Making the Invisible Visible at the Museum
Bridging Museum Lab Work and Visitor Understanding
tldr;
I designed a QR-based visitor site and a staff dashboard so the Burke's lab scientists can explain their work through the glass. Visitors completed 90% of tasks, with no new hardware.
Overview
The Burke 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.
Over 10 weeks, I conducted desk research, field observations, interviews with visitors and lab techs, and an audit of existing museum technology. Both sides wanted the same thing: a simple way to connect expert knowledge with visitor curiosity.
I created two concepts: a staff dashboard for posting quick updates about ongoing work, and a visitor web experience for asking questions and gaining context. The result was a transparency model that fit how the museum actually operates, not an idealized version of it.
Research & Discovery
I started with desk research and a competitive analysis of museum apps, which pointed to one gap: visitors want more context than museums give them.
To see it firsthand, my team and I observed the Burke at different times and days, then interviewed visitors mid-visit and lab technicians at their workstations. Being in the space mattered. Visitors flagged confusion as it happened, and technicians showed us workarounds they'd built to reach people at the windows.
Field 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.
Key insights
What I found
Visitors weren't disengaged; they were under-informed. People lingered at lab windows and searched their phones for context mid-visit. Three themes came up consistently:
Visitors wanted the process, not just facts. Placards said what something was, not why it mattered. That gap made the whole exhibit feel uncertain.
Technicians were already bridging the gap informally. One had filled whiteboards with context for visitors. The motivation was there; the tools weren't.
Complex technology wasn't the answer. The Burke had tried cameras and TVs before and couldn't sustain them. Staff actively avoided anything fragile or high-maintenance.
Research findings report deck showcasing our top findings and recommendations
What that pointed to
A lightweight, low-maintenance way for technicians to share real-time context, without pulling them 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 disruption?
The third question was decisive; techs told us technology in museums breaks, costs money, and rarely lasts. That ruled out new hardware or installation.
Early concept sketches. A mix of doodling on a whiteboard for group discussion and individual quick brainstorming via post-its was employed
We converged on a two-part system:
A website where visitors scan QR codes to ask questions and learn more
A dashboard where lab techs share updates and livestream without expensive TV tech, and answer visitor questions directly
What I Designed
Lab Tech Dashboard
I vibe-coded the concepts in FigmaMake, then refined them in Figma for interaction and fidelity. The dashboard lets technicians share quick updates about their work in just a few moments, without interrupting their workflow.
Visitor website to ask quesiton and get more context
Visitors scan a QR code to reach a mobile-friendly page featuring:
Live videos and updates from lab staff
Clear explanations of ongoing processes
A Q&A system for visitors and staff to engage
Visitors submit questions that technicians answer asynchronously, creating an ongoing loop without requiring real-time interaction.
Together, this system:
Removed reliance on fragile technology
Made lab work more accessible
Balanced visitor curiosity with staff constraints
Validation
I conducted on-site cognitive walkthroughs with 5 participants, asked to:
Learn about a specific lab
Learn what it is currently working on
Submit a question
Findings:
90% average task completion rate
Users successfully accessed and understood lab content
Clear improvements in confidence and comprehension
Due to time constraints around the holidays, we weren't able to usability test the staff dashboard with lab technicians directly; validation there relied on interviews and observation rather than in-context testing, an important remaining gap.
Diagram of pass fail on user tasks. Out of 5 tasks, only 2 tasks were ever failed across 4 participants.
Full research deck showing breakdown of usability issues with priority
Results
The redesigned system gave visitors and technicians 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 unassisted, with no hardware to break or maintain.
Reflection
The hardest part 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 toward simplicity, which proved right given the Burkes' history with high-maintenance technology.
The biggest remaining gap is real-world testing with lab technicians on the staff dashboard. That's the obvious next step.
