Absolutely! As my colleagues and I debrief the experience in the coming weeks, I’ll ping you to bring you into the conversation.

Thanks again for your contributions.

David

I think it’s important to have an on-site facilitator to help frame the experience. The disassociated voice may be a bit confusing and might actually present a bit of a challenge if participants navigate their own routes. The question would be how would you synch the movements between the two parties (now, as technology evolves having these prompts occur as a result of geotagging and geomarkers could work well).

Now your suggestion does bring up another possibility that you could have a facilitator just for those on Twitter in order to provide context to the stream of tweets coming from the on-site participants. I could see this role really helping to establish a connection between the online audience and the actual physical space.

Love to chat more about the possibilities.

Thank you for participating in our tour, for your insightful comments, and for the valuable feedback provided in your blog!

I’ve been thinking a bit about ways we could have encouraged more “back channel” communication amongst participants during the tour. One idea that popped into my head soon after the tour concluded was to wonder what the tour would have been like had the facilitator not been onsite. What if all communications from the facilitator had come via the Twitter feed, and participants had navigated their own route through the building architecture with periodic prompts by the guide/facilitator? Such an approach would likely result in greater collaboration among participants and more queries/observations via the hashtag feed. The downside, is that the guide/facilitator would have to parse questions and answers into 140 character bites. But I think it could be done.

Do you think this would have been a better experience — or would it be a more impersonal experience, possibly with more limited content coming from the museum voice?