Wayfinding at the Cooper Hewitt
A decision-point audit of a design museum that’s hard to navigate
Role
Solo project
— field research, behavioral observation, audit framework, CAD documentation, intervention design
Methods
Two site visits (documentation/observation)
Decision-point auditing
Sightline analysis
Plan reconstruction (AutoCAD)
Map annotation (Adobe Illustrator)
Solo Project, July 2026
Overview
The problem. The Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum occupies the landmarked Carnegie Mansion, which was never designed to be a museum.
The opportunity. Wayfinding failures are usually diagnosed as missing signs. What I found was more interesting: the Cooper Hewitt has signs — they're just too small, obscured, or facing the wrong way.
The Andrew Carnegie Mansion was renovated in 2014, but its layout could use improvement. On my first visit, I was confused by the ambiguous ticketing process within the main entrance, and couldn’t find the cafe despite maps and signage insisting there was one. The information I needed existed in the building, but it just wasn’t where I needed it.
The wayfinding at the museum could be vastly improved just by adjusting and repositioning already existing artifacts. By improving wayfinding, the museum could better demonstrate and provide access to its free amenities (the café, shop, and garden) that require no ticket. This distinction is only obvious when entering the property through the garden, using the 90th street entrance, rather than the main 91st street entrance which enters through the Great Hall into the first floor exhibit.
The solution. A decision-point audit of the two journeys demonstrating six failure points (DP-01 to DP-06) and reversible, low-cost solutions to each (IN-01 to IN-06).
The plan was drafted in AutoCAD based on floorplans of past exhibits found online. The proposal aims to redirect visitors at confusing intersections and ambiguous moments, starting with the two large digital screens that greet visitors in the Great Hall.
-
Admissions sits to the left while the architecture encourages visitors forward, into the main exhibit.
Solution: Display a wayfinding band on the existing digital screens, directing visitors to the real first step.
-
Current stanchions provide nothing but ambiguity.
Solution: Increase signage, clearly labeling where to queue and what the tables are for.
-
A lack of signage makes the decision of where to go first difficult.
Solution: Large sign in the Great Hall visible from the Admissions area, with descriptions and directions of each exhibit.
-
Entering the rotunda, no signage means it’s unclear what comes next. Existing signage serves visitors entering the rotunda from the shop, but not the other way around.
Solution: Add small signs indicating shop entrance, and café through shop.
-
The existing café sign is almost impossible to see from the rotunda-entering angle, and is partially obscured from the hallway-entrance by a large glass display case.
Solution: Rotate the sign 90 degrees, and remove bright, distracting objects in its vicinity.
-
Outside of the partially hidden sign, visitors have little knowledge of what lies past the doorway.
Solution: Place a menu stand, hour information, and “Garden through Café” sign near the door.
Research & Discovery
Decision points. I traced the two visitor journeys where I had gotten lost & noted decision points along the way.
At each decision point I audited what cues exist, what cues were missing, what the layout of the building itself implicitly said, and how these cues contradicted or worked together to support the visitor experience.
I photographed points of interest and reconstructed the first floor in AutoCAD before annotating in Adobe Illustrator. On my second visit, I verified the sightline findings and observed real visitor behavior.
Journey A. Arrival → Galleries
Journey B. Galleries → Café
The sign is just within this doorway, perfectly obscured by a row of books.
DP-01: “Where do I get tickets?”
From the entry stairs, visitors are greeted by a large door headed with Design Across Time (the title of the current exhibit) and two large digital screens, which encourage the visitor to continue straight forward into the galleries. While the screens show close ups of artifacts and advertise current exhibits, the first task (ticketing) is announced by a comparatively tiny paper placard.
DP-02: “Where does the line start?”
The admissions area has stanchions, but with two distinct yet identical tables, it’s unclear how to approach. From observation, I noted visitors approach the area from both sides and directions (usually approaching whichever table is closer), and visitors walking down the stairs enter straight through the stanchion gap.
DP-03: “Now where do I go?”
After paying for admission and receiving a small sticker, visitors must either backtrack to the main or secondary exhibit entrance, continue straight into the hallway to the shop, or go up the stairs blindly.
