Quiz: are you good at customer experience work?

I think a sign saying "Wet Paint" would work also :-)

I imagined people carefully stepping over the white line so they don't touch the line.

But, my solution would be the same, "Do not sit on the bench." (please)

In addition to a sign that says not to sit, the museum should add benches for patrons to actually use. People like to sit and view artwork or rest their tired feet!

When I read the sign the first things that came to my mind rapidly was touch what? The line, figure, bench? Also Touch to me implies using my hands, feet, something involving bare skin not my backside covered with clothing.

I like the "wet paint" idea very much. Two other possibilities occur to me.

They're tired. Get art patrons their OWN bench to sit on -- with comfortable cushions. And of course, change the lettering on the sign -- "sit on the OTHER bench. This bench is for white plaster people only".

Another possibility: why not just let them sit on the bench? The worst thing that can happen is not bad enough to worry about.

My solution would be to take the whole darn thing out rather than try to keep humans away. It's kind of silly to have this not be interactive and it should be about experience. Besides, non english readers and kids will sit on it no matter how much you language-fence it off.

How about "Please stand behind the line"?

My thoughts:
- People understand upon seeing a bench, that you sit on it. So the art object is asking people to respond in a different way than what a bench's original design intended.
- Let's do some eye tracking and see if anyone would notice such a small sign. And if they do happen to notice it, do they actually read it. ;)
- "Do not" is code word to any 13 year old kid to "Do." I think I'd take the approach of defining the consequences of the undesired response. "Sitting on the bench will cause the security alarm to sound." Or what about something like, "Look instead of sit." That explains how the artist intends the piece to be experienced, right? :)
- Perhaps get rid of the rule all together and let people just sit.

I agree with the comments above: add a bench for visitors and change the wording on the sign (I particularly like George Girton's suggestion!).

I would also suggest to change the size of the lettering - perhaps even the sign's placement.

Text size, because older people, whose vision is not the best anymore, are likely to be among those wanting to sit down.

Placement, because, when I am desperate to sit down, I am not sure I would be looking at the floor for what the sign says. I would be heading straight for the bench!

My first thought was that benches have the immediate affordance of sitting, not the immediate affordance of "stand here and look at this bench."

A larger sign saying "Please do not sit on the bench" would solve the problem.

My experience has been "people generally don't read", and add to that: "... small signs on the floor that are not obvious."

I used to work in a gallery, and understand that they try to minimize things that might get in the way of folks enjoying the artwork. However, in this case a physical barrier (rope, plexiglas, etc.) might help minimize the verbal reprimands and alarms.

Of course, the museum could also rope off the viewing area, which they do for many sculptures--you can only get so close before an alarm goes off. With a rope barrier, you don't even need to think or read to decipher the message--your brain gets it right awy.

I have been to the MET several times and have often wondered (more like questioned) some artwork displayed there.

For most of the artwork displayed on the wall at the MET, rope barriers are used to keep people from standing too close to the wall/artwork. Makes me wonder why the same treatment is not used to surround the benches?

May be a more visible sign with something like - 'Please do not cross this line' will help to keep the patrons from sitting on the benches. Or simply 'This bench is not for sitting' (which would be odd, because that's what typically the benches are for).

In addition to a more specific sign, how about some barrier ropes? That says do not touch in many languages without even saying it. Another approach would be to put the installation/sculpture on a platform that is wider than the art.

Why do people sit on the bench? Because it is an art exhibit with an empty bench...a person enjoying art would want to enjoy it and experience it fully. A museum visitor would thus obviously conclude that sitting on the bench is part of the artistic experience. I would, anyway, regardless of whether I were tired or not.

Also, the please do not touch implies you shouldn't touch the people sculptures.

What to do to improve the situation? Cord the exhibit, put bigger signs at waist level at least (if not eye level), bigger font and displayed at least as A4 size, put them around the display on all 4 sides of the rectangle surrounding it. Also, the warning should read: WARNING: Please do not sit on or touch the display, alarm will sound!

