Designing a solution to connect young people to cultural heritage — Case study
For our first group project in the UX/UI Bootcamp at Ironhack, we were tasked with addressing a “wicked problem” by designing a two-part solution — both digital and non-digital. The design challenge can be summarised as follows:
How Might We help museums and other public institutions bring people closer and fulfil their mission to preserve and activate cultural heritage in the 21st century?
The solution was designed following user-centered design principles, progressing through iterative stages — from research to concept testing. This article not only describes how the process unfolded but also highlights the main challenges, outcomes, and key lessons learned.
Secondary Research
The secondary research phase involved analyzing academic papers and official statistics to gather data on cultural engagement and accessibility. We focused on key terms such as “culture,” “cultural heritage,” “access to cultural heritage sites,” “museum visit frequency,” “museum attractiveness,” and “cultural education.”
We then summarised our findings and organised them visually on a digital post-it board. To refine our focus, we filtered out duplicate topics and grouped the post-its based on trends that best represented our wicked problem.
Two key findings of our secondary research showed that:
- Young people are not as uninterested in culture or visiting cultural heritage sites as we initially thought. While trends show that people aged 16 to 35 visit museums less frequently than older age groups¹, the difference is not that significant.
- Case studies show that museum initiatives designed to engage young audiences have successfully achieved their goal².
CSD Matrix, users’ interviews and User Persona
Our findings helped us refine the scope of our product design. We decided to focus exclusively on one age group — school leavers aged 20 to 30 — while removing the role of educational institutions. We also chose museums as the only cultural heritage sites to focus on and based the product’s non-digital component on best practices from our case studies.
With this in mind, we filtered our secondary research findings and discussed key certainties, assumptions, and doubts within the group. These discussions shaped our user interview questions, designed to either confirm or challenge our ideas.
The CSD matrix informed us about the three main topics’ areas that guided the design of the interview questions.
- PREFERENCE OF USE OF TECH/SOCIAL MEDIA FOR INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT AND PEOPLE
- DISCONNECTION FROM FAMILY/TRADITION — PREFERENCE OF GLOBAL CULTURE
- ROLE OF FAMILY IN PASSING DOWN CULTURAL HERITAGE
We interviewed five people from our selected age group, and the first interview helped us further refine the scope of our design.
We realised that while questions about the role of families were relevant to the problem, they could add unnecessary complexity to later stages of the process. As a result, we decided to remove that topic from the interview, narrowing it down to six core questions.
The interviews confirmed most of our secondary research findings on social media and technology-related topics. However, one key difference emerged: a preference for in-person guided tours over fully digital museum experiences.
The most valuable insights came from the interview introduction. Open-ended questions revealed that high ticket costs can discourage museum visits, while unclear or uncontextualised descriptions of exhibits negatively impact the overall experience.
Based on the interview results and the subsequent affinity diagram, we developed our User Persona.
Problem Statement
The subsequent steps implied the statement of a defined problem on the basis of our User Persona and previous research. We dropped the cost aspect, focusing on one specific dimension of the problem, coming up with the below statement.
How might we make museum visits more engaging for young adults to help them connect with art on a deeper level and spark a lasting cultural conversation ?
Ideation
The ideation of our solution used the Crazy 8 method. We initially went for a solution combining elements from two solutions emerged during the brainstorm:
An algorithm based mood board feed (similar to Pinterest) where users can select images. Images are linked to the reservation of in-person specific events related to that piece of art or aesthetic represented in the selected image.
The first round of ideation seemed promising, however the “feed” part was not totally convincing. We partially redefined the solution using again the Crazy 8 method, coming up with our definitive design:
Museum events finder mobile app for guided personalised visits/experiences, adaptable to users’ interests and language
We first designed the task flow, then each group member sketched their own lo-fi design. Afterward, we used dot voting to select the design to move forward with.
In designing the lo-fi prototype, we focused on the core problem statement, emphasising engagement in the museum experience. Guided museum visits are first selected by theme, with the initial screen displaying nearby events. This allows users to match with a guide based on their interests, helping to spark curiosity and engagement.
The final digital solution also includes an in-app purchasing section to ensure guides receive compensation.
Concept Testing
The concept testing phase mainly focused on our problem statement, expanding it with our User Persona’s goals and challenges. First, we tested the app’s recognisability by asking if interviewees could distinguish our solution from a basic museum ticketing app. Next, we evaluated whether our solution effectively creates engaging cultural experiences by asking if they found it interesting, if they would hire a guide for a museum visit, and if the non-digital aspect helped improve engagement. We also checked whether the app could reduce language barriers in museums and, finally, whether users would be willing to pay a guide fee in addition to the museum ticket.
The interviews confirmed that our design effectively increases engagement with museums and culture, particularly in guided experiences. Interviewees also appreciated how the digital solution helps overcome language barriers.
However, a key concern was the pricing communication — many found it unclear whether the fee covered just the museum ticket or the entire experience. Cost remained a crucial factor, with some interviewees stating they would skip a museum visit or choose a traditional experience if the price was too high.
If our solution moves toward becoming a marketable product, pricing and cost transparency should be a primary focus.
Learning points
I believe the entire solution design process was carried out accurately and effectively. The team did a great job staying focused on the initial problem statement, carefully identifying which elements to keep and which to remove at each stage. This is reflected in the final solution.
One possible improvement could have been an additional round of Crazy 8 brainstorming. I think we could have refined the part of the solution that captures users’ attention digitally. While basing engagement on museum events is not an inaccurate approach, we might have developed a stronger, more solid idea.
Our interview process provided valuable insights, especially from the open-ended introduction questions. Allowing interviewees to freely share their thoughts gave us useful information to refine our research and improve the solution.
Bibliography references
¹ Rachel Tait, Angela Kail, Jennifer Shea, Rosie McLeod, Nicola Pritchard, Fatima Asif: How can we engage more young people in arts and culture? A guide to what works for funders and arts organisations [London]: New Philanthropy Capital. (Tait 2019)
² Institute for Community Research & Development and Arts Connect with Historic England: Young People’s Engagement with Heritage — Tacking Inequality & Other Opportunities for Public Policy [Wolverhampton]: University of Wolverhampton. (uncited authors 2023)
