Formal Progress Update

Click here for Formal Progress Update 1 Presentation.

Exhibition Display Rationale and Finalized Solution

Introduction

For this portion of the project, I designed the exhibit display focusing on the relationship between chemistry and painting through the Impressionist period. I worked with Margaret Goddard to develop the topics for the museum, and used the outline we created to develop the finalized solution for the exhibit layout. The next layer of the project involved choosing an exhibit in the museum to develop, and I decided to follow through with the Impressionist area of the museum. I used the overall museum content outline to put this specific exhibit into context, complete research, and develop an outline of topics and subtopics. The layout of the museum content and circulation paths allowed for a kiosk display extending outwards from the wall divider. Although my initial plan was to create this kiosk as a cylinder to make the flow of circulation smoother, I reworked the plans as a trapezoidal kiosk after considering potential construction and installation complications with a cylinder shape. In addition, the outline of topics for the exhibit divided evenly into four subtopics, so the trapezoidal shape allowed for four surfaces to divide the topics effectively.

I designed the kiosk according to the dimensions of the wall on which the kiosk will be installed. I then used the research I have completed regarding regulations for exhibit heights and sizes to allow for handicap accessibility to determine where on the kiosk I could add content so that the 
information is accessible. According to the Smithsonian Institute’s museum guidelines, the ideal placement of exhibit content would fill a strip two feet tall, forty inches from the ground. Applying these numbers to the kiosk dimensions, I found that on each 3’½”-wide side, the information must be within the two foot-tall strip. The exhibit could therefore be divided into 2’ x 3’½” panels, with one on each side of the trapezoidal kiosk. I developed three alternative solutions for each side of the kiosk, creating a total of twelve alternative solutions, independently of one another. I will use the specifications and limitations for the exhibit display to assess the most effective solution among the three alternatives for each side of the kiosk, and combine the chosen four panels to finalize the kiosk design.

Topic #1: What’s in a Pigment?

Alternate Solution 1: Storytelling Chronological Method (Figure 3)

The first alternate solution begins by posing the question of what a pigment is, and providing a brief answer and introduction below in text. This text is accompanied by imagery of a paint sample, with insets of microscopic close-up views of pigments in paint to show the composition. This explanation of pigments focuses on their scientific aspects. This is followed by a textual explanation of pigments’ role in basic paint composition, supplemented by visuals of ingredients of basic paint and an image of a cave painting. This would transition the explanation of pigments into the next topic, the composition of paint, by explaining paints on a general level and only elaborating on how pigments create paint (the next topic explains paint composition as the ingredients varied through different art eras, but focuses on ingredients besides pigments).

Pros:

This combination of artistic and scientific imagery in this solution through the connection of microscope images and a painting directly show the science of pigments. The pictorial representation of the basic elements of paint makes pigment composition more understandable, and makes the overall concept of how pigments function more accessible. The layout of the information, beginning with basic ideas and becoming more complex, then transitioning into the next topic by relating pigments to paint, make the solution as an introduction more effective. The use of a cave painting to explain the basic concepts of paint also fit the chronological format of the exhibit and museum. The layout is variable by including different shapes, but is still organized and reads top to bottom.

Cons:

The use of a cave painting to show pigment composition explains the basic concept of paint, but could confuse viewers, because paint composition varies across types of paints; although the following panel elaborates on the topic the cave painting introduces, the user might interpret the following panel as a refutation of the information accompanying the cave painting.

The layout, similar to a book, could be boring for younger viewers to follow; they might become impatient progressing through the topics in order, and might skip over and miss some information. Finally, the images, which do not make sense without the accompanying text, might confuse or prove useless for users who cannot or do not read the text. The images should be more self-explanatory in order to still effectively communicate to users who decide to not read all of the text.

Alternate Solution 2: Text-based Method

The second alternate solution uses a large, attention-grabbing graphic of a paint tube spilling paint, with the title posing the same question of what a pigment is. On either side of the paint tube graphic is a box with textual information accompanied by visuals. The box to the left of the graphic discusses what a pigment is and the original composition of paint, accompanied by an image of a cave painting. The right box includes information regarding the general chemistry of pigments and substances in which pigments are mixed in order to make paint, accompanied by visuals of microscopic images of pigments and of ground-up pigments.

Pros:

The interesting graphic and title image captures attention, sparks interest, and immediately distinguishes and introduces the topic. The subtopics within this topic divide evenly into two parts, so the two boxes on either side of the graphic effectively present the information.

Cons:

Because of the large central graphic, the panel has less space for information; as a result, the solution communicates less information, and the information is condensed into a smaller space. In addition, although the topic relates to paint, the overall purpose of the panel is to introduce pigments and their characteristics apart from their role in paint, so the graphic of a paint tube could detract from user understanding of pigments as an independent scientific topic, and cause users to immediately focus on their relationship to paint. People also tend to have misconceptions about pigments, thinking that pigments are the same substance as paints; and this graphic could to reaffirm that misunderstanding.

This solution also consists of mostly textual information, with few visuals beyond the title graphic, which would lose the attention of and communicate less effectively to younger audiences and users who choose to not read the text.

Alternate Solution 3: Diagram Method

The third alternate solution introduces the topic by posing the question of what a pigment is and by drawing the eye to the central color wheel surrounding the title. The subtopics within the topic, which answer the question the title poses, are formed around the color wheel as they branch out from the center to the corners of the panel in a web diagram format. Each subtopic is designed visually and organized conceptually to fit a color scheme, and the subtopic associated with a given color branches from that color on the central color wheel; for example, the subtopic explaining pigments in scientific terms discusses chlorophyll and uses green images of leaves and trees, and so this box branches out from the green on the color wheel. The other subtopics are two microscopic images of paint accompanying text describing the composition of pigments, and an image of the ingredients of basic paint accompanied by an explanation through text.

Pros:

This solution allows for multiple images and text while still retaining coherence and organization in the overall appearance and in the order of content. The central placement of the title graphic draws in user attention, and captures the interest of younger audiences, especially with the similarity to a game board. The graphic and the organization of the topics by color allow for an interesting presentation of information, and connect the topics. The organization by color also brings the understanding of pigments to a scientific level before an artistic level, by using visuals of color rather than only of paint.