I'm actually surprised that no one mentioned the other probable reason that people are sitting - the statues are sitting. That's a subtle affordance directing visitors to sit and look.

I definitely agree that a wording change on the sign would help, but I might also raise the sign up, maybe on a stand, so that it can't be missed.

I agree with Mary Pat LaBoda's comment that "people don't read". Even when they do, they usually interpret the meaning in the manner that is most convenient for their own purposes.

I don't like the idea of ropes or barriers because they get in the way of fully experiencing the artwork.

My thought was to install a pressure-sensitive mat outside the white line that gently vibrates or lights up when stepped on. A gentle reminder using another sense to remind the viewer that in this context the bench is actually art. If this solution did not test well, I would add a sign that says, "Please don't sit on the art." :)

Do not touch makes you immediately think you should not touch the statue! The sign should read "Please do not disturb our statues by sitting on the bench. This will cause the alarm to go off".

This looks like a George Segal scultpure from the 60's or 70's. He is depicting real life scenarios in a way for us to view them outside of the situation. But it is a very powerful piece that leads us to interaction.
The mere fact that the bench is real looking and the bodies are white plaster suggests the bodies are the art and not the bench.
Maybe placement in a smaller gallery so it is more evident that it is not for one to sit and view the other art. Or place a useable bench in the room for people to sit on as an alternative.

I would have said it's because people are standing on the "do not touch" sign when they're looking at the bench and thus can't see it

+1 for Sibylle's comment above. I bet most people don't even see the smallish sign at ground level. Make the sign larger and put it on a stand at either side of the art.

How about something humorous and therefore memorable and eye-catching? Such as a big sign reading, "Benches Reserved for Plaster Visitors Only" and then "Please Give Them Their Space" or some such below? And of course, an explanation would be nice -- why should we not touch?

Maybe the museum or artist could put a white box around it so we would know it is an art installation...oh wait there is a box around it. Maybe they could place signs in other places besides in front of the figures...oh they did do that.

"Do Not Touch" is a wonderful invitation to do just the opposite. If they had put up a sign that said "wet paint" very few people would have challenged it.

Why didn't Mark sit on the bench?

Did you know there were cameras set up to capture the reactions of people who "crossed the line" and set off the alarms?

Did you know Mark's question and all the comments come up on Google.

Thinking from the customer's perspective. However we can post a sign stated that the paint is still wet.

Notice the painting in the back ground that should not be touched are roped off. Rope = do not touch. Therefore anything that is not roped off is "more touchable" that the paintings. Also, as someone stated in the comments, touching implies use of fingers, I haven't ever touched anything in my life by sitting on it. Finally, something as basic as a bench does not fit into the visitors definition of art, therefore the art is the sculpture and the museum has been clever enough to put the sculptures on a bench for real people. I'd fix this by placing a rope around the entire piece (consistency) or a sign that simple reads, please do not sit.

P.S. Fun little task, keep them coming! :)

It seems that some people do not recognize that the entire scene is intended to be a work of art. No doubt the artist intended it to be a ground level to reinforce the notion that the benches are real and are intended to be the background for the work. Consider also that museums want to make art more accessible, so ropes and fences and other tangible barriers are not only visually distracting, but also contrary to the artist's intention. Therefore, I would suggest that the whole work be installed not at floor level, but rather on a platform--perhaps the same color as the walls--no more than four-to-six inches high; high enough to make it clear that this is a work of art, not a place for resting, yet low enough to respect the artist's intended context.

Agree with several commenters above -- the issue is with the artwork itself, which demonstrates seatedness and begs, begs, begs for patrons to participate.

In fact, there's a public bench+statue in an office building in Nashville...and indeed, building visitors are welcome to sit beside the seated statue.

