Visitors and What Didn’t? The Power of Looking

All our participants felt that the format itself – audio – encouraged them to look for longer and thought this was a very positive feature of the experience overall. This held true even for participants that had previously avoided taking guides. But most participants were particularly positive about content designed to help them look at details they might otherwise have missed or take meaning from details that might otherwise have passed them by.

Interestingly, our studies at other very different sites suggest this may not be the case just for art galleries. On the historic warship HMS Belfast, visitors were asked what they liked least about the audio guide. Prominent amongst their (unprompted) criticisms was the ‘disconnect’ between what was being talked about on the guide and what they were looking at. Whilst at the Science Museum in London visitors were asked to rate different aspects of a potential experience – ‘Make what I’m seeing more meaningful” ranked joint first.

Note that helping visitors look does not in their minds translate as ‘describe’; this is about active looking that adds value and meaning to the very particular experience of being in front of the real object, not merely noting what can be seen. And it needn’t be formulaic in approach. One particular piece of content from the Art Institute of Chicago has Wim Wenders asking visitors to close their eyes and try to recall the details of Edward Hopper’s The Nighthawk. By asking us to recall exactly what is in the picture, he reminds us how dangerous it is to feel you know a painting and, as a result, to fail to look carefully.

This is such a simple point – and one that will come as no surprise to experienced guide producers – but so powerful that it bears emphasizing. If the content does nothing else it should help visitors look and derive some meaning from that experience. The exact nature of the meaning derived – knowledge, emotional resonance, pleasure – may vary from audience to audience and from site to site, but the core principle remains and should serve as a fundamental principle for mobile content.

This may challenge digital media producers who are often working within limited budgets and timescales and naturally keen to leverage the advantages of  re-purposing content. But the results underscore the degree to which  the context for media consumption is important – mobile content is a type of exhibit media to be consumed on foot in a specific place. This is not to suggest that re-purposing – or more usefully pre-purposing – content is wrong but simply to suggest that there is a need to be more aware of the trade-offs we make in the production process and how they can impact the audience experience.

Skill versus Learning

Another area we were interested in was the question of skill development versus informational learning in content. Could content give our participants skills they could transfer as they moved about the Gallery? For example, could we help visitors understand the principles of composition or perspective, or techniques particular to an artist or period? Would they notice this learning and value it? Did it happen with particular types of content?

The good news for guides is that the majority of participants reported that they felt more confident in their ability to look at other paintings without a guide as a result of having used the audio guide. However, we didn’t see a simple direct correlation between samples chosen for their skills-based content and increased confidence. Instead there appeared to be a far broader effect.

First, the process of supporting active looking was particularly valued:

Queen Charlotte was not overall favourite but the way it pointed to detail made you follow in a way you wouldn’t normally and you might notice that kind of detail next time.

Second, participants frequently commented on the way in which the content enthused them, offered reassurance about their own personal responses and gave them impetus to explore paintings further. This is an under-appreciated aspect of mobile guides, which are too often thought of as information delivery mechanisms and points to the value of mobile content in engaging visitors in a process that they can continue even in the absence of a guide.

Gives me confidence that what I see isn’t that far off and I feel ok about what I appreciate.

Definitely – would like to do this frequently. Loved walking around and soaking in the detail. Melendez – snapshot, brought it to life. We’ve been inspired to find out more, google it back at home.

Style Of Conversational Delivery

One of the surprising outcomes from the research for us was the lack of clear preferences in some areas. While there were very clear personal differences in taste, there was, for example, no overall preference for a particular style of delivery – narration, conversation, interviews with specialists were all popular. Indeed the variety of content participants experienced during the test was seen as a real positive.

Diversity was the strength of the experience. Had been expecting dry, academic. This was fabulous. Combination of samples was its strength.

Different styles of voice were, however, seen as offering something very different and this offers us clues for designing our content.

Professional narration was perceived as more neutral and factual than other approaches. And it had a clear advantage for participants who spoke English as a second language and struggled with accents. But listeners were very critical of dry, dull narration: monotonous delivery, a failure to sound as though they ‘owned’ the information and overly formal delivery were all unpopular.

Lifeless. Dull in the extreme. Like watching a documentary in school.