Because the organization is not strictly chronological, and users can read topics independently of one another and have them still make sense, users who decide to skim the exhibit will still understand the general concept without missing vital information.

Cons:

The web diagram could potentially detract from comprehension because the ideas within the topic do make more sense chronologically, but this could be amended by organizing the exhibit by color and by chronology (the color wheel can be rotated to fit the chronological progression of topics, so that the exhibit follows both patterns left to right and top to bottom, how the user will most likely read the exhibit).

Topic #2: How Do You Make Paint?

Alternate Solution 1: Timeline Method

The first alternate solution introduces the topic by posing the question of how to make paint, and consists of a timeline that spans the panel. The timeline contains seven points for seven art eras and the types of paint used during that time. Each point has a visual in a square block; the blocks alternate below or above the line that spans the panel, and the date of the art era is on the opposite side of the line that the block is for each point. Each point has a pictorial visual of the ingredients of the paint used during that time above the line, which are not visible until the user presses a button at each point that illuminates the pictures by lighting a bulb behind the surface. Each point also has textual information to provide more information below the line.

Pros:

The timeline is a format recognizable to users of all ages, and clearly communicates the progression of paint composition through time, one of the main ideas of this topic. The format is symmetrical and visually appealing, and the large space left for the title allows for a graphically interesting title that grabs the users’ attention.

Cons:

The layout ideally accommodates seven subtopics, but the topic only requires 3-4 subtopics to most effectively explain the idea; more topics might result in not providing enough information on the most important 3-4 topics of those seven for lack of space, or having unnecessary topics that do not add to user comprehension. The layout does not leave much room for pictures of ingredients, but the ingredients are among the most important ideas for the exhibit to communicate. The appearance is somewhat cluttered because of the multiple components to each subtopic (text, large visual, pictures of ingredients, and date), and the small space allowed for each subtopic. Finally, the interactive portion, in which the user presses the button to reveal the ingredients, does not add to the users’ experience sufficiently enough to justify adding the necessary technology. The interaction is ultimately unnecessary in helping user comprehension.

Alternate Solution 2: Game Method

The second alternate solution approaches the topic through a game in order to fully engage the user and challenge them to apply what they learned from the previous panel and from the introduction

to the current panel to determine what might comprise the paint for a given era. the solution begins with a title posing the same question as the first solution, followed by instructions for the game (the user must press the button under each art era to make ingredient choices appear on a touch screen at the bottom, from which they then tap the ingredients they guess are in that era’s paint. The screen will prompt the user to submit their answer, then indicate their accuracy). Below this title and introduction, the panel divides into four rectangles for four art eras, each with a large visual of a painting from that era, a title and date, and a button. Below the rectangles is the touch screen where the ingredients appear and the interaction takes place. The entire panel will be a touch screen, but only the buttons for each era and the ingredients portion use the users’ interaction to function.

Pros:

The game approach actively engages the user to apply their acquired knowledge, and the incorporation of a test that yields a score indicates their comprehension and challenges them to increase their understanding. For example, if the user does not score well at first, he or she might be motivated to try again or to review the previous panel in order to better understand the information. The game also appeals to younger audiences and users who are interactive learners rather than learners through visuals and text.

The imagery as the main focus of the exhibit clearly communicates the main ideas about different among paint types by showing, rather than telling, the user how the different paint compositions affect the appearance of the final painting. The topics also divide well in the painting; only four topics allow for large rectangles with sufficient space for visuals, and the overall topic is presented effectively when reduced to only four, rather than seven, topics.

Cons:

The bottom of the panel is somewhat cluttered in appearance, although this could be amended by rearranging the placement of text, subtitles, and visuals, while still maintaining the overall layout. The solution does not focus on textual information, but rather solely on the game experience as the teaching method; while this engages the user, this presents the potential problem of not providing complete information about each art era. The information presented about each era is limited to only the ingredients and the visuals, rather than fuller explanations of the history involved; for example, users will learn through the game that Encaustic painting involved wax, but they will not learn why. This could possibly be amended by adding to the game experience, including a portion in which the screen provides an explanation of “why” after the correct answer for the ingredients is revealed, but this might make the game more complicated or long, and the user might become impatient and skip over reading the information.

Finally, the instructions for the game and the visuals are scattered, and the appearance does not immediately resemble a game; as a result, users might be confused at first and unaware that the panel requires their interaction to effectively communicate.

Alternate Solution 3: Materials Method

The third alternate solution relies on user interaction to reveal the information, but not in a game approach. The panel is entirely a touch screen, divided into four boxes, three of which are

informational boxes about the three subtopics covered in the panel. The fourth box, on the top right, is a title box, consisting of a black background and the title posing the same question of how to make paint.

When the user approaches the panel, the entire panel is blacked out except for the title panel. Beneath the title, a button prompts the user to touch to begin. Touching the panel once reveals the second box, on the top left. Touching the same button then reveals the third box, and touching again reveals the fourth. Touching a last time returns the screen to the initial appearance of only the title screen being visible.

In each box is a text box explaining information about paint during that era, accompanied by pictorial visuals of paint ingredients; a title of the era, and dates; and an image of artwork from that era as a background. All of this information appears when the box reveals. At some spot on the painting is an X and a prompt to click the X, which reveals a microscopic close-up of the pigments in that paint composition. The user touching to reveal the box and to see a close-up are the only interactions involved in this exhibit; the user guides the progress through the information, but their performance in a game experience does not determine how well the information is communicated.

Pros:

The topics in this solution visually and conceptually divide well, and limiting the information to only the three most important topics allows for elaboration on those three topics to fully explain them without limiting space or ideas. Using the picture of the painting of each era as the background image allows for more space for textual information, titles, and the supplementary images of microscopic close-ups without detracting from the imagery.

The user interaction involved in this solution augments the clarity of the information, because their control over the amount of information on the screen allows them to fully experience each block before moving onto the next because of impatience or feeling overwhelmed by too much information. This system also suggests that the user take more time to view each panel and move onto the next subtopic only after viewing each individually.

