A series of furniture designed by Situ that we could use in a modular and reconfigurable fashion. The design of the components helps differentiate function.

There were several parameters we knew going into the design process:

• We need to be able to clear the lobby and pavilion of furniture for programming or special events on a fairly regular basis, but have no good place to store the furniture elsewhere in the building.
• Security is a required part of the entry experience, but we wanted to somehow make it more inviting, more integrated.
• We have need for a separate information desk, particularly during busy times when admissions staff is focused on ticketing and don’t have as much time to devote to answering general queries.
• The furniture components themselves needed to help communicate that there are different services going on, i.e. the ticketing desks need to look different from the Audience Engagement team “hubs” to help underscore the different functions.

Seeing prototypes in the space has been incredibly helpful.

Throughout the design process, there was much back-and-forth as we hammered out the particulars. As we discussed traffic flow (more in a future post about this) and began to really delve into our needs for the space, we were able to narrow down the components and their functions.

However, finalization of the design only happened after we made the decision to place the ticketing bars in a row against the south wall. This placement was based on previous configurations of the lobby (pre-circular desk) and in consultation with the traffic folks. Turns out that modularity and flexibility only get you so far in planning. You have to put a stake in the ground for that flexible solution to anchor to or there’s no consistency. The ticketing bars themselves are still moveable, but as you’ll see in a future post, we’re centering messaging and traffic flow decisions around this location so while we could move them, we hope they work there.

The ASK team is working using a temporary setup, but we’ve found that being together as a team has been important. Often, they need to lean over and ask each other questions.

Unfortunately, what we are finding now is that in at least one instance, the furniture is suffering from the same agile fail that Shelley just wrote about. By necessity, furniture design had to progress ahead of staff hiring, which means the hubs as designed may not meet the needs we are now seeing. We envisioned the hubs as individual desks for ultimate flexibility in placement, which means the Audience Engagement team members work individually at their desks. But now that we have the team in place, what we’re seeing is that they work as just that—a team. They are currently at a table together and so far during our app testing sessions, they speak with each other and in some cases crowd-source the answer from among the team members. This will be difficult to do with the current hubs. What’s more, this team process is fascinating to watch. And since one of the main goals of placing the team in the lobby to begin with is drumming up interest in ASK, we can’t ignore the draw of the team’s working process.

The hub design, the place where the ASK team will be working in the lobby, had to be finalized prior staff hiring. The design is reflective of one person working on their own when the reality is they are working as a group.

All is not lost, however, and we are working with the traffic consultants to see how and if we can group the hubs together in a way that works. At the very least we can pair the hubs so team members are always partnered. And although the team works a certain way now, as we continue to test the app, see how visitors use it, and where they are interested in engaging with us around it (might not be in the lobby), the individual hubs may end up being exactly what we need.

There is a lot of talk today about splitting functionality into separate apps. Foursquare is now both Foursquare and Swarm. Facebook has Camera and Messenger in addition to their main app. Should we be doing the same?

Our mobile experience has two clearly distinct goals—an informational experience (what’s happening, when we are open, and how to find us) and the more experiential ASK functionality.  Each of these parts could easily exist independently of each other. Do our visitors have expectations of them being bundled? Or would the experience be more pure if they were kept separated? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What we’ve decided to do for v1.0 is to keep these halves married. We believe it would add more friction to require our users to download two separate apps than to use a single app with two separate goals. Our user research, though, will shine light on this and help point the way forward.

Keeping the two halves married means re-skinning our current mobile (informational) website and adding (experiential) ASK functionality.

As Jennie said, we based our ASK conversational tool on iMessage. We did this because it works. Our prototyping testing went so smoothly we knew any design which deviated too much would create unnecessary friction for our users. The mental model of iMessage just works.  While we kept the mental model intact, we did remove some functionality. For instance, the in-app camera is cropped square, without option. We want the users to use it as a communication tool without concern for framing or lighting or other arty stuff. To a similar end, we aren’t allowing uploads from the camera roll because we only want to know what someone is looking at in the museum *right now.*

Selecting ASK from the mobile home screen gives the user two views depending on where they are standing. Outside the museum, they see a call-to-action to come in and use ASK, which will be activated based on their geolocation. Once inside the museum, the feature is active and ready to use.