In contrast, specialists – curators, artists and others – were valued for sounding knowledgeable and relaxed – authentic – for ‘owning’ the information, and being passionate and interesting to listen to. Lack of professional ‘polish’ in their presentation wasn’t an issue. Nor did participants distinguish between Gallery experts and external contributors – both were welcomed – but they did want to know who was speaking. Particularly when the speaker was from outside the Gallery they wanted to know why they were hearing from them: what value – expertise, perspective – were they bringing? Commentaries that failed to introduce speakers effectively were heavily criticized.

Annoyed that Alison Watts {former artist in residence at the gallery} wasn’t introduced properly – understanding who she was would have completely changed my appreciation.

These more personal contributions were also seen as opinionated. For most, this was a pleasure – they embraced hearing different perspectives – but for a small number the perceived deviation from absolute fact was extremely provocative and annoying, even where the ‘opinion’ was in fact the view of one of the world’s leading experts on a topic.

Enjoyed personal artist’s perspective and the way they are totally engrossed by it. Would have probably walked passed this painting [otherwise].

Totally held by the commentary. Disagreed with the interpretation and that was a bit distracting, but great story…Relish in the voice and passion of [curator] really came through.

Here again we can see some clear parallels with HMS Belfast where visitors valued personality in narration and ‘real’ voices (from the archive or historians for example) and contrasted these positives with dull, lecturing narrators.

More instructional than enthusiastic. Like being in school.

In other words, visitors are less concerned about the specific approach taken than with quality and appropriateness. Again this might sound a rather obvious point to make. But in our experience, over many years and many projects, the time, attention and budget allocated to narration and the aural experience gets squeezed all too often. Voices carry not just data but meaning, emotion, interest, authority.

The interviewee’s voice is very uplifting, it keeps the listener interested.

Narration (and in that we include interviews and other forms) is sometimes treated almost as a mechanical process – the rendering of text into sound – rather than as a creative endeavor that shapes and transforms listeners’ experience. But this approach can significantly undermine a project’s success, preventing the audience from engaging with content and impact on their learning.

Soundscapes & Music: The Marmite Effect

Readers outside the UK may or may not have heard about the “Marmite Effect’. It refers to a savoury spread famous for being either loved or hated. Few of us Brits ever express indifference to this delicacy! And that’s what we found with the ‘abstract’ soundscape and music content in our study.

Two pieces of abstract content were included in the National Gallery research: one was an evocative soundscape created by a sound artist in response to Salvator Rosa’s painting Witches at Their Incantation. The second was a piece of period music to go with a painting by Canaletto.

Both pieces sharply divided the audience. A very small number were delighted and found it a truly transformational experience, but most absolutely hated it and felt it was deeply inappropriate. Everyone wanted to tell us exactly what they thought of it in great detail – it stuck in their minds and provoked a reaction. Participants had strong recall around these experiences.

…feel sorry to hear only ‘horrible’ music. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

Gave me shivers to the bone. Picture and music equals real emotion. Best so far, really playing on imagination. Wish all audios were like this.

Beneath this overwhelming top-line response, participants did see room for sound effects and music but for most of them this could not be in place of learning. Music and sound effects were valued for adding atmosphere but for most of our participants this was simply not enough.

Oooh, I do like a bit of music for context and mood-setting. But would also like some spoken guidance as well”

“Nice use of music to set the scene, but what happened to the information about the painting. What happens on the feast day of St Roch?

We have thought long and hard about this result. To what extent would it hold true across the National Gallery audiences? Are there more general lessons we can draw?

Within this qualitative study, it isn’t possible to draw conclusions about the proportion of visitors who are likely to love or hate this approach. What we do know from other large-scale studies at sites as diverse as the Science Museum in London and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam is that there is basic assumption by the majority of visitors that guides are in some way educational and informative – it is an overall baseline expectation for the service and, indeed, their museum experience as a whole. In this context, it seems that whatever the actual audience split at a particular site, this sound-only approach is likely to be more niche than core. But it also highlights the way in which very different creative approaches could be used to great effect provided care is taken to ensure the experience is targeted at that niche effectively.

