This document summarizes user research conducted by Team 29 for the M.o.M museum on wayfinding and lobby design. General research identified problems with the lobby being crowded and unclear, and patrons being unsure of which exhibits to visit. Research methods included guerrilla interviews with different types of visitors, an affinity diagram, and prototypes of the lobby and map that were tested with visitors. Testing of map prototypes found the best design had clear icons, orientation to help identify exhibits, and text on the left. The final recommendations were to avoid sideways text, increase font size, label floors, and put text on the left side of the map.

1. WAYFINDING
& LOBBY DESIGN
TEAM 29:
FOR M.o.M.

3. MUSEUM’S CONCERNS
● Traffic Bottleneck
● Accessibility of museum
info
○ ticket prices, hours, etc.
● “Inviting”
GENERAL RESEARCH
LOBBY
● Patrons unsure of which
exhibits to visit
● Not sure if patrons are
spatially cognizant within
museum
WAYFINDING

4. GENERAL RESEARCH
GUERILLA
INTERVIEWS
with
VISITORS

5. EMPATHIZE.
DAD + “CHILD” POOR EYESIGHT ENTHUSIAST
+ MORE!
+ “No Map”
+ Couples
+ Solo Visitor
+ First-time
visitors
+ Return visitors
GENERAL RESEARCH

6. AFFINITY DIAGRAM
GENERAL RESEARCH
NEED AREAS:
+ Wayfinding
+ Lobby Space
+ Side Exit

7. GENERAL RESEARCH
SIDE
EXIT
PROTOTYPE

8. PROBLEMS
● Crowded
● Stanchions
● Unclear ticket pricing
● Not “Inviting”
● Maps undiscoverable
LOBBY

9. User Research
LOBBY
Contextual Inquiry
● Observations
● Interviews

10. LOBBY

11. LOBBY - PROTOTYPE #1 & #2

12. LOBBY - PROTOTYPE #2

13. Affinity Diagram
LOBBY
Museum Info
Pricing Info
Customer Service
Organization
Traffic Management
Merchandise

14. Lobby - Round Prototype #2 Testing

15. Lobby - Round #3 Prototype

16. Lobby - Round #3 Prototype Testing

17. Lobby - Further Inquiry

18. PROBLEMS
MAP
● “I can’t read the text...it’s
too small!”
● “It’s hard to distinguish
exhibits.”
● “Too much irrelevant
information.”
● “I didn’t pick up the map.”
● “I don’t think it would be
helpful.”

19. COMPETITIVE
ANALYSIS
MAP
● Other museum maps
● Theme park maps

20. MAP

21. 1 2 3
MAP - ROUND #1 PROTOTYPES

22. MAP - ROUND #1 PROTOTYPE TESTING
METHODS
● Contextual
● Task-based
● 3 Procedures:
○ Location
○ Cannibals
○ Bathroom

23. MAP - PROTOTYPE ROUND #1 TESTING
DATA
● 41 Participants
● Timed Recognition
Task:
○ #1 = V2
○ #2 = V3
○ #3 = V1

24. 1 2 3
MAP - PROTOTYPE ROUND #1 TESTING
● Worst identification
● People gave up
finding ‘Cannibals’
● Unclear icons
● Best identification
● Correct ‘Cannibals’
response
● Contrast too low
● 2nd best identification
● One instance of
incorrect ‘Cannibals’
● Orientation helped
users ID exhibits

25. 4 5
MAP PROTOTYPES - ROUND #2

26. MAP - ROUND #2 PROTOTYPE TESTING
RESEARCH
QUESTION
● “What information is
most important?”
● “Which version are
people more likely to
take?”

27. 4 5
MAP PROTOTYPES - ROUND #2
● 31% preferred
● Some liked
descriptions
● Return visitors liked
this orientation
● 69% preferred
● “I can easily envision
myself in this layout”

28. MAP PROTOTYPE - ROUND #3
INFORMATION
ARCHITECTURE
● Wireframe Paper
Prototypes
● Think Aloud
● Capturing ‘gut’ reactions

29. TAKEAWAYS
MAP R3 + DATA
● No sideways text
● Bigger font on front
● 80% of people preferred text on
the left
● Add “floor” to 1 & 2 labels

30. TAKEAWAYS
MAP R3 + DATA
● No sideways text
● Bigger font on front
● 80% of people preferred text on
the left
● Add “floor” to 1 & 2 labels

31. MAP

32. THANK YOU!