Discovery World Analysis 

Reiman Aquarium 

 
Melissa Lin 
 
Lucas Cabello 
 
Veronica Mangio 
 
Emmanuel Rodriguez 
 
October 2019 
 
Foundations of UX 1400 - 01 
User Profile 
 
Target Audience 

Anyone who may want to learn more about fish; an individual that is curious about the water and
the underwater world swimming under the surface. 

Goals, Expectations, and Motivations 

They are motivated by their curiosity, fascination and excitement. An aquarium is always
romanticized in movies and storytelling - it entices our classic curiosity to see the unknown in
the depths of water, and the exhibition pulls on those same strings.

Elements of Behavior/Experiment Design 

Conscious vs. Subconscious Experience - ​Melissa 

Conscious experience from the aquarium included signs saying to interact with the aquatic
animals such as petting them. Another one would be the information panel that suggests you to
click it to learn more about the animals. You would usually assume to not touch anything, but
having signs explicitly tells the user to interact with the animals or touch panels is a conscious
experience.The subconscious experience includes the observation of the sea life animals.
Nobody had to tell us to look at the animals, you just subconsciously begin to observe them.

Emotions - V
​ eronica 
The emotions of individuals is through the experience of loss and gain. When visitors attend
Discovery World and make there way to the aquarium, expectations are already being formed
when they make their decision to walk over to the exhibit; individuals are expecting to see an
underwater world and want to experience fascination.

Gain/happy 
The petting tank allows for a gain. Employees will ask visitors if they would like to touch the fish
and/or stingrays, especially if a visitor displays curiosity. When an individual decides to say yes
to the invitation, they create an opportunity for an emotional gain. Touching a fish and/or a
stingray provides a gain through the unique and fun experience. 
 
Loss/unhappy 
An experience that provides loss in the exhibit is the old or broken technology present in the
Aquarium. When an individual attempts to interact with a broken piece of technology, they have
the original expectation that it will work and it that it will do what it says it is supposed to do.
However, if the technology is old or broken, those expectations will not always be fulfilled. If an
expectation is not fulfilled, the user experiences a loss. When a user experiences a loss, it
results in a negative emotion. Individuals who interact with an old and/or broken technology at
the Aquarium will then choose to avoid any further technological interactions due to the negative
emotions they experienced.

Motivations - ​Melissa and Veronica 

● Love​: Visiting the Discovery World creates an opportunity to bond with the family.
Attending Discovery World and visiting the aquarium allows time to be devoted solely to
spending time with family and provides an experience kids and other family members will
enjoy and remember.
● Sex​: It also includes the motivation of sex by users taking pictures to gain likes,
followers, or give ratings of the overall experience. Discovery World urges users to like
their Facebook page and follow them on Instagram. It seems like the users do not
interact with their social media pages as often given that there are 4000 followers but
each picture only has an average of 20 likes.
● Affiliation​: The aquarium includes affiliation by possibly meeting other fellow users that
enjoy the experience and observation of aquatic life.
● Status​: There is no motivation of status within the aquarium exhibit.
● Justice​: The beautiful underwater world should be recognized and admired.
● Curiosity/Understanding​: Curiosity to understand the mostly unknown world in the
depths of water.

Intuition - ​Melissa 
The overall experience could be said to be rather intuitive. Users naturally explored through the
exhibit to satisfy their curiosity without much guide needed. The only aspect of the museum that
could be said to not be intuitive would be the technological devices. According to user
responses from the interviews conducted, many of the users were confused as to how to use
the devices. An example would be the microscope. The slides for the microscope were placed
in a location where it is not easily seen. The users had a hard time finding the slides to put in the
microscope.
 
Cognitive Biases - ​Lucas 
The Aquarium itself did not have any cognitive biases, most of the user experience was either
signs or the interactive touch screens that served as signs for multiple objects. The website on
the other hand uses a little bit of decoy effect, by showing different prices and recommending
memberships so that the price gets lower, when in reality you probably were not subscribe to
the membership, or come back in such a short time but because the membership sounds like
the best deal customers might get it.
 
 
Choices - L
​ ucas 
The home menu uses “What you see is what you get”. It shows various exhibitions from the
museum and it implies that those are all the exhibits while in reality there are various other
exhibits in the museum. They show their bigger and more recent exhibits, to keep the customers
searching for the older and smaller exhibits. 
 
