Making the Invisible Visible at the Musuem
Overview
Museums have always been spaces where knowledge is presented as finished, polished, and complete. But what happens behind the scenes to get things ready to be displayed?
This project, conducted in partnership with the Burke Museum, grew out curiosity. The Burke Museum has a unique layout where there are windows into the labs where things get worked on. This already creates behind-the-scenes moments; however, this work is not visible just through the windows or easily understood by the visitors whom it ultimately serves.
Ultimately, the Burke was trying to give visitors more access to what the preservation process looks like; however, with their current setup, visitors are unable to get the context they really need, and lab techs aren't able to share what they would like to with visitors.
That tension shaped the core challenge:
How might we make invisible lab work visible and understandable without disrupting the people doing it?
Research & Discovery
Research & Discovery
To understand both sides, I conducted:
On-site field observations
Interviews with visitors and lab technicians
Desk research on existing museum technologies (AR, VR, kiosks)
Doing both observations and interviews allowed us to gather behavioral data (what they do) and attitudinal data (what they say they do). This approach to initial research allowed us to get a fuller picture of what people do at the museum.
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.
Key insights
1. Visitors crave context, not just content
Placards and exhibits provide static, high-level information, but visitors want:
Process explanations
Why this matters.
“[I would like] to just know if they were, like, actually, if these are ancient artifacts, or if they were like, recreated”
- Museum visitor
“... took some pictures …We looked up some information, some dates about, like, Seattle's history.”
- Museum visitor
2. Lab work is inherently engaging but not always accessible
Placards and exhibits provide static, high-level information, but visitors want:
Observation notes:
Visitors lingered at lab windows
Some watched for extended periods
Many left without understanding what they saw
Lab space where to add more context, the lab tech has scrawled on several whiteboards to give his work more context for visitors.
“I would watch people sit down and just be there …I'm gonna watch you for an hour clean a tiny little area”
- Lab Tech
The behavior showed high interest. The experience lacked clarity.
3. Museum technology often fails in practice
Across both research and interviews:
Interactive exhibits frequently break
Maintenance is expensive
Staff avoid complex systems
We discovered that before the Burke moved locations, they used to have cameras and TVs set up showing the work the lab workers were doing. However, due to a lack of budget when they moved locations, they were not able to set up the TVs again.
“With electronics and technology,... it is very hard to have those go off successfully and in a way that's sustainable and that you're not just hemorrhaging money at something that's just not gonna last.“
– Lab Tech
Solution Design
I am drawn to problems because visitors care deeply about engaging with the content however lack the tools to fully engage. Watching visitors become absorbed in lab activity, even without context, revealed a natural sense of wonder. I saw an opportunity to build on that moment, to turn passive curiosity into meaningful engagement. Designing for that transition, from curiosity to clarity, felt both impactful and deeply motivating.
From there, I designed around three core principles: accessibility, low friction, and respect for real-world workflows.
Accessibility
Information should be easy to find, understand, and engage with. We focused on delivering clear, structured content that helps visitors quickly grasp what’s happening and why it matters.
Low Friction
Museum environments are complex, so the solution needed to feel effortless. We avoided heavy or fragile technology and instead designed something lightweight and reliable.
Workflow Respect
Lab technicians are doing precise, uninterrupted work. Any solution needed to fit into their existing workflow without adding cognitive or operational burden.
Early concept sketches. A mix of doodling on a whiteboard for group discussion and individual quick brainstorming via post-its was employed
What I Designed
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.
1. Staff Dashboard
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.
2. Visitor Web Experience (via QR Code)
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
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.
Diagram of pass fail on user tasks. Out of 5 tasks, only 2 tasks were ever failed across 4 participants.
Results
Previously, museum experiences often felt disconnected from the very work that makes them possible. Important context was missing, and the technology meant to bridge that gap often didn’t hold up over time or in real environments.
With the redesigned system, the experience feels much more grounded and human. Visitors can easily access what’s happening in the lab in real time, without needing to navigate complex tools or systems. The information is clearer, more approachable, and easier to engage with.
At the same time, the system is designed to respect the realities of lab work, making it more sustainable for staff to share updates without disruption. This creates a more durable way for communication to happen between visitors and technicians.
Overall, the experience feels less like observing something from a distance and more like being gently brought into the process, building a stronger sense of understanding and connection between visitors and the people doing the work.
Reflection
This project pushed me to design for two very different user groups with competing needs. Instead of adding more features, I focused on reducing complexity and aligning with real-world behavior.
It also changed how I think about technology in physical spaces. The most effective solutions aren’t always the most advanced; they’re the ones that fit seamlessly into people’s environments.
If we were to continue this project, the next critical step would be to bring the staff dashboard into real-world testing with lab technicians. While the current design is grounded in interviews and observational insights, actually testing it in their day-to-day workflow would be essential to understand how well it fits into their constraints and communication habits.
Overall, this project reinforced something I keep coming back to:
Good design isn’t about adding more; it’s about making what matters easier to see and understand.
How I Aligned This Project
Empathy
This project required designing for two groups with very different realities: visitors seeking meaning and curiosity, and lab technicians focused on precise, uninterrupted work. Empathy showed up in how I balanced those needs—ensuring visitors gained clarity without turning lab work into performance, and ensuring staff weren’t burdened by the act of sharing their work.
Curiosity
I approached the museum not just as a space of exhibits, but as a system of hidden processes. Curiosity drove me to look beyond what was visible in galleries and into the tension between what is happening in the lab and what visitors are able to interpret. It also guided how I connected observational behavior (lingering, watching) with gaps in understanding.
Equality
Equality shaped how I thought about access to knowledge. Visitors were clearly engaged and willing to learn, but the system didn’t give them equal access to context or explanation. I designed with the intent of reducing that gap, making scientific and preservation work more legible without privileging either audience’s needs over the other.
Joy
A key insight was that visitors were already experiencing joy and fascination simply watching lab work, even without understanding it. I designed to preserve and extend that moment of wonder—turning passive observation into meaningful engagement without overcomplicating the experience or overwhelming it with technology.