Expectations
The finalized solution to exhibiting the information compiled
about the relationship between art and science in the Sandy Hook Art and
Science Museum must be located in the renovated Lieutenant Quarters #3 in Fort
Hancock, New Jersey. It must interest visitors, focus content to be
comprehensible and concise, engage visitors in a hierarchical story,
incorporate effective circulation patterns, and integrate technology and
interactive displays. In its displays, the solution must be comprised of
primary and secondary sources, and the objects it exhibits must be available to
obtain, borrow by applying for loans, or copy with permission from outside
sources.
In the layout, the solution must have clear pathways and comprehensible
hierarchical flow. The solution must accommodate the expected breadth of
content for each topic covered. Documentaries, which the filmmaker in the group
will create, must be incorporated into the solution spatially and logically.
The solution must appeal to the stakeholders involved in
the situation, which in this case includes the intended audience, the potential
private investors who would have interest in investing in this museum, and the
content of the museum (as the solution’s effectiveness, in both the layout and
exhibit portion, depends on how well it represents and communicates the
content). To appeal to the intended audience, children ranging from pre-school
age to middle-school age (about 13 years old and younger), the solution must
educate children in that range while still engaging them with interactive,
age-specific exhibits. The solution should inspire and instill learning in
children by interesting them through a museum experience that involves them in
learning, and by appealing to all visitors aesthetically. The solution should appeal
to visitors of all ages, since with children as an audience comes the families
they visit the museum with, but the content and communication methods,
including the grade-level equivalent of writing and the complexity of the
content, among other factors, should be targeted primarily at children.
Specific
private investors are yet to be determined, but to appeal to investors in
general, solutions should be designed with cost-effectiveness, sustainability,
and endurance of the design in mind. To satisfy the content of the museum, the
solution should be designed with enough space, in rooms and on walls,
sufficient for the displays. Additionally, the layout portion of the solution
should accommodate the content by providing a logical order and flow to the
exhibits.
When
completed, the solution to review will consist of AutoCAD drawings and renderings
of one display within the exhibits, AutoCAD drawings and renderings of the
exhibit layout as it exists within the floor plan, and the visuals and text
that comprise the display. The renovated building will be entirely devoted to
the museum, with most rooms available for exhibition use save for rooms for
utilities, office space, reception, and various other necessary spaces.
Testing
and Reviews
In the beginning of the design process, which consists of
background research, observation and analysis, and brainstorming, the designer
will conduct reviews and assessments of progress. These tests will occur at
museums the designer observes and digitally through research and brainstorming
on the computer. After brainstorming potential topics to cover within the Art
and Science museum, the designer and the team will assess the validity. Then,
the designer will survey potential users to assess the topics before finalizing
the outline of the exhibit. This test would occur online through questionnaires
released to the target crowd.
The designer would assess progress during the next stage
of the design process, in which the designer and filmmaker each research topics
to compile information to exhibit. This test would occur at a meeting among the
group, in which they would collaborate to complete an official plan for the
exhibition content. The group would then submit this plan for review by
mentors, who would assess the topics by offering their criticism as experienced
professionals. This contact and assessment would most likely take place through
e-mail communication, or possibly a phone call or meeting.
Afters the museum's outline has been edited and finalized, the designer would sketch alternate exhibit layouts, and test the alternative solutions against the specifications and limitations, particularly in how well the layouts accommodate the topics according to the outline. The designer would test each solution by determining the pros and cons and by using the "spec check" method to determine which solution to proceed with. The designer would then meet with the group to finalize the museum's layout, ensuring that the chosen solution complies with the architect's specifications, and allots sufficient space and organization for the filmmaker's documentary room.
Next, the designer would choose which exhibit display to focus on among those in the layout, and begin the process of fully developing that exhibit by brainstorming different methods of presenting that information. The designer would test the effectiveness of each method by presenting the alternatives to mentors and members of the target audience, and would attempt to determine the interest that the subject generates, and collect criticism of the plans and suggestions of additional information or ideas. This test would be implemented by the designer and the target crowd members contacted and involved in the test.
The designer would then fully research the content within that topic, and compile the information about that topic in an outline format in order to develop a rough sketch of how the information fits within the exhibit display space. Included in creating the display outline is the compilation of visuals to include (and ensuring that the museum would have permission to use the visuals in the display), and the compilation of textual information in the exhibit (including all quotes and written explanations). This test would be implemented by the designer in a self-assessment.
Once the content for the displays is finalized, the designer would prepare alternate solutions for the display, presenting the same content form different perspectives and through different approaches in each. The designer would then test the solutions in the same process as testing the exhibit layouts: by performing a "spec check" and comparing pros and cons of each solution in order to determine the most optimal solution. After that self assessment, the designer would evaluate the finalized solution by requesting criticism from mentors, checking the plan against preexisting successful solutions and design principles, and surveying the target crowd members about their interest, comprehension, and overall response to the design. The designer would then make any adjustments necessary in response to these tests.
Once the designer finalizes the exhibit’s displays, the
group would meet to combine and organize plans, and assess their validity
against specifications and limitations in a meeting. Afterwards, the group would submit their plan through
e-mail to mentors for review. Then, after editing in response to mentor
feedback, the group would
meet to finalize the
project.
Reviewing Type: Exploratory and Comparison
Reviewing Stage: Preliminary
State of Solution: Research
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Informal Personal
Assessment
Tools and Equipment required: Articles and books,
museums
Testing Procedures:
1.
Do background
research on design theory and museum organization.
2.
Observe and
analyze museums of various focuses.
a.
Note successful
and unsuccessful design strategies.
b.
Consider
potential strategies in terms of their application to the Sandy Hook Art and
Science museum.