The layout is visually appealing and symmetrical, and the progression of topics moving counterclockwise from the left adds variation to the experience without confusing the user, because the blocks appear one-by-one. The need for user interaction is immediately evident because the initial screen only reveals the title and the prompt to touch to begin, eliminating any potential confusion in the user. The interaction is limited and planned enough to be relevant and not excessive.

Cons:

Although the solution will appeal to younger audiences through the interaction and large visuals, the format of the information might not communicate effectively, because of the heavy reliance on text to explain the message.

Topic #3: The Rise of Impressionism

Alternate Solution 1: Imagery-based Method

The first alternate solution uses an Impressionist painting as the background to eliminate the need for pictures to set the theme of what Impressionism is. At the top of the panel is the title “The Rise of Impressionism,” and on either side of the panel are boxed insets with textual information and smaller visuals presenting information about the art movement. The left box introduces the movement and describes the methods of painting that Impressionists used, accompanied by a visual showing the process of painting (an Impressionist painting divided into four sections, each showing the same painting at different stages to show the Impressionist method of working quickly and all at once). The right box elaborates on the understanding and development of color theory during that time period, accompanied by visuals of different color wheels. A caption on the background labels the image title, artist, and date.

Pros:

The background image conveys the intended mood and immediately distinguishes the topic as being Impressionism without the need for many visuals; using the main image as a background leaves more room for text and other information. The blocks of text do not detract from user understanding of the background image, and could possibly even take up more space on the panel than the current design shows. The topic separation by two blocks of text is clear, fits the content appropriately, and increases the organization of the information.

Cons:

The blocks do not leave much room for other supplementary images that could help communicate the information. The blocks can be enlarged, but even so, having blocks limits the space for other images. The resultant heavy reliance on text to communicate the information, since there are not many supplementary images and the ones present are small, detracts from the communication to younger audiences. In addition, the textual focus and book-like layout do not engage younger audiences in the learning process, and users who are inclined to skim or skip over text will not fully benefit from the panel. The lack of user interaction with such a bulk of information might detract from the learning experience for younger audiences.

Alternate Solution 2: Text-based Intro Method

The second alternate solution uses elements of the first alternate solution, but rearranged, and

with a more significant focus on the information rather than the background imagery. The box containing the information comprises most of the panel, with space for the title on the top and a large figure cut-out from an Impressionist painting on the left side. This figure conveys the mood without using space for Impressionist paintings in the same way that the first solution does, but the figure’s detachment from the painting and overlap over the informational box makes the layout more interesting and takes up less space, allowing more space for information.

The information in the box is a mix of text and supplementary images, and is divided into columns, reading like a book. However, the larger space, and subsequently larger text size and visuals, sets the overall appearance of this box apart from that in the first solution. Finally, the background behind the box, title, and figure is a faded image of an Impressionist painting; although not plainly visible, this adds to the mood of the panel without being visually distracting.

Pros:

Using only one figure form an Impressionist work conveys the intended mood as effectively as the background image in the first alternative, but takes up less room and creates a more visually interesting layout. The large text box allows for more pictures, more text, and larger sized pictures and text, to appeal to a younger audience and communicate more information and more effectively to those who skim over text. The topic separation within the box is clear, symmetrical, and organized into columns; and although the topic distinctions are still evident, the unification of ideas within the same box relates the ideas better than using two separate boxes, as in the first solution. The panel space is used effectively, with as much space being used to present information as possible without overloading the space with information.

Cons:

The lack of user interaction with such a bulk of information might detract from the learning experience for younger audiences. In addition, although the text is larger and supplemented by more visuals, the largely text-based communication method might not appeal to younger audiences and those who skim information.

Alternate Solution 3: Combination of Topics Method

The third solution is entirely a touch screen, and combines the subtopics within the introduction to Impressionism (explanation of paintings and understandings of color theory) into one

presentation to communicate more information at once and to directly show relationships among ideas. Touching the different colors on the color wheel, which shows the understanding of color theory at that time, makes the other colors on the adjacent Impressionist painting become monochrome, and only that color remain visible. Touching the center of the wheel returns the painting to the initial colors. Textual information on either side of the interactive wheel and painting explains further information about color theory and the Impressionist painting process. At the bottom of the panel, information about changes in paint manufacturing is presented mostly through text, supplemented by some images.

Pros:

            The interactive experience combines the scientific ideas (color theory) and artistic/historical ideas (painting appearance and process) within the topic into one presentation, therefore uniting the ideas and presenting relationships between them. The interaction also appeals to younger audiences.

Cons:

            Although the interaction is colorful and visually interesting, the exhibit does not leave much room for other imagery to explain the topic. The panel leaves no room for imagery other than the color wheel and painting at the top, and the information at the bottom is squished and leaves room for only one or two small pictures. The interaction is the focus of the exhibit, and does effectively communicate some ideas within the topic, but because the two topics of color and painting processes are combined and only presented through their relationship to one another, information about the two topics other than their relationship is omitted; therefore, the exhibit does not fully explain all of the information from each topic to the user. The information about manufacturing is largely text-based, and will most likely not draw the attention of the user.

            The layout is somewhat disorganized, as the manufacturing information, which does not relate to the interactive portion, is awkwardly included at the bottom of the panel. Although the elements of the panel could be rearranged, the presence of the unrelated information is still awkward.

Topic #4: New Pigments through Impressionism

Alternate Solution 1: Timeline Method

The first alternate solution is entirely a touch screen, and organizes the pigments covered in a line of narrow rectangular color swatches organized by date of creation. The timeline runs across the center of the panel, and clicking a color enlarges that swatch and prompts information about the

pigment’s history to appear. A title and date appear above the color; in the top right corner, an image of a painting using the color appears, with the instances of that color in that painting circled lightly; in the bottom left corner, a profile about the chemist responsible for creating the pigment and his or her picture appears; and in the lower right corner, next to the graphic of a paint tube spilling (which is constantly on the screen before and after interaction), pictures of the ingredients in the pigment appear. In the top left corner, the title of the exhibit, “New Pigments,” introduces the panel and provides prompts and instructions for the user to follow. Clicking the enlarged color swatch again returns the screen to the initial appearance (identically sized swatches, a blank black oval where the chemist’s image appears, a graphic of a paint tube spilling out paint, and a blank black rectangle where the image of the painting appears).