With the conversation part of ASK working, we are now moving on to layering in the informational content like exhibition or event info which you would normally expect to see from a museum’s mobile website. To keep things simple, what we’re currently designing for the informational half of the app is more or less a re-skinning of our current mobile site, but this is a stop-gap solution until the later phases of the project when we’ll be rethinking our website from the ground up, responsively.

The challenge is that we haven’t yet designed that new website. Like I said, that comes much later. This is the iterative process in action. With so many things being designed and built all at once, we are forced to make decisions and to prioritize. Everything is getting their feature-sets piece by piece. We’re lifting the curtain on this process for you here, but our hope is that our users will never be aware of all these seams. There’s certainly a “wow” factor when you can do a Big Reveal, as if it were possible for us to release the completed app and the new website all at once, but we aren’t doing that.

We are far more excited about building these tools and getting them into the hands of our visitors as quickly as possible, testing what works and what doesn’t, and creating the best experience possible. This also means not being precious about the design. If our user research suggests a feature or layout must change, then we’ll change. it. Our metrics for success are determined by how much enjoyment and practical use our visitors get out of the ASK app. We’re not looking for conversions or return on investment. We’re building a tool around the needs of our users and we’ll continue to watch and listen closely so as to be sure we’re building the right thing. All research so far shows that we’re on the right path.

Installation in progress.

Through a series of discussions and plans with Matthew, our Chief Designer, I have come to see that openness as one of the most exciting features of the new layout (instead of a problem to be overcome). The African Innovations galleries will be visible from many different angles within the Great Hall, and will allow visitors to move between the two spaces with ease, while still creating a number of separate galleries within the new installation.

Pause Play Play Prev | Next

The design cleverly use of a series of diagonal walls, aligned with the existing architecture of the building, to create seven distinct spaces within the installation, for each of the exhibition’s themes. These mini-galleries have the benefit of organizing related works in close proximity, while still drawing upon the openness of the original space.

If you’ve been to the museum in the last month, you have been able to watch this process play out in the open, at least in part. In that same spirit, here are a few “behind-the-scenes” shots to fill you in on parts of the construction and re-installation process that have been less visible.

Pause Play Play Prev | Next

Views of the Kevorkian Gallery prior to recent construction.  Courtesy Polshek Partnership Architects.

The room in which they are housed had, until recently, stairs at both the east and west entries, which lead to the Beaux-Arts Court and West Wing elevator, respectively.  A lift on the west side, and a stair-crawler, on the east side were installed to provide access to people with disabilities, but these machines cluttered the room, had operational problems, and were inconvenient to use. When the Museum received a grant from New York State to address access on the third floor for people with disabilities, an opportunity arose to finally do something about the steps.

Section View, Kevorkian Gallery, Renovations Fall 2009 .  Courtesy Polshek Partnership Architects.

Initially, it was hoped that short ramps might solve the problem, and various configurations were explored. According to the American with Disabilities Act, a ramp must be no more than 8% in slope – meaning that for each rise of 1″, the ramp must be 1 foot long. All the ramps we designed seemed much too intrusive in the narrow room. Finally it was understood that actually sloping the entire floor would be less disruptive than building ramps, and actually this type of construction would not be considered a ramp by the Building Department, as the slope would actually be less than an 8% ramp when tilting the floor over such a long distance.

Our strategy had the advantage of allowing the reliefs to be kept in their original installation locations.  Before any work began, the reliefs were protected in place.

The new ramps, extending from each of the end entries, were built on top of the existing floor with minimal demolition. As terrazzo is a material found throughout the building, it was chosen for the ramps. They were poured over a concrete structure, and ground down to their final finish.  A protective rail was anchored into the ramp, and the room was updated with new lighting, signage, and other graphic material.

The resulting gallery has solved a number of problems at once, and has reinvigorated these fascinating men and genies.