Why don't we ask the people that sat down why they sat down. Ask if they noticed the sign? Maybe observe them - see if they appear to notice the sign -
then we can work out how to address the problem, eh?
:)

Am wondering if people look down when they approach the installation; more likely they are looking at the figure and don't notice the sign. A physical barrier such as low rope would be more effective.
Am also interested in whether more people sat with the single figure or the couple. The single figure is crying out to be touched and comforted and snuggled up to :-)

I was at the Met a couple of weeks ago and watched visitors do exactly this and the museum staff getting a little irate about having to warn people away from the exhibit.

The context is the real issue. As I recall, the bench is placed in front of a large painting which only encourages visitors to sit and contemplate. In that sense, an exhibit that looks like a seat is in the wrong place.

To make matters worse (in a wider museum context), this is just a few feet away from an interactive exhibit - Jean Tinguely's 'Narva'. So if your route through the museum took you past the seat where you were warned away, its less likely that you'll interact with the genuinely interactive exhibit. This is compounded because its difficult to see how to activate the Narva exhibit.

Context is key in this example. I would place the exhibit in a place where visitors are not likely to want to stop and sit. Or better yet, ensure the bench is sturdy enough for people to sit on and then have an alert of some sort that tells people its not for sitting. Although that could destroy the artist's artistic intention.

If that's not possible, my approach would be definitely be a 'Exhibit - do not sit' sign - potentially on the bench itself. I also like the idea of a rumbling pad as you approach the bench - much more visitor-friendly than a squealing alarm.

Roping off the exhibit would be dangerous to visitors - the exhibit is in the middle of the room and the rope would be easily missed. Rope works for paintings because the wall is already telling not to get too close!

Its a very interesting challenge...

No, no no. If you put a "wet paint" sign on it, the first thing a portion of the public will do is check to see if the paint is indeed wet, THEN they will sit down. If you don't want them to sit, then the roping off is the best solution here. That calls attention to the fact that sitting is not only discouraged, it is discouraged because this is an exhibit, not a resting area. The confusion of the visitor (who would like to sit for a while) is understandable because there are many parks where a statue is sitting on the park bench, and you are *invited* to sit on the bench with the statue!

I find it more interesting that the the guide seems to recognize there's a problem, yet nothing is being done (or so I assume).

Why is that? Is it only the guides that have noticed? Have they not passed on the observation? Does the museum not see this as a big deal? Why not?

I think the first answer to your question is whether you can recognize that there's a problem to fix.

While I respect your customer experience expertise I think on this occasion you are wrong. If it were anywhere else you would be right but in a museum or gallery these days’ artists deliberately play with the ‘social rules’ as a way of entertaining the visitor. From the visitor’s point of view the sign ‘Please do not touch’ is not an instruction it is a challenge and a gamble. The artist planned it that way. The fact that so many people go and sit is a triumph of the artists design. I would love to video the room and watch people’s behaviour before they sit. I bet they consider their decision for a while and look around furtively before making their move or not. See if you can get permission to do the experiment and tell us the results in a future edition of Good Experience.

To me, seeing the bench with people sitting, perhaps looking at the art on the walls is an invitation to do the same. A bench is for resting so why not sit and rest?

I think a great way to address the issue is *not* with signage, but to use the busy bus approach. If there are no seats on the bus - you simply stand. So fill up the empty bench space perhaps with other plaster models, a man keying down, a suitcase, bag of groceries, etc.

No place to sit = no invitation to try...

'mark

I would make the line caution tape visible (yellow/black stripes) and simply say "Art line - Do not cross."

I think the issue of perspective is an important, but subtle one. I also think that the goals associated with a particular perspective, will impact how easy it is to switch that perspective, even with the best of intentions.

The goal of the museum guard is to ensure the safety and security of the exhibits and that visitor behavior is appropriate with regard to that and within the space. This context is quite straightforward. They will likely already have knowledge of what constitutes the totality of the bench installation (i.e. both the plaster figure as well as the bench), and probably find it difficult if not impossible to conceive that anyone would see it any other way. Therefore their reaction and interpretation of each instance of visitor "misbehavior" is as anomalous, even though for some odd reason it just keeps happening! And, within that context, it might not occur to them to even report this behavior as a problem to be "fixed" or addressed. They might even secretly find it kind of amusing.