Attention -​ Lucas 
The aquarium is filled with tanks that gather the customers attention. The moving fish in the tank
gain the attention of the customer. This is because everything else in the tanks are stationary,
making the fish stand out.

Also some particular fish stand out because of their color. There are tanks that have a majority
of certain species of fish, but still have a small amount of another species. The fish who are a
minority in the tank look different, having different colors and standing out among the other fish. 
 
Memory - M
​ anny 
A lot of the exhibit’s memory creation comes from its “in-your-face” nature present at most of the
segments. With a world of other exhibits present, the aquarium proves to hold a variety of
activities that will remain a favorite in the minds of museum-goers. The aquarium’s immersive
interactive component ensures that it remains as one of the favorite exhibits even after leaving
the space.

Intentions - M
​ anny 
Ultimately, the intention of the exhibit itself is to both create and grow an interest in aquatic life.
The habitats and interactive portions serve as a method of drawing in interest from
museum-goers. The tech-pods’ environment is made to look and feel like you’re in a research
submarine, giving users a glimpse of the true experience. The screens are there to educate and
grab at the user’s attention via the “Fun Fish Fact”. Not only does clicking on the Fish Fact get
you the “fun” information, it also gives other information that users would have otherwise not
looked for. Even the layout is built with intention. From the entrance, it winds down the exhibit
with everything put in a linear fashion. Then it leads to the tunnel which takes you to the next
portion of the space; the interactive material.

Rewards and Punishments - M

​ anny 
The reward of the aquarium comes with entering the exhibit. Immediately, you’re greeted with a
sneak peek of the largest tank in the exhibit. With that, there’s almost a promise that if you stick
with the exhibit, you’ll eventually meet with “the grand prize”, the large aquarium tank. If people
are interested in checking out the screens in front of exhibits, they get the reward of learning
something new that they can share outside of the museum. As far as punishments, however,
not much is present in the exhibit. There are rules that say “don’t touch the water after sanitizing
your hands” but that’s about as far as it goes.
Conditions and Addictions - ​Melissa 
● Conditions - ​Conditioning involves connecting a signal of one’s choice to an existing
behavior. Due to most of the exhibit being observational, no evidence of conditioning has
been noted. For the interactives pieces of the exhibit, there isn’t a gain for the user to
associate with the actions to denote as conditioning.
● Addictions - ​There aren’t apparent uses of addiction within the exhibit, but for
Discovery World as a whole, users might find gratification at the initial entry of an exhibit
due to discovering new views and technology. Users might come back over and over
and explore different exhibits to try to feel that excitement they first had.
 
Social/Viral Structure - M
​ elissa 
It is noticed that the exhibit mainly relies on the visual appeal and social media for its viral
structure. They promote users to follow them on Instagram and like their Facebook page.
Pictures of the aquarium and fishes are especially eye catching so the content is easily noticed
and could be shared with many others through social media. Not only do the visuals help the
user’s social media page gain attention but it also helps the exhibit. This accomplishes self
promotion to encourage other users to come visit the exhibit and also social proof to show that it
is relevant and people liked the exhibit.
 
Trust - M
​ anny 
When it came to creating trust in the user, the aquarium did well at utilizing some of the ideas of
creating trust. For analysis sake, let’s take a look at professionalism and keeping users
informed. The Museum itself lends the exhibit some credibility, as Discovery World is a
reputable location, known for its appreciation and history in scientific research. Along with that,
the exhibit’s layout and setup, from the technology to the way the sea creatures are organized,
is presented in an effort to inform and demonstrate, not to entertain (though that does come with
the experience).

As far as keeping users informed, museum attendants are given clear instructions on everything
they’re able to do at the exhibit. The floor plan is a subconscious guide for tourists and, along
the walls of the interactive portion of the exhibit, there are several guides describing how you
can go about interacting. It throws in the dos and don’ts clearly, which builds a mutual
understanding and trust between attendants and museum staff.
 
Gamification - L
​ ucas 
The Interactive Panels had slight gamification tendencies, they had a list of the fish that were in
their respective tank with their names down below. Once you pressed a fish the information of
the respective fish showed up and on the lower right corner a tab that said “Fish Fact” came up.
When you pressed the “Fish Fact” button random fish facts appeared on the screen. Even
though this is not very good use of gamification it demonstrates a slight amount of gamification
built into the touch screen.
People were not particularly attracted to the gamification of the Interactive Panels, they were
more focused on the information that the interactive panels displayed, rather than the “Fish
Fact” . To make the gamification better, they should redesign the User Interface and make the
Fish Facts button be in a position that is easier to see which will increase the likelihood of the
user interacting with the interface.

