1. 1
Kenneth Plank
Framework and Exhibit Review
Geneva’s Story at the Geneva History Museum draws you in with a splash of color
contrasting the white halls. The light green that surrounds the text introducing the exhibit is
pleasing and drew me toward that exhibit (Dean 33-34).
Past the threshold, an open space is to the left, while multiple walls with text explaining
the history of Geneva, IL offer a more narrow path. This asymmetrical balance offers roughly
two different paths for the visitor to take, without explicitly stating as such. The open space to
the left leads to displays relating to the present and future of Geneva, while the walls to the right
create a line leading the visitor down the linear past of the city.
I opted to go left. A display of the uniforms of the local sports teams present a pleasantly
familiar anchor for the local visitor. I walked a short distance before noticing a wall of sticky
notes. A label encouraged locals to share their own experiences with the city. This method of
crowdsourcing, while providing a meaningful social object, was the highlight of the exhibit. The
one thing that may have topped it was the wall opposite of the sticky notes. A picture and
message promised the eventual implementation of story booths, providing a longer lasting and
more sophisticated version of the sticky note display.
As I walked further, I came across tablets that offered more testimonials from locals. The
tablets also included trivia and guessing games relating to Geneva. Between these tablets and an
“I Spy” activity I found later in the exhibit, this exhibit is doing an excellent job of engaging an
audience of various ages. For the above reasons, Gevena Story scores highly in terms of
engagement.

2. 2
I then noticed that the pathways made by the walls and exhibits were a rough recreation
of the streets of Geneva, using small street signs that had the local street names. Exhibits were
inside what looked like store windows and apartment windows. This playful display was the
highlight of the comfort aspect of the exhibit.
However, this is also where I began to notice some flaws that made the exhibit less
comfortable. Some of the labels in this area had what text on a black field. I found that this
strained my eyes much more than the black text on which, which the other labels had. Also, as I
looked ahead and saw the rest of the exhibit, I noticed that the only benches inside the exhibit
were all on the left side, where I had started. This would mean that those who went in the
direction I went would have to either turn back, or rush through the rest of the exhibit if they
wanted to sit down. Alternatively, they could sit on a rather small stool made for sitting while
listening to the tablets. However, as far as I saw, there was only one such stool. For these
reasons, while I would not call the exhibit uncomfortable overall, the comfort level is not as high
as it could be.
I passed through the next area somewhat quickly, since I presumed it was supposed to be
approached from the right of the threshold. Information was provided on rather large labels in a
format that was easy to understand. However, as I walked along the wall the my right, I realized
that the display were wall built to be read from left the right. I, however, was walking from right
to left.
At first I thought this was an odd choice on the part of the designers, but in retrospect I
realize that I failed to mention that there was a third path one could walk, between the left and
the right at the threshold. I failed to mention this path because I failed to notice it when I went to
the exhibit. When I did finally take notice of the rather narrow looking path, I presumed it was a

3. 3
shortcut to the exit. Only as I write this do I realize that the intention may have been for me to
walk down that middle path, then take a right to look read the displays in the proper right-to-left
fashion as I walked. However, I found that the line was ineffective in leading me down that path
(Dean, 37). The tendency for people to follow the right wall does not appear to have been taken
into account in this exhibit (Dean, 51).
Thankfully, this confusion was not enough to keep me from learning new and interesting
things about Geneva. The information was presented in a way that was easy to understand, and
between labels, tablets, and games, and video, there was a wide variety of ways to reinforce the
information. Thus Geneva Story still manages to score high on reinforcement, even with some
minor flaws.
Meaningfulness was a trickier criteria to judge. The target audience for the museum is
likely the people of Geneva. The museum appeals to those people well enough, but I didn’t
notice anything that let the exhibit reach outside of that demographic. I am also concerned that
the exhibit may appeal to only part of that demographic.
When I circled back around to the beginning of the exhibit, I noticed a brief label
explaining what happened to the Native Americans who lived on the land that would become
Geneva. It felt like the Native Americans were being glossed over. This had me thinking about
race in relation to the exhibit. The exhibit is largely representing Caucasians. While this is
somewhat inevitable given Geneva’s demographics--Geneva is over 90% white according to the
2010 Census--I would still like to see a little more diversity represented in the exhibit. For these
reasons meaningfulness was Geneva’s Story’s lowest rated attibute.

4. 4
Overall, Geneva’s Story is a well made exhibit that engages with the audience in a variety
of ways. The exhibit’s use of technology, games, and crowdsourcing make this exhibit easy for
locals to get sucked into. However, those from outside the city may not be as interested.