Pros:

The condensation of the colors in a narrow timeline allows the user to focus on the chosen, enlarged pigment and the surrounding information, without losing the visual presence of the other colors or being confused as to how to return to the rest of the exhibit. Having the information about the pigment spread around the panel on either side of the timeline creates a visually interesting exhibit while still maintaining organization, because the information for each pigment fills the same spots, creating a variable yet still unified progression of screens.

The interaction gives viewers control over the exhibit, and prevents an overload of information by allowing them to choose to not view the information for every pigment, while still enticing them to go through the entirety of the exhibit by showing previews of all of the options through making all of the swatches visible. The need for user involvement and the instructions for how to proceed are immediately clear because of the easily noticeable instructions and the blank black shapes that suggest that interaction is necessary in order to reveal missing information. This interaction also appeals to younger audiences, as does the abundance of colors and graphics that make the information accessible without reading all of the text. The solution includes minimal text that communicates even to users who skim the panel, and imagery that users can understand independently of their captions.

The multiple interactions involved in viewing one topic (clicking the color swatch again to restore the screen) increases user involvement.

Finally, the chronological order of the colors in the timeline by date of creation, rather than in rainbow order, communicates information about the dates in an immediately recognizable way and without needing text to suggest a general overview of the progression of paints.

Cons:

Although the interaction allows users to choose what information to view, this might prevents them from learning the full extent of information if they only click a couple of swatches and move on. The narrow swatches and many colors might sway them from feeling the need to click every color and view every screen. This could be amended by making the timeline more accessible in appearance, possibly by reducing the number of swatches and focusing on less colors, or by changing the shape of the swatches to enlarge them and having the user scroll across the screen to view the full timeline.

Alternate Solution 2: Rainbow/Grid Method

The second alternate solution uses a game board-like format on a touch screen layout, working similarly to the first solution in that users click a color swatch the view the information about the pigment on the screen. However, this line of color swatches acts as a border for the screen, in rainbow order rather than chronological order, and the information appears in the center of the screen when a user chooses a pigment.

Touching the pigment makes the rest of the swatches turn monochrome, leaving only the chosen swatch colored. The center of the panel is divided into four boxes, each dedicated to presenting a portion of the information: the first box has the color swatch, title, and date; the second has an image of a painting using the color, with the color brightened and all other colors in the painting faded slightly; the top of the third box has an image of the chemist who created the pigment, and the bottom of the box has his or her name and profile information; and the fourth box has ingredients in the pigment and a short description in text. Touching the original swatch, as indicated to the user by a prompt, returns the screen to the initial position: the four boxes are empty, and all of the swatches in the border are colored.

Pros:

The game board-like layout appeals to younger audiences and captures their interest and motivation to click multiple swatches. The multiple interactions involved in viewing one topic (clicking the color swatch again to restore the screen) increases user involvement. The other colors’ fading to monochrome focuses the users’ attention on the chosen color.

The interaction gives viewers control over the exhibit by allowing them to not view the information for every pigment, and only select the colors that interest them. Finally, the center area division into four sections effectively accommodates the subtopics for each pigment, with one for the title and three for the three portions of information for a pigment.

Cons:

The rainbow order of the colors might detract from user interest in clicking on more colors; the rainbow appearance will be familiar to users, and they might see the swatches of similar colors as unnecessary to click on (for example, if there are multiple yellow swatches, they might not distinguish among them, and only click on one or two). The rainbow order as opposed to the chronological order also detracts from the users’ understanding of the chronology of the development of pigments.

The placement of the color swatch title and close-up image is less clear than if that information were at the top of the panel, because the title blends in with the rest of the information and is less apparent to the user at first sight. Finally, the panel is symmetrical, but is not visually interesting or varying, which might bore the user.

Alternate Solution 3: Scrolling Method

The third alternate solution retains the timeline of color swatches from the first solution, but this timeline is at the bottom of the touch screen panel. At the top of the panel is the title, “New Pigments during Impressionism,” followed by a brief textual introduction and a prompt describing the instructions to the user. Each pigment in the exhibit takes the entire panel, and the user can scroll across pigments by pressing arrows on either side of the screen, or by clicking on any of the swatches

on the timeline at the bottom to jump to that page.

On the screen for each pigment is a box containing the pigment information, with the pigment title and date of creation at the top. On the left is an oval-shaped image of the chemist and a brief profile and history. On the right is an image of the painting that uses the color, and a web diagram inset stemming from a point on the painting shows pictures of the ingredients of that pigment.

Pros:

The scrolling method as opposed to the user choosing any pigment gives them the control over their experience in a similar way to the first and second solutions, but including arrows gently suggests for the user to view all the pigments in the exhibit. The user will not feel frustrated or bored with the ordered progression of information because of their ability to control their experience, but the scrolling method increases the likelihood that the user will view more information.

The colors being in chronological order helps communicate information about the development of pigments through time. The center area is organized in that the title is clear and visible, and the information within the box is symmetrical.

Finally, visually connecting the pigment composition to the image of the painting shows the relationship between ideas better than the two topics shown separately.

Cons:

The user might become bored using the arrows to scroll; and although the timeline provides a way to change the restricted progression of topics, the user might become overwhelmed by the overload of information. The repetition of the box format through the entire exhibit could become monotonous and bore the user, causing them to leave the exhibit or not retain the information they see.

Finalized Solution

For the first panel, I plan to move forward with the third solution, modified by arranging the color wheel so that the topics organize around the wheel chronologically, and a user reading the panel left to right and top to bottom will understand pigment composition most fully. This solution appeals to a greater range of ages within the expected audience, because the images make sense independently of the text, appealing to younger users and those who skim the text. The layout is interesting, and the imagery of the different colors relating to the subtopics within the panel shows the user, rather than tells them, about pigments. This solution involves the user the more than the others because of the interesting path the eye takes reading the information. Finally, this solution tied with the first in adhering most to the specifications and limitations.

