art museum app
- path -

My Role:
Team Size:

UX Research, Visual Design
12 Weeks
Web Application
4 people

Path is basically a virtual art museum app which like Google Arts & Culture. This project was proceeded by a User Interface Design class where we want to try to augment the experience of visiting an art museum digitally. Our focus is to try and provide a digital experience in which you are able to have a direct effect on the type of art that you would see. My team members and I found various problems and user needs based on Design Sprint and were able to organize and design apps based on the results.

Design Sprint Process

The sprint is a five-day process for answering critical business questions through design, prototyping, and testing ideas with customers developed by Google Ventures. it is the great innovation of business strategy, innovation, behavior science, design thinking, and more packaged into a battle-tested process that any team can use. Working together in a sprint, you can shortcut the endless debate cycle and compress months of time into a single week. Instead of waiting to launch a minimal product to understand if an idea is any good, you’ll get clear data from a realistic prototype. The sprint gives you a superpower: You can fast-forward into the future to see your finished product and customer reactions, before making any expensive commitments.

User Reaserch

The purpose of the study is to conduct qualitative user research in order to provide insights to create a prototype to augment the experiment of visiting an art museum in a digital format. Our app, Path, leads users to virtually access art museums and finds their art tastes. Our main users love the art museum and are people who visited it frequently before Covid-19. Users who have been reluctant to go to the art museum due to some distractions can also be our targets. People who are not familiar with the art museum can access the museum more easily and cheaply using the app.

We focused on people’s previous experiences physically walking through art museums to understand what made the experience enjoyable as well as what could be improved. By understanding this at a base level, it allows us to move forward to understand how we can make the best augmented interactive space of an art museum. We tested five total participants with a range of experiences when it came to visiting art museums in order to gain insights on how this experience was for them before the pandemic changed how we viewed going out to visit physical spaces.View Research Report

Map of the Problem

Based on all of our research insights, our group created a map of how a general experience would go for someone visiting an art museum. There is the main visitor, the curator of the museum, and any other visitors that may be present in the museum, including possible companions that accompany the participant. On the other end of the process, we have an end goal- that the main visitor is able to have a full, successful walk through of the art museum, in which they are able to explore each exhibit and what they intended to upon arrival, and feel satisfied that they were able to understand and view all of the artworks available and that they wanted. To achieve this end goal, first, the participant would see an ad, probably on social media, and become interested in visiting the museum. Second, they would find an opportunity to go, whether it be to check up on new exhibits or to see one that they were excited about once they saw it online. Upon arrival, the curator may intervene in the participant’s journey by providing brochures or any informational papers that could help in the visitor’s experience, and may also prompt them by guiding them to the recommended path of the museum or where it is to be started. This can lead to the main visitor being influenced to take their own path or take the recommended path by the curator. As the begin to follow their path, the curator and other visitors also impact the main visitor’s experience. This leads to the main visitor considering buying souvenirs as well as a membership to the museum, and finally leads to the end goal of successfully completing a walk through of the art museum.View Map of the Problem


My team and I created statements and arranged them on a scale of high user need to low user need. Beginning with the lower user need, we had most of the How Might We’s that included promoting return user visits, encouraging users to support museums, as well as providing filters for museum costs, including souvenirs, memberships, and tickets. We placed these lower on the scale because while these things were mentioned by participants, it was a small part of the experience, usually in the beginning and end of the map. Most participants were willing to return because of their own interest in the museum in the first place, and because of this, wanted to support museums, and would find the opportunity to buy souvenirs or tickets because of this motivation. Moving up the scale to higher user needs, we focused more on the interactions that participants mentioned. We wondered How Might We provide optional interactions with other visitors and staff, present information in a non-intrusive manner, and ultimately, at the top of our scale, placed How Might We create an experience that is self led. This is placed at the top with the highest user need because considering the shape of the experience, the research insights that the participants we interviewed provided, the main part of visiting the museum was for participants to be on their own, being able to walk around and look at art, and even if it was on a curated path, it was one that the participant took on their own.

We placed them on a 2x2 graph that represented our original scale of high to low user need but added another axis of high feasibility to low feasibility. We placed all of our statements using our original scale while moving them horizontally according to how well we thought the How Might We be represented in ability to be completed. The one with the lowest feasibility was encouraging users to support museums- it was something that wasn’t necessarily guaranteed even if we did motivate users, they still had their own choice on if they wanted to or not. Our How Might We’s for promoting return visits and providing optional interactions were a bit higher feasibility, though both of these were something that included a lot of other variables, such as their own motivations for wanting to return, in which it was likely if they were already someone who loved art, as well as interacting with others, in which it really depended on the museum if they had questions or there were people they wanted to interact with. Our next highest feasibility was How Might We create an experience that is self led, which was our highest user need and we felt could be something that could be easily represented but was something that needed to be considered in detail in order to be representative of each individual user. The two How Might We’s that we considered the highest feasibility ultimately seemed like statements that could be solved in a solution that was fairly easy. Presenting information in a non-intrusive manner was as simple as providing data in a way the user could just choose to look at it or not. Providing filters for museum costs was a feature for singular aspects of the museum visit, but not all of it. These two statements were also lower on our user need scale. This led to the choosing of the How Might We statement at the top of our user need scale- to create an experience that is self led. We, as a team, felt this encompassed the main goal of the museum visit, and had a high enough feasibility that we felt was something that could be accomplished while finding interesting solutions to achieve it.View HMW (How Might We) Statement