And that hints at one of the broader learnings from this study: Many, if not most, guides are designed for ‘all our visitors’. Sometimes kids or families might get their own experience, occasionally guides will be themed by topic (at the National Gallery visitors can follow the “Life of Christ” or the “Manet to Picasso” experiences for example). It is less common that a service – and its associated content – is designed and marketed for a specific audience. Often this is communicated as an unfortunate necessity – we’d love to do something for specific audiences but we only have budget for x so it will need to work for everyone.

We would suggest that such a compromise is positively damaging to the quality of visitor experience and learning outcomes. The reactions to these soundscapes were strong – they provoked great engagement and recall. Producing an experience for a specific audience allows us to satisfy their needs, interests and emotions and, ultimately be more successful. Museums increasingly see their audiences in terms of visitor needs, interests and goals (Falk 2009) and we would be well served to move beyond the one-size-fits-all approach and explore new ways of creating content designed for specific audiences.

How Much Detail Did Visitors Enjoy And In Which Specialist Areas?

As we’ve already seen, participants valued the way in which the medium helped them look at and draw meaning from details in the paintings, but what else did they want to hear about? We wanted to understand whether there were specific expectations around the type and depth of information.

We asked visitors to select five ‘types’ of information that were most important to them from a list of 11 that included basic facts, biographical details and contextual information through to connections (between works, artists) and subject detail. We then asked them to rank them in importance.

Visitors found this activity very difficult – they struggled to select five and frequently grumbled as they did so that really they liked all of them. None of our participants was able – or indeed willing – to rank their choices. They wanted some basics but beyond that they expressed a clear desire for a range of information and often found it was the surprising details or facts that they enjoyed most.

This highlights the distinction between understanding audience needs, expectations and interests and expecting visitors to be able to tell us what they want. Visitors are not curators, content designers or audio producers. We have an important role to play in helping narrow down and frame a visitor’s experience, meet or play with their expectations or assumptions. This can be enormously creative and delightful for the visitor.

It’s good when the audio surprises you with memorable facts or the unexpected.

Helps you as a lay person see it through expert eyes and they pick out what they think is important.

Their perception around depth of content correlated less strongly to the actual amount of information offered than their interest in the content – stops they found dull were considered ‘too long’ while where they found it fascinating they “wished it could have gone on longer”. While we should treat the latter comment with a degree of caution – remembering the old adage “always leave them wanting more’, it does underline just how important it is to deliver an engaging experience, not simply information.

Our audience study at the Science Museum in London offers another perspective on this question. At the Science Museum we asked visitors to select three qualities that would be most desirable in a mobile experience. Perhaps unsurprisingly ‘educational’ came top but second came ‘entertaining’ closely followed by ‘thought provoking’ and ‘intellectual’. Bottom of the league came ‘serious’.

All too often in the cultural sector there is an assumption that educational equals serious, that entertainment lives in opposition to intellect, that quality content is earnest and perhaps a little dull. It seems this isn’t the case for our visitors. They come to our sites with an expectation that they will learn but they are also looking for a pleasurable leisure experience rather than a ‘classroom’ experience. As the Museums Association has shown in its own recent research “participants tended to avoid the language of ‘education’ and talked about the museum’s purpose being to inspire/stimulate, facilitate ‘discovery’, ‘share knowledge’ and provide information.” (BritainThinks for Museums Association, March 2013).

The idea that educational and entertaining can co-exist and that thought-provoking need not mean serious may not surprise those of us working in digital media. However, these research findings may help us offer a new perspective to some of our colleagues for whom content must be serious if it is to be perceived as legitimate.

Methodology: Some Unexpected Outcomes

As we indicated earlier, participants in this content study were in many ways broadly representative of the Gallery’s audience and that led to some unexpected outcomes.

The earlier quantitative study had suggested that visitors who didn’t use guides didn’t so much have negative feelings about guides, but rather no feelings at all; they couldn’t really see how guides would add to the experience. A good number of the participants in the content study were in exactly that position: this was their first experience of audio in a gallery. It proved a revelation.

Don’t think the guide is advertised well enough – so much better than general experience. Don’t know what I’m saying no to usually…. Biggest experience today was surprise at how good it was. Really felt I learned something. (Have just finished an art history degree!)

Liked the variety of information, a holistic view of the paintings. Just really enjoyed wandering around and doing something completely different.