         For the second panel, I plan to move forward with the third solution, modified to include simple captions to more effectively communicate the images’ significance independently of the text. This solution is the most visually appealing while also accommodating the information most effectively, allowing for sufficient text and visuals to communicate. The interactions involved in this solution involve the user, and add interest to the appearance of the panel and the process of reading through the information. The format of the information guarantees that the user will retain more information than in the game method, while still presenting the information in a more variable and engaging way than the first solution method of showing a simple timeline. Finally, this solution adhered most to the specifications and limitations.

For the third panel, I plan to move forward with the second solution, slightly modified to include the game from the third solution within the main box in the panel. The second solution most effectively accommodated the information and communicated the mood and imagery of Impressionism, but the lack of interaction and bulk of text and visuals made the user experience boring. The interaction in the third solution effectively related information about color theory and Impressionist paintings, but did not cover all of the information within the topic, and did not guarantee that the user will retain the information. I will include the adjacent color wheel and painting downscaled and within the text in the second solution to involve the user in the learning process, ensure that they will read through more of the text (to reach the interactive portion), and still cover more information than the third solution alone did. The second and third solutions scored higher than the first in adhering to the specifications and limitations.

For the fourth panel, I plan to move forward with the first solution, slightly modified to include arrows similar to those in the third solution. The first solution’s layout most effectively divides the information and adheres to rules of symmetry without having a monotonous appearance across the pages. The information is spread, but appears in the same places for each pigment’s page, preventing confusion in the user while still moving their eyes around the screen in an interesting way. The timeline of colors communicates the chronology of pigment development, and the placements of the swatches in the center of the screen encourages the user to view more pigments than the third solution, whose smaller timeline and navigation mainly by arrows might discourage the user from continuing through the entire exhibit. However, the arrows do augment the navigation through the pages by encouraging the user to proceed through the information in order, so I will include arrows in the first solution, but as a secondary option rather than as a primary mode of navigation, as they are in the third solution. Finally, the first solution adhered most to the specifications and limitations.

Exhibit Display Alternate Solutions

The exhibit display I am developing, a trapezoid-shaped kiosk covering the influence of developments in chemistry through the Impressionist era, divides into four parts:

1. Pigments
2. Paint composition through history
3. Impressionism
4. Paints through Impressionism

The physical kiosk divides into four parts as well due to the trapezoidal shape. As a result, I designed this exhibit to include a panel of information, one to cover each of the four topics, on each side of the kiosk. These panels might be printed visuals and text, or screens for interactive aspects to the display.

I created three alternative solutions for each of the four panels to the exhibit. The alternative solutions, with annotations, are shown below:

Figure 1: Alternative solutions for first panel for exhibit display, focused on introducing the scientific nature of a pigment and how pigments are involved in paints.

Figure 2: Alternative solutions for second panel for exhibit display, focused on providing a general overview of paint composition, and multiple variations on paint ingredients and production from ancient times to the years before Impressionism.

Figure 3: Alternative solutions for third panel for exhibit display, focused on introducing Impressionism, how the era varied from previous art forms, and how advancements in paint manufacturing and color theory allowed the development of Impressionism.

Figure 4: Alternative solutions for fourth panel for exhibit display, focused on providing a timeline of developments in new pigments throughout the Impressionist era, and how artists used these new colors to advance the artistic movement.

The next step in the design process is to complete a second rationale for this layer of the project by testing the alternative solutions against the exhibit display specifications and limitations and by reviewing the content with the acting client and the target users, if possible. After comparing the solutions and completing a rationale, I will be able to finalize the solution for the exhibit display layer of the project.

Finalized Exhibit Layout

Below is the finalized exhibit layout for the museum with projected color schemes and furniture layout. This completes the first stage of the project, and I am now developing the alternative exhibit display plans.

Figure 1: Final exhibit layout plan with hatched surfaces.

Exhibit Display Specifications and Limitations

For the next layer of the project, developing the specific exhibit display focus, I will adhere to the following specifications and limitations:

• The solution must be concise and comprehensible for younger audiences.
• The solution must be written at an 8^th grade reading level-equivalent.
• The solution must be written in paragraphs of 4 sentences maximum.
•  The solution must have clear organization.
•  The solution must generally read left to right and top to bottom.
• The solution must have symmetry.
• The solution must have interactive displays.
• The solution must include at least one interactive panel of the four panels.
• The solution must require at least one and no more than three interactions from the user.
• The solution must not have interactions that detract from user comprehension.
• The solution must visually engage the user.
• The solution must include organic and geometric shapes.
• The solution must include a visual to illustrate each subtopic within the panels.
• The solution must provide adequate space for the text necessary to communicate information.

Interactive Kiosk Focus

For the next portion of the project, I will focus on fully developing the kiosk on the second floor in the Impressionism section of the large exhibit room. This exhibit will cover the effects of developments in chemistry on paint and artwork, particularly during the Impressionist period.

The drawing below outlines the dimensions for the kiosk. I will develop the display as an angular polygon as opposed to the initial plan of a half-cylinder in order to simplify and expedite construction of the display and the process of hanging visuals on the wall.

Figure 1: Dimensions for the interactive kiosk focusing on chemistry and art, shown in isometric and orthographic views.

Updated Alternate Solutions - Layout

These updated drawings of alternate solutions include exhibit content (as outlined in previous post) and added dimensions to test handicap accessibility. The final drawing is the optimized solution that my group is proceeding with for the remainder of the project. The reasons for this choice are outlined in the Alternate Solutions Matrix and Rationale.

Alternate Solutions Matrix

Fig 1: The alternate solutions matrix, testing alternate solutions against criteria and constraints, in order to arrive at the optimal solution.