Usability 
Overall Usability - M
​ elissa and Lucas 
From the interview responses, many users found the technology
confusing, such as the microscopes at the Aquarium. They could not
find where the slides were and the Aquarium did not provide
instructions on how to use them. Also much of the technology is
outdated and only one of the headphones work from the sound
device. The usability of most of the aquarium was adequate.The fish
tanks were big and easy to see and information from each type of fish
was clearly stated in each tank thanks to the touchpad signs. The
biggest complaint would be the submarine part of the aquarium where
most of the technological devices were very outdated and confusing.

Cognitive Load - V
​ eronica and Melissa 
Since the aquarium pulls in visitors with adventurous curiosity, individuals will often want to visit
for the opportunity to view the beauty of the sea, and maybe not to learn the details of the water.
If visitors are present from their motivation of curiosity, high cognitive interactions would not be
beneficial to the exhibition because those interactions would struggle to keep the attention of
individuals (especially younger visitors) when there is so much else in the aquarium that can
catch one’s eye.

The cognitive load aspect overall was light weight. There weren’t confusing instructions,
sometimes even with no instructions. The aquarium didn’t bombard the users with information
unless they wanted to further interact with the information panel themselves.

Online & Physical Behavior - V

​ eronica 
 
Online behavior includes the exploration of the basic information regarding the details of the
aquarium while the physical behavior is exploring the actual physical space to experience
fascination and enjoyment. Online behavior includes browsing and searching. When individuals
arrive at Discovery World’s website, they have the intention to either browse through the
website to understand what is provided at the museum or to search for a specific exhibit that
catches their eye. When visitors physically arrive at Discovery World, they then start on their
adventure to discover the exhibits that appeal to their personal interests (hence ‘discovery’ in
the name ‘Discovery World’).
Accessibility - ​Veronica 
The exhibition plays well on accommodating for certain user restrictions, like not being able to
go down steps. A common visitor at the museum usually includes a parent, grandparent, and/or
a guardian accompanying a child. The museum pulls in visitors of all ages and must
accommodate the limitations of the youngest and oldest generation; museums bring in families.
Wheelchairs and strollers are a common restriction that visitors will bring with them and the
aquarium has both steps and elevators to accommodate those limitations. During the visit to
Discovery World, there was a good number of strollers parked in the exhibit while parents and
toddlers explored the aquarium together. The exhibit does a good job creating accessibility with
“wheel” limitations. 
 
UX Strengths 
 
Interactive Panel - L
​ ucas and Melissa 
The Interactive Panel shows helpful information about the corresponding fish in the fish tanks. It
helps users learn about what they are looking at while making the experience interactive
through touch. The panels were easy on the cognitive load of users by keeping the display
simple, and users could consciously choose if they wanted to learn more about the aquatic
animals.
 
Petting Station​ - Melissa 
The petting station was the most interactive part of the exhibit. Most aquariums satisfy curiosity
through visuals and information, but the petting station allowed further connection and
interaction with the animals through direct contact. That leaves the most special and memorable
experience from the exhibit.
 
Playing off of Visitors’ Curiosity - ​Veronica 
The exhibit plays well on grabbing the subconscious fascination of learning about the world of
the unknown. Being in Milwaukee, individuals are residents of the Midwest and often don’t get to
visit the ocean or interact with sea life. Although we have Lake Michigan, the culture present
connects more to our land than the Lake. Since individuals of Wisconsin will not often travel to
an ocean side, having a petting station to touch fish and/or sting rays entices Midwestern’s to
interact with something they never had before. The petting tank greatly pulls on the curiosity
individuals have towards sea life.

Exhibit Layout - ​Manny

The flow of the exhibit is set up rather well. Its floor plan, from the main entrance, is set up for
the user so that it flows in a space/time/experience efficient fashion. Its spiral into the main
lower platform is a simple way to balance the influx of new visitors to those who are in the
process of viewing the exhibit. It’s a great way to give people a build to the final part of it. It
almost crescendos in a way.