DP-04: “How do I find the café?”
Entering the rotunda from the main exhibit, visitors find themselves in a transitory room with no idea what comes next. Existing signage is pointed to visitors entering the rotunda from the shop, not the other way around.
At admissions, I listened as the staff filled the gap verbally, telling visitors to “go down to where you get the coffee”. The staff use the café as a navigational landmark, but the signage doesn’t support it.
The sign is partially obscured by a glass cabinet. A few steps to the right, it is completely obscured by a lamp.
DP-05: “Can I get to the café from here?”
Once they have entered the shop, visitors have no knowledge of the route to the café, which is completely obscured from the rotunda entrance.
While there is a sign labeling the hallway to the cafe, the fact that it is tucked inside the doorway flush against the wall makes it impossible to see. When exiting to the hallway attached to the Great Hall entrance, signage indicates the direction of admissions, but no mention of the cafe.
The hallway connecting the shop to the Great Hall. Visitors exiting the shop from here may have no idea that a café exists at all.
DP-06: “Can I go through here?”
Finally, when in front of the café sign, the only supplementary signage is again facing the other direction. The café sits beyond stairs at the end of a narrow hallway, and no menu, hours, or indication that a garden is accessible through the café exists here.
The alternate journey. Much of the existing signage, facing backwards, indicates that visitors are going the wrong way.
On my second visit, I entered through the 90th street entrance through the garden. Through the gate, there was nothing but a simple bag check. I learned that the garden, café, and shop, are completely free to access and did not require a ticket. If visitors wanted to purchase admission, they could walk from the garden through the café and shop to the Great Hall (the small sign at the rotunda indicated visitors needed a ticket to enter) to purchase tickets there.
Decisions
Four principles. I wanted interventions to be as simple as possible.
Place signage at key transitions, not at the destinations. Each failure occurred at a transitory location, where signage is most critical.
Acknowledge the sightline. While the café sign in the shop is brightly colored and attracts attention, it’s completely invisible from many angles in the shop.
Spend attention wisely. Two large digital screens and a trusted orange sign vocabulary already exist. Make use of existing resources.
Reversible by design. Due to the site’s landmark status, every proposal is completely freestanding or digital.
Interventions.
IN-01: Repurpose the digital screens at the main entrance.
Reserve a persistent band at the base of the existing entry screens for "TICKETS & CHECK-IN ←" and light the ticketing tables to match the exhibit entrance. Redirect the attention from the glowing main exhibit to the real first step.
IN-05: Rotate the Café sign.
Remount the existing café sign perpendicularly to be legible from both shop entrances and clear the display lamp and reflective, colorful goods that camouflage it from the hallway. The museum already bought the right sign, but it’s not visible and lacks contrast.
The other four follow the same logic: a queue entry marker aligned with the stair desire-line visitors actually walk (IN-02), a post-transaction galleries sign (IN-03), a "CAFÉ THROUGH SHOP →" orange banner with extra lines (no ticket required) to advertise the free areas (IN-04), and a menu stand with hours at the café threshold (IN-06).
Outcome & Reflections
What this would change.
Fewer visitors drifting unticketed toward the galleries; a queue that matches how people actually approach; no backtracking after purchase; and a café that exists in the wayfinding system instead of in staff improvisation.
How I would measure it.
Before/after counts of three behaviors I've already observed qualitatively: stanchion-gap walk-throughs and awkward table approaches at ticketing, staff verbal redirections (every place staff compensate with speech is a place signage has failed), and café entries per hour.
Limitations.
As a single subject over the course of two visits, I was able to verify sightline findings (with photos) and briefly observed behavioral patterns (but not quantitative counts). A fuller study would include visitor and staff interviews and more formal observation blocks.
What I learned.
The most valuable reframings came from being wrong — twice. I first thought the café sign was missing, but I simply couldn’t see it. On the return visit I expected to confirm it was blocked; it was sometimes visible but never salient.
"Add a sign" is a purchase order. "Your sign is invisible from one approach and camouflaged from the other" is a design insight. The difference between them is iteration. By going back, looking again, and letting the finding get more precise than the first impression, I can create a more tangible proposal.