Rationale

Introduction

For this portion of the project, I designed the layout of the museum. I worked with my project partner Michaela Altland, who designed alternate interior wall layouts, and created alternate exhibit layouts for each of her solutions in accordance with design principles I researched, the expected type and breadth of topics that will comprise the content of the museum, and the plans that my other project partner Margaret Goddard designed to create documentaries for the museum. These designs include alternate circulation patterns, the location in which each topic in the museum’s content will be covered, potential furniture and exhibit display arrangements, and spatial and seating accommodations for Margaret’s documentaries. I will assess the validity of each alternate solution in terms of the specifications and limitations I set up for the exhibit layout portion of this project, which include criteria such as minimum dimensions around exhibits for unobstructed access by disabled users, clarity of circulation, and appropriateness of space and room design for accompanying topic of content, among others. Using these criteria, I will assess my alternate solutions and design an optimal finalized solution.

Alternate Solution 1

The first alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s “open space” floor plan. The front entrance leads to the left to the reception area, where visitors purchase tickets. The back entrance, accessible via a ramp installed for the back door, leads the visitor through the gift shop to the reception area. In front of the circulation desk is a waiting area, consisting of chairs, a table, and a shelf for brochures and museum guides. From the reception area, visitors move through Exhibit #1, the Sandy Hook Background exhibit, a narrower room (7’1/8” wide) that leads to a documentary space for a continuation of the Sandy Hook exhibit. This documentary room provides seating for at least six visitors on the two couches, and enough room for one wheelchair (which requires 32”x48” of space). The exhibit then moves back through Exhibit #1, across the entrance hall that leads to the reception desk, and to Exhibit #2, the exhibit about Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations. This exhibit follows a circular circulation around a cylindrical 36” high kiosk in the center of the room.

The exhibit then moves upstairs, where it follows a streamlined circulation path counterclockwise beginning with the farthest right room, a documentary room for the Astronomy/Alchemy and Renaissance video. The room accommodates one visitor in a wheelchair, and at least two people on the bench. I designed the room to accommodate three video screens, but one can replace them if the final solution for Margaret consists of a single video. As the visitor exits the documentary room, the exhibit moves to their right to Exhibit #3, the Impressionism exhibit. Before entering the room, the visitor approaches a wall that divides the doorway, leaving a right-hand entrance and left-hand exit. On the wall is the title and introduction wall decal announcing the exhibit. The pathway circulates around the wall divider, past an interactive video display, and to their right to the next doorway, also divided by a wall with a title announcing the exhibits, which include Art Nouveau, Cubism/Surrealism, and Modern Connections. This room, Exhibit #4, circulates counterclockwise from the right-hand entrance in the doorway to the left-hand exit. Within the exhibit room are two box-shaped wall dividers, which each add four additional walls for exhibition space and organize circulation.

As the visitor exits this exhibit space, they continue downstairs, where they exit from the entrance or visit the gift shop. If they visit the gift shop, they purchase items at the reception desk.

Beneficial Design Aspects

The highlights of this design include its two entrances, which allow for handicap accessibility and clear direction to a central reception area. The waiting area and reception areas are spacious and organized. Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 have circular circulation paths that make the chronology of the idea hierarchy and visitor transit clear, as compared to a room without division by walls or exhibits in the center of the floor.

The museum content is split between floors effectively: the first floor consists of background information and the inspiration between art and science, while the second consists of the influences between art and science. The division between floors increases the clarity of this transition between concepts.

The many wall dividers in the exhibit spaces increase the surface area of wall for exhibits, increase organization, and allow for the display of topics’ titles, which increases the visitor’s awareness of ideas and the transitions among them. Exhibit #4 is spacious, and accommodates the disabled very well. Both documentary rooms can be enclosed by doors, as per Margaret’s specification.

Negative Design Aspects

Documentary #1, if created, will be a shorter video mainly used as an introduction tool, and therefore does not require an entire room or much seating accommodations; while documentary #2 will be a longer, 10-minute video, requiring seating for multiple visitors. However, the room for documentary #1 is large and suited for viewers, and the room for documentary #2 is small and does not seat a large audience. Therefore, the room layout does not match the content very well in this case. Although the rooms provide a method of enclosing the space, doors give yield feelings of inaccessibility among visitors, and the space seems secluded in a detrimental way.

            The circulation on the first floor is confusing. The user must retrace their steps back through Exhibit #1 to proceed in the circulation, and the space is narrow, and two-way transit will cause confusion with visitors moving in both directions and standing stationary in the room, especially factoring in disabled visitors.

After arriving back to the reception area, the user must pass the stairs and go through Exhibit #2 before again returning to move upstairs. Although good design consists of providing views of later destinations for visitors as they circulate, these destinations are readily accessible during the circulation, confusing the user as to the intended path to travel.

Final Thoughts

On the first floor, the circulation system detracts from the museum’s cohesion, and the room sizes for documentaries do not fully accommodate the content. However, the second floor’s wall dividers increase clarity in ideas and in circulation. The division of topics between floors is effective and indicates conceptual shifts to the user. I will pull a fair amount of ideas from this solution for the finalized solution.

Alternate Solution 2

            The second alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s floor plan with the back entrance serving as the only entrance. The entrance leads through a furnished foyer/waiting area and to the reception area, which features roped lines in front of the desk. The exhibit begins in the adjacent room. Exhibit #1 is Sandy Hook Background, and features an open-space room with a video on one wall. The visitor moves counterclockwise through Exhibit #1 and exits to the stairs, where the exhibit continues.

            Upstairs, the circulation pattern moves clockwise from left to right around the floor. The first exhibit is to the immediate left from the stairs, where the doorway is bisected by a T-shaped wall divider. The visitor follows the designated path along the divider through the Art and Science as Mutual Influences exhibit, Exhibit #2, and reaches curtains enclosing the Astronomy/Alchemy/Renaissance documentary space. The space includes a bench to accommodate about two visitors, and adequate space for at least four visitors in wheelchairs. The end of this section is designated by curtains at the opposite side. The visitor passes through the Impressionism exhibit and exits Exhibit #3.

            The entrance to Exhibit #4, Art Nouveau, is partially blocked by a wall divider to create two-way transit paths in the doorway. Exiting Exhibit #4 after circulating through leads the visitor to Exhibit #5, Cubism/Surrealism, a separate, smaller room on the visitor’s left. Upon leaving, the visitor returns to the staircase, and completes the circuit on the first floor.