3.
Research the
exhibition development process.
Figure 1: Clark Museum in Williamstown, MA; One of the
museums designer observed for background research.
 |
| Figure 2: Brainstorming topics. |
Reviewing Type: Exploratory and Comparison
Reviewing Stage: Preliminary
State of Solution: Research, Brainstorming
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Informal Personal and
Team Assessment
Tools and Equipment required: Computer, articles,
and books
Testing Procedures:
1.
Brainstorm
potential topics to cover in exhibit.
2.
Research to investigate validity of ideas and find
new topics.
3.
Collaborate with
filmmaker to share research.
4.
Meet with group
to develop an
outline of topics to cover in exhibit.
 |
| Figure 3: Sketching alternate exhibit layouts. |
Reviewing Type: Exploratory and Comparison
Reviewing Stage: Secondary
State of Solution: Brainstorming, Alternate
Solutions, Predevelopment
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Formal Personal and
Team Assessment
Tools and
Equipment required: Brainstorming sketches and lists, floor plans before and
after renovation, AutoCAD renderings of alternate solutions for exhibit
displays and layouts, materials list, notes on constructing museums
Testing Procedures:
1.
Sketch alternate
exhibit layouts.
2.
Test alternate solutions against specifications and
limitations.
a.
Determine pros
and cons to each solution.
b.
Use rationale
and spec check method to determine final solution to proceed with.
3.
Meet with group
to determine floor plan and wall placements.
4.
Determine final
layout of exhibits in museum.
 |
| Figure 4: Brainstorming alternative exhibit layouts. |
Reviewing Stage: Secondary
State of Solution: Brainstorming, Pre-design and
Alternate Solutions
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Informal Personal
Assessment and Mentor Criticism through e-mail
Testing Procedures:
1.
Brainstorm
display alternate solutions (3) to illustrate information.
2.
Test viability
of solutions using rationale and spec check method.
3.
Request
criticism of ideas for displays from mentors.
4.
If necessary,
reevaluate ideas in response to mentor feedback.
Determine final
solution of display to proceed with.
Reviewing Type: Assessment
Reviewing Stage: Secondary
State of Solution: Pre-design
Condition of Reviewing Stage: User Qualitative Data
Collection and Mentor Criticism through e-mail
Tools and Equipment required: Computer, online
survey system, written overview of museum and description of topics, e-mail
system
Testing Procedures:
1.
Choose exhibit
topic focus.
2.
Survey target
crowd and request mentor feedback regarding potential presentation methods of
information (test for effectiveness) and potential focuses within topic focus
(test for interest among users). Describe potential topic, and provide sample
situations and exhibit excerpts to test interest, engagement, and retention of
knowledge (tested indirectly through user test, not questionnaire). Contact
local schools, including Sandy Hook Day Care, about involving students in study
to collect qualitative data.
Request feedback
about:
a.
Potential user interest
in subject.
b.
Suggestions of
additional topics or information to increase clarity or interest.
c.
Criticism of
current planned topics.
3.
If necessary,
reevaluate, adjust, and expand upon exhibit focus in response to user surveys
and mentor criticism.
4.
Finalize topic.
Figure 5: Use online surveys to
request target crowd feedback.
Reviewing Type: Exploratory
Reviewing Stage: Secondary
State of Solution: Research
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Informal Personal Assessment
Tools and Equipment required: Computer, articles,
books, finalized outline of topics
Testing Procedures:
1.
Fully research
content within finalized topic.
2.
Compile
information to develop outline of information within focus display.
a.
Compile visuals,
ensure permission to use/copy from owners.
b.
If applicable,
ensure availability of objects to obtain on loan.
c.
Compile textual
information, including paraphrases, titles, subtitles, quotes, etc.
Figure 6: Research topics to develop
subtopics, and collaborate with filmmaker.
 |
| Figure 7: Render plans for exhibit displays. |
Reviewing Type: Assessment and Validation
Reviewing Stage: Tertiary
State of Solution: Pre-design and Alternate
Solutions
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Informal Personal
Assessment
Tools and Equipment required: Sketches and renderings
of alternate solutions for exhibit displays
Testing Procedures:
1.
Prepare
alternate solutions for exhibit display.
2.
Review alternate
solutions against alternate solutions to optimize final solution.
3.
Prepare final solution for exhibit display.
 |
| Figure 8: Test target crowd response to exhibit displays by administering online tests presenting information in similar methods as the exhibit. |
Reviewing Type: Assessment and Validation
Reviewing Stage: Tertiary
State of Solution: Pre-design
Condition of Reviewing Stage: Informal Personal
Assessment, Mentor Criticism through e-mail, User Online Survey
Tools and Equipment required: Sketches and
renderings of alternate solutions for exhibit displays, descriptions
of/information pulled from exhibit, e-mail system, computer, online survey
system
Testing Procedures:
1.
Request
criticism of plans from mentors.
2.
If necessary,
reevaluate exhibit plans in response to mentor feedback.
3.
Check
effectiveness of plans by comparing with preexisting successful exhibits and
design principles.
4.
Survey target
crowd of museum regarding exhibit plans. Use questionnaires that include renderings
of exhibits, exhibit content (presented in similar methods as exhibit will,
i.e. through online program or test with similar visuals, sounds, and
appearance) and/or descriptions of museum. Test:
a.
User interest in
subject.
b.
Effectiveness of
exhibits in conveying message.
c.
Accessibility to
different groups and age ranges.
d.
Whether users
surveyed would be interested in visiting museum.
e.
Response to
aesthetics.
5.
If necessary,
reevaluate exhibit plans in response to user surveys.
