the overall whole exhibition was cool in the way they collected all the nonvisual data depended design to show something we can not see in the real life. I was able to see that especially in the map of smell in the city one (I totally forgot what was the actual title)
I really wished that we had time to explore the exhibition without person talking about art piece before she talked about what they are doing because I feel like it was hard to form a personal opinion and experience the piece fully with the person telling what to do with it. it was like a crit with the very protective creator. Another thing I was thinking was they talked about how inclusive the exhibition is and how they challenged artist/designer to create something in the way to be inclusive but it didn’t feel that way… I mean I am not the member of disable so I wouldn’t know but they never mention doing user testing with actual disable people, but just used people’s knowledge about it to make a design choice around the exhibition. I don’t know if having the braille all the way behind the box was inclusive or not. but there was not much space for a wheelchair and also some of the hight was not really ideal to us… I think it raises a problem of what does it mean to be inclusive…
Some of the things she was saying was not making sense like how they were trying to make an exhibition that did not depend on the visual but they made (pay artist) to make a huge installation to show the sense of taste as visual cues. So I think there are more thing they could have done not using a visual cue to make sense fo taste communicate to other people.
I think without know what they were trying to do, the exhibition is amazing. It is interactive unlike other exhibition in other museums which makes the audience more interested in the concept. Many technologies were used in the exhibition. it was interesting to me in the other way.