The project team consisted of Brooklyn Museum’s Planning, Conservation, Collection and Design Departments, Polshek Partnership Architects, Gilbane Building Company, and EW Howell, General Contractors. The floor was executed by Port Morris Tile and Marble.

Pouring over hundreds of photographs,  the exhibition slowly took shape . . . the section themes emerged . . . and I started to work with different design concepts.  Should the design span the past 50 years of rock, from blue suede shoes to psychedelic to punk to grunge to today? Or should it feel like an austere Chelsea gallery . . . like a “serious” photography exhibition? Should it feel more round and analog . . . or more geometric and digital? Like drums and guitars, with wailing vocals? Like Led Zeppelin is in the room?

The final design, which you’ll see at the end of the month, is the result of thinking through many ideas of what an exhibition about music could look and feel like and how the visitor should move through the space. Next week we’ll begin hanging the works in the gallery, one-by-one . . . but in final preparation, there is one special component of the show that I’ve had a guilty pleasure assembling: the album cover chronology.

Over the Summer, I’ve rummaged through most every rock-and-roll memorabilia store in the city . . . scoured listings on ebay endlessly . . . encountered many vinyl aficionados . . . and had quite a few “a-ha” moments. And yes, we’re including all formats . . . 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs . . . . but mostly vinyl . . . hopefully you’ll have a cool walk down memory lane, just like I did.

Last week we received a query via Twitter asking how we did the lighting in the Luce Visible Storage Study Center. This was a long-term design project that lasted from 2001 until the Center opened in 2005. At the beginning of the project, I visited other Luce Centers to explore what had been done, what worked, what could be improved. One aspect that needed to be addressed was how to light artworks displayed on shelving units—much of the artwork tended to fall in shadows since they were mostly lit from the ceiling. Some tried using glass shelving to alleviate the problem.

And so, I went on a search to find a kind of light that would evenly light each shelf, that generated minimal heat, didn’t produce UV, and could be dim enough to meet conservation standards for light sensitive artworks. It was challenging! The winner was E-lite, which is an electro-luminescent film that is attached to aluminum and powered by high-voltage electricity. You might more familiarly know it from your Timex Night-Glo watch . . . same technology. In the late ’90s, Timex no longer owned the exclusive rights to the light, so E-lite was looking for ways to re-purpose their flatlite.  Once I knew I was using E-lite, my next task was to design thin shelves! Here’s how it looked before the art was installed:

Newly on view on our 4th floor: Italian Post-World War II Design

The Brooklyn Museum has been at the forefront of collecting Italian twentieth century design since the mid 1950s. One pivotal event made consumers in the United States aware of the diversity and accomplishments of modern Italian design and initiated the collecting of this material at the Museum—the exhibition Italy at Work, which traveled to twelve venues between 1950 and 1954. The exhibition was initiated by the Art Institute of Chicago in partnership with two organizations devot­ed to the promulgation of Italian design, Handicraft Development Incorporated in the United States and its corresponding institution in Italy, CADMA. Italy at Work included hundreds of objects by more than 150 artisans and manufacturers and featured furniture, ceramics, glass, textiles, metalwork, jewelry, shoes, knit clothing, and industrial design. The exhibition opened at the Brooklyn Museum, and at its conclusion, when the objects were dispersed among the host institutions, the lion’s share, more than two hun­dred items, came to the Museum.

Carlo Mollino (Italian, 1905-1973). Table, circa 1949. Made by F. Apelli and L. Varesio, Turin. Laminated wood, glass, brass. Gift of the Italian Government, 54.64.321 a-c.

Some of the objects on view here have not been seen since 1954 when Italy at Work closed, such as the mosaic by Gino Severini and the table by Paolo di Poli. In addition, some of the more recently acquired works are having their debut Museum installation here as well, such as the chairs by Alberto Meda, Ettore Sottsass, Jr., and Joe Columbo.

Ettore Sottsass, Jr.  (Italian, b. Austria, 1917-2007). “Casablanca” Cabinet, designed 1981. Manufactured by Memphis. Milan. Wood, plastic laminate. Gift of Furniture of the 20th Century, 83.104.