This neatly backs up the initial finding but it also underlines a key issue with mobile: producing great content is very important but it matters not at all if you don’t know who your audience is, how it will improve their experience and then effectively communicate those benefits. Announcing that there is a guide available is simply not enough.

The invitation to come into the Gallery also turned out to be very exciting for our participants. We felt they were helping us out with research and asking a lot of them. We had thought long and hard about the need for incentives. We decided to try first without but fully expected we might need to bring them in when we failed to attract anyone to the study. In contrast, our participants felt they had been invited into the gallery and had a very special experience: a tailor-made tour where they saw pictures that they might otherwise have passed by, a chance to experience the Gallery in a way they hadn’t before. Many were keen to do it again!

This reinforces the point that how you present an experience is crucial.  Mobile guides are too often thought about as products rather than services, and in framing them as products we neglect important details of marketing, operations and staff development that will help us reach those whom the guide can most benefit. At its simplest level it also suggests an opportunity for permanent collection guides. How can all that content be re-presented to particular audiences? How can we use it to give our regular audiences an excuse to come back to the Gallery again?

A final unexpected outcome was the format of the experience. The study pre-selected a group of works for the participants to look at and chose them on the basis of content types rather than a theme or popularity. Many participants commented that they looked at works they wouldn’t normally have stopped to see, and considered this a very positive aspect of the experience. It reminded us that freedom of choice – via random access content – can be very positive but it can also be a burden. How does a visitor choose from thousands of images? How does a regular visitor break out of their habits and see something new? Perhaps it’s time to think again about more structured experiences.  I think that when we moved from the old linear cassette tours to random access digital guides, something was lost. For all their limitations – and I acknowledge that they had plenty! –  the linear tours enforced a structured, curated experience, often with an overarching narrative and the opportunity to develop a deep rich learning experience.

Conclusion: Identify Your Audience, Find Your Voice, Focus on Quality,

The purpose of this study was never to determine the exact details of the production, to identify the perfect narrator for the National Gallery or prescribe the interpretive approach. We hoped to identify some core principles to guide future content development and we feel these really shone through.

None of the approaches or styles were seen as inappropriate to the Gallery but individual visitors certainly had different needs, preferences and tastes. While there was broad agreement around some key aspects of the content there were also niche approaches that triggered strong reactions, both positive and negative. Identifying your audience and understanding their needs, interests and motivations will help you develop content that is engaging and memorable to them – that helps the learning ‘stick’.

While a small number of visitors sought ‘objective’ fact, most are more open. They enjoyed the unexpected – surprising facts, hidden details, insights, informed opinions and they searched for meaning not just ‘data’.  This seems true not just for the National Gallery but, as we saw, at both HMS Belfast and the Science Museum, London. The fact that mobile guides can contain an infinite amount of information does not mean they should; visitors put a premium on understanding why something ‘matters’ – why they should care.

Overall QUALITY comes through as the most important factor. What do the visitors mean by quality:

  • Lively, engaged voices. Feel free to use narrators but they need to be good
  • Speakers need to introduced and framed appropriately: Who is it, why are they speaking, why are they credible or relevant?
  • Content needs to be relevant & sensitive to the context in which it is being consumed
  • Cover the basics but don’t feel constrained by them
  • Keep it short and offer options
  • Feel free to develop a strong brand voice: share expertise and passion, don’t be afraid to convey viewpoints but give context.


With thanks to:

The National Gallery, London

Charlotte Sexton, President at Museum Computer Network (MCN) and formerly Head of Digital Media at the National Gallery, London

Carolyn Royston, Head of Digital Media, Imperial War Museum

Anne Prugnon, New Media Manager, Science Museum

Laura Mann, Frankly, Green + Webb USA


Britain Thinks for the Museums Association, March 2013, Public Perceptions Of – And Attitudes To – The Purposes Of Museums In Society

Falk, John, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience Left Coast Press 2009

Sexton, Charlotte, MCN 2013 Beyond the Visitor Survey: Using Research to Drive Design Decisions

Tallon, Loic, 2009,


Cite as:
. "Listening to Visitors: Research Findings on Mobile Content." MW2014: Museums and the Web 2014. Published February 1, 2014. Consulted .

Leave a Reply