Design Critique & Art Museum

My team and I did an individual critique and then dot voted on the things we liked the most. Our team chose the first storyboard solution, made by Katie, with an addition of a concept shown in Lorena's storyboard. These two storyboards focused on a self-led art viewing experience where users can click through, while Sara and my storyboards had more of an augmented reality concept. We chose Katie's storyboard and Lorena's storyboard because of in terms of time left in the semester and the scope of the AR design ideas, we decided that the storyboards which showed self-led art viewing focused more on our HMW statement and better answered to our users.View Justification

The quiz featured in Katie's storyboard would directly let the user pick and choose their own art experience, while my storyboard featured a way for users to view art in more detail. The features that we focused on in these two storyboards were the quiz, the art viewing page, and the artist profile. The quiz allows the user to make their own choices and journey through deciding exactly the kind of art they would like to see. Incorporating the feature from the second storyboard for viewing the art was chosen, as it was represented in the first, but it didn't make viewing the art as clear. Putting these together appealed to our team as a better solution for focusing on displaying the art that the user had chosen to see. The additional artist profile page would allow the user to gain more information about new artists they may come across, or even access more art that is made by that specific artist. This would allow them even more paths to take when it comes to choosing their own art journey, while having all of the information available that users expressed that they were interested in. With these three main focuses, we moved on to creating a prototype of the quiz portion of the storyboards.View Art Museum Storyboard

User Testing 1 - 1

We decided to go with the risky assumption instead of the goal-based design because we wanted to make sure that the quiz inside of the app was designed well- as it is the most important factor of getting the digital app experience correct, as well as answering to our How Might We statement. For our prototype quiz, we decided to construct a Google Form in which we tested different art based on general categories such as medium, represented as paintings, digital, sculpture, and ceramics, art movements, such as Baroque, Abstract, Surrealism, and Modern, and subjects, such as people, places, objects, or conceptual. We provided the participant with two options to choose from and did not provide any information based on the art, only provided a visual representation and asked them to choose whichever one appealed to them better. We had a total of six questions, as we didn’t want to overwhelm the participant with options. We asked questions before the participant began, in which we asked them of their expectations of what a quiz asking about their art preferences would look like, and how many questions and time they expect it to take them. During the quiz, we asked the participant to utilize Think Aloud Protocol while deciding so that we could gather information about why they were making the choices they did as they went through each piece of art. After the quiz, we asked the participants if they felt the quiz was successful in asking about everything representative of their art preference. We asked if there was anything missing, or if they felt it didn’t accurately ask them questions that were indicative of their preference. We also asked if the art could be represented in any other way to better their experience and understanding viewing it.Try Art Museum Quiz

User Testing 1 - 2

From our user testing, we were able to narrow down our insights into three different points: Starting off with the first point, all of the users we tested said that we could add more questions to the final quiz in order to ensure a more personalized experience. Three out of our five users particularly said we should focus on adding more because they felt just the 6 went by so quickly it didn't offer enough insight into what types of art they really liked to see. From our user's feedback, we decided the max amount of questions we could get away with asking without it being too much would be 10 in total. By increasing our number of questions to 10 we could also solve our second point. Three out of our four testers wanted a lot more art featuring different mediums and cultures from around the world. While making the original test we definitely used a lot more oil painting and European-centric art than anything else. The majority of our users agreed that they would have liked to see so many more types of art such as sculptures and installations, so they could experience new art and artists. The last point of our insights was how to gauge what aspects of the art used in the quiz engaged the user the most. Three out of our five testers were surprised when all they really had to do was choose between two picture options. We got a few suggestions such as allowing users to write keywords or things that they liked from each piece they chose to better help personalize their gallery, something like a tag system to gauge what users were really drawn to from their selections. This idea of a tag system would be something to include in our Figma Prototype.


As proceeded with the Art Museum app project for art lovers who cannot go to art museum due to Covid-19, felt the need for the Design Sprint process, which helped the efficiency of the app production and deliver more complete results to users. During the entire app production phase, the data studied and collected with team members using the Design Sprint process had a positive impact on the hi-fidelity prototype. I also realized that the Design Sprint process can be applied in various projects (not only app development) as well as in the projects we worked on.Test Prototype