The goal of the museum visitor, on the other hand, is to move through the museum in order to view and enjoy the exhibits. However for them, the context (or experience) is potentially fraught with ambiguity. Some exhibits are very clearly marked or roped off. Some are not. Perhaps the visitor wonders "Which type of exhibit is this bench one?" As one poster already pointed out, there is another exhibit nearby that is in fact interactive. Perhaps this one is too. As other posters have also pointed out, after spending several hours walking about the museum, it is not unreasonable that people might be tired. Another visitor thinks to herself "I've been walking for hours. Why, here is a bench! Let me sit!"

I would just say, that unless it is intentional (as some of the posters have speculated), I think ambiguity ultimately leads to bad customer experience.

I can definitely relate to the fact that people do not read, especially when they believe they have properly interpreted context. Again competing goals of both parties (event visitors vs. myself), influenced what happened.

A couple of month's ago I volunteered at a street fair and was assigned to monitor one of the trash/compost bin stations. There were 3 bins, about waist high. Each was labeled accordingly, but definitely not at eye level. However, once people determined the station was generally the place to toss their trash, toss with abandon they did. They did not read the signs. They mostly just tossed and kept moving. (Incredibly one person who initially **did** stop to read the signs and put his trash in the right bin, subsequently adopted the "toss in any bin" approach. Now *that* change in behavior I didn't quite understand!)

Anyway, as the day wore on, rather than becoming frustrated and wondering "what is wrong with these people?! Can't they read???" I began to understand that our goals were simply different. The goals of the visitors was to generally rid themselves themselves of their trash as quickly as possible, while my goal as a volunteer for the environmentally conscious organization hosting the fair, was to educate people about the waste stream and to make sure the trash was appropriately sorted as much as possible.

I feel that a simple solution in the future is not to have bigger, better or repositioned signage, but rather, simply adding lids to the bins. This will slow people down long enough to allow the monitor to intervene and direct them as to which bin is appropriate for whatever they are disposing before they can just toss it, but without causing too much of a delay.

Win! Win! Yeah!

There are similar artworks in some city parks, where you can see a statue sitting on a bench and people use the other side of the bench for sitting themselves. At a first glance, I thought this is one those installations where you can join the statue(!)and sit next to it. If I were the artist, I would include the alarm to my artwork :)

The Seattle Art Museum opened an outdoor sculpture garden a few years ago, including big sheets of waved metal people can walk between which are intended to rust (er, "get a patina"), a piece you can walk into the center of, and several carved/polished benches. Still reprimands for touching or sitting on any of them.

Very unclear on the concept of "sculpture in a park", I thought.

They grey line around the exhibit is pathetic and it's not in a place visitors would look (unless they're already looking for confirmation of it being an exhibit).

I would suggest creating some form of differentiation. Raising the floor a tiny bit might do the job, especially if the white or grey line marked the change. Alternatively, the bench could be turn through 45 degrees to face a corner, something that would feel "not right" to most gallery patrons.

The latter suggestion reminds me of "Towards the Corner" by Juan Muñoz http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=136 - a wonderfully interactive sculpture that demands you circle and inspect it.

Fake vomit. With a discreet sign explaining its purpose to the art aficionados and inviting them to envision the work without it :-).

The guy sitting alone is an invation to also sit, armes crossed and be part of his moment. It's a park bench, god help us if someone were to sit on a park bench! Let people sit on it. I'm not surprised people sit on it and I don't think they're being malicious, nor are they tired, they're experiencing the exhibit. I think we have to ask ourselves what the world is coming to when park benches are for observing, not or sitting.

I would say, "Please do not cross this line." That would make clear that the person can neither sit on the bench nor touch the figure. "Please stand behind the line" seems backwards, as to the viewer the bench is behind the line. I agree that placing it even on a 1" high platform would also do the trick, and say "art" rather than "rest."