            On the first floor, the visitor continues to the right, through Exhibit #6, the Modern Connections exhibit. They pass through this and the gift shop, and arrive back at the reception area, where they can purchase items or proceed towards the exit.

Pros

The highlights of this solution are primarily in its organization of content. Each topic exists in its own room (counting the curtained documentary section as a separate room), making concepts clearly divided for users. The circulation is streamlined, follows a clockwise or counterclockwise direction on either floor, and is continuous everywhere except in the transfer between floors. Even though our team no longer plans to include a gift shop, placing the merchandise in a location necessary to pass in transit is an effective business strategy, and would be beneficial. The wall dividers in Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 allow for organized circulation and titles/introductions on walls. The documentary room in the midst of the other exhibits makes the video experience more intertwined with the rest of the museum experience. The documentary room accommodates multiple visitors on benches and in wheelchairs comfortably.

Cons

            The documentary in the middle of the main exhibit room could create a more integrated experience, but is only separated by curtains, and therefore presents potential distraction among visitors in the surrounding exhibits. In addition, some visitors may prefer to not watch the documentary, but will have to circulate through the room anyway to continue the exhibit. Constant circulation through the documentary room may detract from the viewing experience for those watching the documentary.

            The separation between concepts as manifested in transit between floors is adequate. The second floor begins with the Science and Art as Mutual Inspirations, which transitions well from the Sandy Hook content, but also creates the problem of the bulk of the content on the second floor. This solution does not make use of wall space for content as effectively as possible. The final exhibit, Modern Connections, has adequate space for displays, but the room layout—or lack thereof, as the room is small and has no dividers—does not enhance or highlight the important, conclusive topic.

            The rope dividers in the reception area are most likely unnecessary, and only take up more space. The entrance foyer is crowded with furnishings, which could be removed or decreased in amount. Finally, the layout does not include an elevator or ramp, and so might not be completely viable in the current state the design is in.

Final Thoughts

The circulation system in the museum is continuous and effective save for the documentary room, which could present issues when placed in the midst of other exhibits. Some negative features of the design can be removed easily, such as the foyer furnishings, while others would require major adjustment, such as the compatibility of the content with the accompanying room (especially in the case of Modern Connections). The solution contains a fair amount of ideas I will include in the finalized solution.

Alternate Solution 3

            The third alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s streamlined path floor plan.  The visitors enter through the front entrance only, and proceed to the reception area. The visitor moves through Exhibit #1, Sandy Hook Background, to the Astronomy/Alchemy/Renaissance documentary. This room contains a bench for two visitors and space to accommodate one visitor in a wheelchair. Visitors exit to the right and move upstairs.

            The second floor main hallway is bisected by a wall divider. Visitors come upstairs by the staircase on their left, and move clockwise through the left-hand exhibit rooms, around the wall divider, through the right-hand exhibit rooms, and back downstairs on the other side of the divider. The first left-hand exhibit room covers Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations around a cylindrical kiosk that increases organization and adds wall space. The exhibit room continues to an identical kiosk on the opposite side, where Impressionism is covered. As the visitor leaves Exhibit #2 and moves along the wall, Art Nouveau is introduced. The visitor reaches and continues this exhibit as circulate around the wall. In Exhibit #4, a wall divides the Cubism/Surrealism room and provides direction for clockwise circulation around the room. The exit leads back downstairs, where the visitor must retrace the path through the documentary room and Exhibit #1, pass by the reception area, and then move to the Modern Connections room adjacent to the reception area. Exhibit #5 is divided by a diagonal wall divider, which directs the circulation clockwise through to the exit.

Pros

            The staff at the reception area have unobstructed views of the entrance and waiting area. The waiting and reception areas are spacious. The cylindrical kiosks and long wall divider bisecting the hallway increase organization and make paths very clear for visitors. Exhibit #2 is very spacious and can accommodate disabled users comfortably. Exhibit #3, the Impressionism exhibit along the bisecting wall, provides clear direction and transition to the final exhibit relating to art and science as mutual influences, and provides ample space for users in wheelchairs to navigate comfortably.

            The solution includes ample space for Cubism/Surrealism, which will most likely be an extensive topic with a large amount of displayed information. The multiple interactive displays improve this area due to the nature of the content, and the likelihood that the exhibit will consist primarily of interactive displays. The diagonal wall divider in Exhibit #5 adds character and interest to the room by setting it apart from others in wall layout.

Cons

             The circulation in the beginning of the exhibit, in which the visitor must walk behind the reception desk to the first room, is awkward and unclear. Transit through the documentary room is necessary to continue the exhibit: one cannot access the stairs from any other door, and reentry to the reception area is awkward coming from behind the desk. This poses potential problems of discomfort in users who would prefer to skip the documentary. In addition, the documentary room only has minimal seating for the main, 10-min video. Finally, the documentary only moved forward one topic in the outline, but its placement before Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations slightly disrupts the coherence of the exhibit, as the order becomes art and science as mutual influences, then mutual inspirations, then mutual influences again.

            Although the long wall bisecting the hallway increases organization, the rigidity of the design might stress visitors. Their path is clear, but they cannot see parts of the exhibit beyond the displays immediately near or in front of them, which may yield a feeling of a lack of control in visitors and produce negative reactions.

            Exhibit #3 has ample room for transit by visitors, but may present problems if multiple visitors remain stationary around the interactive display and block circulation.

            The pathway coming downstairs, in which the visitor must go back through the first exhibits and reception area, is awkward, inconsistent with chronology, and inconvenient. Constant two-way transit through the reception area and first exhibits will increase the stress of the environment and the confusion among visitors. Navigation to the final exhibit room is not obvious to visitors in the layout.

            Finally, our group recently learned that such a ramp is not possible in accordance with National Park Service regulations, as the staircase is a character-defining feature and must be left intact. Although the solution could be altered to fit this specification, the overall design has many flaws, and we will most likely only pull a few ideas from this layout when finalizing the solution.

