IXD Carnegie Museum Project

11.8.17
Meeting 1

Group Brainstorm / Problem Statements Review

General Ideas/ Thoughts

• Blurring nature and the experience
• Remembering our context: transformative Pittsburgh
• Does the museum need to be so modular / compartmentalized
• Your experience and story is your entry point. Choose your own adventure style

Client Problems

1. Relevance / Experience Personalization

We struggle to help people connect to our material for the long term

2. Generation Gap

We struggle to help facilitate cross generational connections

3. Degrees for Depth

Varying degrees of need for depth between different users.

4. Making the Abstract more Concrete

11.9.17

Museum Visit

Interviews with Museum Goers

4 Millenials

4 Families

3 Elderly

5–10 minute interviews using questionnaires. Informal conversations

11.10.17

Defining Territory: 3 Key Areas of Interest We Have Going into the Project

1. What role may individual stories play in engaging users with the anthropocene?
2. How might we provide users an experience to reflect and reinterpret their relationship with nature.
3. What role can technology play to facilitate and communicate these interactions to an audience with varying stories?

Interview results review

• Listing major findings
• Forming groups
• Listing key take aways

Takeaways to Insights

1. What you bring to the museum is just as important as what you get out of it.
2. Quality of discovery depends on searching for something new.
3. People have richer experiences with more tactile and immersive experience.
4. Well considered technology can better support the communication and enhance museum content.
5. Museum goers desire content with greater depth and diversity.
6. Parents bring children to museums primarily for quality bonding experiences that are educational in nature.

• Plan to met on Sunday to write project brief, come up with principles, mini round of ideation

Then write the Principles

Insights are not personas specific.

Combine takeaways into one list and build insights from this list.

We can then define a persona from there.

11.12.17

Team meeting to fulfill requirements for PART 1 and PART 2 due Monday

11.13.17
Team Meeting to Finalize Survey Questions and send out survey

11.15
Team Meeting to Ideate Further

• Tweaked some survey questions and sent out to mass community
• Compiled inspiration into a shared document and presented ideas and takeaways to eachother
• Categorized the approach of some of these into 4 main domain areas
• Created several How Might We statements that intrigue us.
• We reviewed these statements together and found some common ground and overlap
• - these statements are too much on the medium and end solutions and do not describe the opportunity purely enough. Need to go back and filter that other stuff out and write them all plainly.
• We decided to split off and ideate further on our own and meet again tomorrow with ideas in greater depth. (need to sketch concepts out in storyboards)

To Do

• Reframe many of the opportunities and define the user personas more clearly.
• Complete before Journey map — to understand the current process / emotions / thoughts of visiting a museum or exhibit.
• Crystallize takeaways from the inspiration in a more comparative and structured way. Prioritizations.
• Stakeholder map / territory map \

Design decisions

• making a triangle blocksout information. Might want toconsider a hexagon for a more soccer ball style shape
• be careful of some of the text weights
• introduce spacing and organic variation between the triangles
• decide to make the questions go on the wiating state due to clutter
• issue of vibration vs light when wanderingto createdirect line of sight but also more accessibility
• having a centralized touch display instead of too many devicesandoebrload
• how do we facilitatethis engagement for return users?
• howdo users ask questions and learn. how do users