Making the Invisible Visible at the Museum
Overview
The Burke Museum has windows into its labs, but a glimpse isn't context. Visitors couldn't understand what they were seeing, and lab technicians had no easy way to share it. The Burke wanted to close that gap.
Over 10 weeks, I conducted initial desk research, field observations on-site, interviewed both visitors and lab techs, and audited existing museum technology. Talking to both sides surfaced something neither could fully articulate on their own. Visitors wanted expert knowledge in the moment, and technicians genuinely wanted to share it. They just had no simple way to make that happen.
I created two concepts: a staff dashboard for posting quick updates about ongoing work, and a visitor web experience to ask questions and gain more context.
I created a model for transparency that fits how the museum actually operates, not an ideal version of it.
Research & Discovery
Desk Research
To understand the art and museum space, I did an initial round of research to solidify my knowledge in the space and to find gaps and pain points in the current experiences.
I used Perlexity, ChatGPT, and Google Scholar to find sources and read through documents to pull out interesting things to dig into more.
Desk research highlighting interesting quotes that highlight painpoints in the art and museum experience
To dig deeper into existing gaps, my team and I did a competitive analysis of existing apps in the art and museum space to see which topics we should probe deeper into for further research.
Design Opportunities:
Museum visitors want more in-depth context
Museum visitors want more cutrual context
Visitors want more wayfinding tools in museums
Field Observations
To understand attitudinal data (how museum visitors act and interact with museums), my team and I ran field observations to gain more insight.
Watching how visitors interact with the museum.
Watching how lab techs and other museum workers interact with the museum and visitors
Went at different times and days to gauge highs and lows of traffic at the museum
I created a primer list to allow for deeper and more organized field observations that would be more relevant to the gaps we found in desk research.
To dig deeper into existing gaps, my team and I did a competitive analysis of existing apps in the art and museum space to see which topics we should probe deeper into for further research.
Feild observations primer and affinity diagram from field observations, along with photos of the museum environment. We sorted all of our observations along with photos we took of the environment for more context and coded them for themes later to be sorted into an affinity diagram.
in-context interviews
Discussion script for contextual inquiries with sections for quick walk-up ask questions, and more in-depth questions for visitors, along with a discussion guide for lab techs.
I conducted in-context interviews with visitors and lab technicians directly in the museum, talking to people while they were actually in the space rather than pulling them out of it to get their most in-context, honest feedback.
With visitors, I approached them mid to end of the visit and asked questions about their visit, with some interview questions prepared and some based on what came up in conversation. With technicians, I sat with them at their workstations while they worked, so I could ask in real time about their work and their thoughts on how visitors related to the work they were doing.
That in-context approach made a real difference. Visitors pointed out things they were confused about as they happened, and techs showed me the informal workarounds they had built to communicate with people peering through the windows. Neither of those things would have come up in a conference room.
Key insights
What I found
Visitors weren't disengaged, they were under-informed. People lingered at the lab windows for extended periods and actively searched for more context on their phones mid-visit. The interest was already there. The experience just wasn't meeting it.
Three things kept coming up consistently across observations and interviews:
Visitors wanted to understand process, not just facts. Placards told them what something was, but not why it mattered or how it got there. The gap between "ancient artifact" and "recreation" was enough to make the whole exhibit feel uncertain.
Lab technicians were already trying to bridge that gap on their own. One tech had filled multiple whiteboards with context for visitors peering through the windows. That informal behavior was a signal, not a quirk. The motivation to connect was there, the tools weren't.
Complex technology wasn't the answer. The Burke had cameras and TVs set up before their move and couldn't sustain them. Staff described expensive, fragile systems as something they actively avoid. Any solution that added maintenance burden was going to fail the same way.
Research findings report deck showcasing our top findings and recomendations
What that pointed to
A lightweight, low-maintenance way for technicians to share real-time context with visitors, without pulling them away from their work or introducing systems that break.
Solution Design
We evaluated ideas against three questions:
Would visitors actually understand it?
Would it hold up over time?
Would technicians use it without disrupting their work?
Our research made the third question especially pointed. Lab techs told us directly that technology in museums breaks, costs money to maintain, and rarely lasts. That ruled out anything requiring new hardware or installation.
What remained was simpler: give technicians a lightweight way to share updates, and give visitors a way to access them on their own phones. Low cost, nothing to install, nothing to break.
Early concept sketches. A mix of doodling on a whiteboard for group discussion and individual quick brainstorming via post-its was employed
We finally converged on a two-part system:
A website that allows visitors to scan QR codes around the museum to ask questions and learn more.
A dashboard where lab techs can share more of their work and livestream without the use of the expensive TV tech. They can also answer visitor questions and engage more directly.
What I Designed
Lab Tech Dashboard
To rapidly explore and iterate on both experiences, I initially vibe-coded the concepts using FigmaMake, then translated them into Figma to refine interaction details, improve usability, and develop higher-fidelity designs.
A lightweight interface that allows technicians to share quick updates about what they’re working on and why it matters.
The experience is intentionally simple and structured, making it easy to add context in just a few moments without interrupting their workflow. This ensures staff can contribute without shifting focus away from their primary tasks.
visitor website to ask quesiton and get more context
Instead of introducing new hardware, visitors can scan a QR code to access a mobile-friendly webpage that brings lab work into view.
The experience includes:
Live videos and updates from lab staff
Clear explanations of ongoing processes
A Q&A system that allows visitors and lab staff to engage and learn more.
Visitors can also submit questions directly through the interface, which technicians can respond to asynchronously. This creates an ongoing communication loop without requiring real-time interaction.
Together, this system:
Removed reliance on fragile, high-maintenance technology
Made lab work more accessible and understandable
Balanced visitor curiosity with staff constraints
Validation
We wanted to ensure the system didn’t just work in theory, but actually made the experience better.
I conducted:
On-site cognitive walkthroughs with 5 participants
Participants were asked to:
Learn about a specific lab at the Burke
Learn about what the specific lab is currently working on
Submit a question
Diagram of pass fail on user tasks. Out of 5 tasks, only 2 tasks were ever failed across 4 participants.
Findings:
90% average task completion rate
Users were able to successfully access and understand lab content
Clear improvements in confidence and comprehension when navigating the experience
Due to time constraints and limited availability around the holiday period, we were not able to conduct usability testing with lab technicians on the staff-facing dashboard. As a result, validation for this part of the system relied on interviews and observational research rather than in-context testing. This remained an important gap in the evaluation, particularly given how central the dashboard is to the overall system.
Full research deck showing break down of usability issues with priority
Results
The redesigned system gave both visitors and technicians something they didn't have before: a simple, reliable way to communicate across the lab window. Usability testing showed a 90% task completion rate. Visitors could find what a lab was working on, understand the process, and submit a question without assistance or instructions. And without complex hardware, nothing broke or needed maintaining.
Reflection
The hardest part of this project wasn't technical. It was designing for two user groups whose needs pull against each other. Visitors want access; technicians need focus. That tension pushed me away from features and toward simplicity, which turned out to be the right call given the Burke's history with high-maintenance technology.
The biggest gap remaining is real-world testing with lab technicians on the staff dashboard. Interviews and observations shaped the design, but watching someone use it mid-task would either confirm the assumptions or surface friction we haven't seen yet. That's the obvious next step.