In our project application we planned to create a working variant of exposition design as a testing platform for experimenting and visitors communicating so that we could choose, move, single out and comment on exhibits. It also implied that viewers would assess, reflect on objects on display and exhibition thematic.

Artificiality and low productivity of visitors' association retrieval were discussed above. Test drive saved our time removing this task and allowing us to switch to significant to us exposition testing. Both directions proved to be efficient. About 300 people visited the exhibition got tuned to further sharing their opinions. Here are the results:

• Navigation upgrade to 3 out of 6 participatory zone of the test gallery,
• Refinement and further implementation one of the most important participatory zones («Human travel library»),
• Size and content modification of some explications,
• Understating that basic goals are achieved – exhibition works for visitors communication, self-reflection and travel motivation, both historical and modern artifacts "work" well,
• Tens of mind-blowing stories and items, one of which lies in the heart of powerful display zone (further detailed in Chapter 4).

In conclusion, we can say that viewers' involvement in pioneer testing of the exhibition or its separate elements already made is rather efficient. On the one hand, it vests greater responsibility associated with visitors' criticism on the authors. Thus, it defines the specific of process planning when curators have to calculate time and money including this testing period. A way out can be viewers' involvement in only participatory zones' testing where their reaction is most wanted and modification costs (navigation, questions, design) are relatively low. Again we refer here to N. Simon experience:

We prototyped the most complicated interactives (the Love Styles quiz and Hearts to Hearts game) with visitors in the months leading up to opening. Because our visitation is highest during our monthly First Friday events, we used those as opportunities for testing. We called the prototypes "activities," got lots of participants, and people loved giving their feedback and seeing the prototypes evolve over a couple months. We've continued to do this for future exhibitions [1].

As in the past, we prototyped all interactive and participatory visitor experiences at museum events in the months leading up to the show. The prototypes were all simple, cheap, and extraordinarily valuable in shaping the final product. We have a rule that every prototype must be used to answer a specific question we can act on, whether that's an A/B comparison, figuring out what's confusing, etc. [2].