Final Thoughts

Alternate Solution 3 has ample open space and clear organization on the second floor. However, the circulation on between floors is confusing, the documentary room only accommodates a minimal audience, and the restrictive pathways could produce negative visitor effects. This solution contains only some ideas that we will include in the finalized solution.
Alternate Solution 4

            The fourth alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s elevator design floor plan. The visitor proceeds from the front entrance to the right, a combination reception area and gift shop opened up spatially with the removal of the right-hand entrance wall. The visitor begins the circulation in the farthest left room. Exhibit #1 covers Sandy Hook history, and consists of a room divided by a wall containing an internal exhibit case, and a smaller side room containing multiple screens for short videos about Sandy Hook. The visitor circulates through these two rooms, then proceeds through to Exhibit #2 (a narrower, transitory exhibit space) and Exhibit #3 (a more open space that leads to the elevator and staircase at the end), both of which cover Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations.

            Upstairs, the exhibit circulates counterclockwise from right to left. The first room is the documentary room for Anatomy/Alchemy/Renaissance. The doorway is partially blocked by a wall divider, and the openings through the doorway are covered by curtains. Inside the room, a bench seating 3-4 visitors sits in front of a curved projecting screen, with enough room for one visitor in a wheelchair on one side. The exhibit continues in the large exhibit room counterclockwise. Art Nouveau is covered first in the side bisected by a wall divider and with space for display cases against the wall. Impressionism is between the two wall dividers forming a “tunnel,” and Cubism/Surrealism is on the outside of the divider that leads around to Modern Connections on the opposite side, an area with another wall divider identical to the first in Art Nouveau. The visitor exits Exhibit #4, continues downstairs, and either visits the gift shop by the reception area or exits the building.

Pros

            The removal of the wall by the entrance opens up the space and increases awareness in the visitor of where to proceed to pay for admission. The gift shop combined with the reception area allows for more space allotted for exhibition content. Sandy Hook Background information being adjacent to the beginning of the art and science exhibits, but still separated by a wall, increases cohesion without sacrificing clarity of hierarchy in the museum. The documentary room for Sandy Hook Background allows for adequate space for at least two visitors in wheelchairs to comfortably remain stationary without obstructing circulation. Exhibit #3 is spacious and clear for navigation.

            The enclosure of the second documentary room by curtains, and the room being made separate, increase the seclusion of the viewers without completely pulling them out of the museum experience. The bench accommodates a fair amount of viewers (but only one disabled visitor).

            The four wall dividers in the large exhibit room break up the space and add extra wall space, which is necessary with four topics covered in one space.

Cons

            The lack of both walls by the entrance, although increasing visitor understanding of the initial destination, removes the formality of the act of entering the space. Separating the act of approach and entrance from the first destination creates a more distinct experience for the visitor. Although the gift shop-reception combination saves space, the group recently decided not to pursue the option of including a gift shop. In addition, the presence of a gift shop limits the opportunity to add a waiting area, a space important for maintaining visitor comfort. The videos are short, but the documentary room for Sandy Hook Background does not include seating for visitors, and would need to be revised. Exhibit #2 contains narrow pathways around box kiosks: although visitors in wheelchairs can navigate through, the aisle can only accommodate one wheelchair going one way at a time, which would increase discomfort among stationary and transitory visitors both in and not in wheelchairs.

            The documentary room can only accommodate one visitor in a wheelchair, and somewhat uncomfortably as a result of the closeness in proximity of the bench to the screen.

            Although the dividers in the large exhibit room, Exhibit #4, add wall space, they decrease organization to the extent that the amount of walls and the parallel “tunnel” formation of the two central walls create many paths and the suggested route unclear. The visitor has the option between two paths to see Impressionism or Cubism/Surrealism; and although good design gives visitors a feeling of control over the situation in their space, the many turns and surfaces in this design would more likely yield frustration in visitors. The design could be altered to include less walls, but based on the same concept, so that the visitor has enough control over the situation to feel comfortable while still feeling aware of the route and hierarchy. Finally, the many wall surfaces increase ability to cover information, but the surfaces are small and the presentation would feel rushed to the visitors.

            Modern Connections, the conclusive exhibit of the museum, presents ideas conceptually different than the preceding exhibits regarding artistic and scientific influence. Therefore, although the museum’s effectiveness is not blatantly harmed in presenting Modern Connections in Exhibit #4 with the others, the effectiveness could be increased if Modern Connections were spatially different, by being in a separate room or floor, to highlight the conceptual difference.

Final Thoughts

The design is spacious and well-accommodating for the content downstairs (everywhere except Exhibit #2, which is narrow), but sacrifices space upstairs, creating crowded, divided exhibits.

Finalized Solution

The variable nature of interior design and the range of positive and negative aspects existing in every design caused me to follow through with the framework from Alternate Solution 4, whose circulation system exceeds in clarity over those of the other solutions. However, I pulled qualities from every solution to form the final, optimized solution.

The design contains a front and back entrance for handicap accessibility, but the back foyer is left unfurnished for ease of transit. The reception desk has an unobstructed view of the back entrance, and is in close proximity to the front entrance. The amount of space for each topic of content matches the breadth of content that the museum will cover: Sandy Hook Background is in Exhibit #1, because the exhibit will be more introductory and transitional than one requiring a full room. The division between floors provides a conceptual transition.

The upstairs circulation is counterclockwise beginning with the documentary room inspired by that of alternate solution 4. However, the design was modified to include more handicap accessibility. From there, the visitor moves to the large exhibit hall, whose doorway is partially blocked by a wall divider to create two way transit spaces. The visitor circulates from Art Nouveau to Impressionism, then to Cubism/Surrealism. The room uses box wall dividers to increase circulation clarity while limiting the potential paths the visitor can take.

The visitor returns downstairs to the Modern Connections exhibit on their immediate left. This also uses floor division to highlight conceptual shifts for the conclusive exhibit. After circulating around a wall divider, the visitor proceeds to the exit.

This design best uses the space to highlight conceptual shifts, accommodate the documentary, and match the content to the room size.