UX Opportunities/Recommendations 
 
Organization - ​Melissa 
Overall the exhibit was intuitive as to where users don’t need much guidance to explore through
the exhibit, but it seems like there wasn’t a clear way of how the sea life was divided throughout
the exhibit. Animals were just randomly placed with no format. Not to say there is a random
python tank in the aquarium exhibit. It doesn’t fit into the aquarium theme and makes the
content creators seem like they are too lazy to care. It is recommended to provide a form of
organization that groups categories of sea life so users can formulate a plan to explore rather
than aimlessly walking through the exhibit, and also move the python tank elsewhere or remove
it.

On the website, the first image displayed was the jellyfish tank. Because of that, one would
assume it would be one of the main attractions of the exhibit. Instead, the jellyfish tank was
placed in a corner where it could easily be missed. It would be recommended to place the
jellyfish tank (the main attraction) where it is easily visible to visitors. These recommendations
will make the overall experience for the users more pleasant and organized.

Technology  
Removing - ​Veronica 
Some of the equipment is outdated or out of order. There is the
obvious recommendation to replace the older equipment with
brand new ones, but there always seem to be the issue of money.
Instead of replacing all the equipment, it might be beneficial to
remove the equipment all together and consider a low-budget
touch up. Leaving the old equipment for visitors to interact with
may leave a negative feeling of the exhibit being old and left
uncared for. Even though there wouldn’t be as much fun activities,
it would show care and time. The tanks inside the aquarium have
a lot of old interactive technologies, most of them don’t even work,
so it could create an opportunity to remove all the old, out-of-date
equipment and leave the tank open and instead paint the inside to
showcase the fascination of being in a tank in the deep sea.

This interactive piece of technology had little to no response when touching the dial. Because
the technology did not provide any direct feedback or response, users will feel frustrated and
possibly irritated at the technology. If a user feels irritated towards an interaction, it is a bad user
experience. Instead of letting an individual have the opportunity to experience such a negative
experience, removing it will eliminate that possibility. 

Replacing - L​ ucas 
My recommendation is to update the technology in the submarine exhibition. The technology
was clearly outdated, especially at the submarine portion of the aquarium. The worst part was
that the submarine exhibit was at the end of the aquarium, leaving the user with negative
feelings.

This could be solved by purchasing newer up to date technology, especially easy to update
technology. Discovery World should invest in technology that can be torn down into pieces, so
after a few years when the technology is no longer up to date, they do not have to buy a new
unit, just update the part of the machinery that is making it seem outdated.

Instructional Help - M
​ anny
From a UX perspective, the tech pods could benefit from an instructor/museum guide being
there to aid visitors in operating the machinery and technology within. Everything else is rather
self explanatory and operable at the touch of a screen. Having a guide would take the
guesswork out of using some of the technology, along with give visitors further insight into the
machinery in question as well, presenting clear instructions and further intriguing users. It
almosts presents a new reward system; ask a question about how to use a certain piece of
technology at the exhibit and learn the history or purpose behind it.

Overall Team Rating 

After analyzing the exhibit through user data and responses from interviews, a consensus of
7/10 rating is given for the exhibit. 10 being extremely satisfied and 0 being extremely
dissatisfied. 
 
Cons  
The exhibit just needs some minor tweaks that could aid it in a big way. For starters, in the Tech
Pods there is a surprising lack of instruction for some of the machines, making them difficult to
operate and, in some cases, harder to reach for children under 4’. Aside from a necessity for
technical updates, the exhibit is put together in a clean, organized manner.

Pros 
The format of the exhibit is meant for you to quickly walk by its “exhibitional” portion, where you
get to see some of the fish in their typical setting, in a tank. However, this then leads into the
immersive and interactive part of the exhibit, enhancing the exhibit itself within a couple steps.
The technology outside of the Tech Pods is decently understandable for every user in the age
range and it serves as a helpful tool for people wanting to learn more. Overall, the exhibit is a
relaxing, educational atmosphere that seeks to educate young minds, intrigue new comers, and
maybe inspire visitors to pursue an interest in aquatic studies.

Conclusion - M
​ anny 
In conclusion, the Reiman Aquarium is a great experience for museum goers. It has a solid
structure, its aesthetics are eye-catching, and there’s a ton of takeaways for all of its attendants.
The exhibit appeals to people of all ages, from the smallest minds to the eldest. It plays on the
imagination and the scientific curiosity that allows for a well-rounded experience. Although there
is room for improvement, the exhibit produces a pleasant user experience.