Assignment Five -

Individual Report Reflecting

on the Entire IxD Process.

Prepared by: Kathleen Berns (0847461)

28 April 2010
Introduction

The group I worked with for the Interaction design project consisted of Kenneth Baker,
Jason Browne and myself. We chose the Student Union Courtyard as our space because
we felt it is one of the busiest places on campus. I fell into the role of group leader,
which I think was due to my highly-strung nature as both Jason and Kenneth are quite
laid back. Overall we worked well together, but that’s not to say we weren’t without the
odd disagreement. I think the structure of our teamwork translates positively in our work
and final project.

Throughout the course of the project we never had any regrets about choosing the Student
Union Courtyard as our space, it was extremely interesting and enjoyable carrying out
our primary research there during the understanding phase of the design cycle. When in
the prototyping stage we ha no shortage of extras for our video prototype due to the
almost constant busy atmosphere.

Background on Interaction Design

“Interaction Design aims to define and facilitate interaction between human beings by
means of a product or service. It focuses on the possibilities to create and encourage
behavior facilitating an exchange between people.” (use-design.com)

Interaction Design is multidisciplinary field. An interaction designer must have

knowledge of computing technology, sociology and cognitive psychology as well as
industrial sketching and model making skills. But above all an Interaction Designer is an
Artist. Designers must call upon different skills depending on what kind of
product/interface they or designing and also depending on which the four phases of the
design cycle they are working in. It takes more than just a minute or two to successfully
solve a design problem, interaction design is about setting sufficient groundwork through
research and understanding before you even attempt to tackle the usability issue.

“Interaction design cannot dispense with scientific method and engineering knowledge;
indeed, familiarity with computing technology is as essential to an interaction designer
as building technology is to an architect… [but] interaction design is more of an art than
a science. Its ultimate subject matter – human experience and subjective response is
inherently as changeable and unfathomable as the ocean.” (Crampton and Tabor)

Interaction design has a vital role to play in interactive system design. When you consider
the common problems users face when operating interfaces, it is rarely that the software
is unable to perform the desired function, the issues is commonly that the user simply
cannot figure out hoe it is done. Many computer programs have function that people
rarely use, as they just don’t know they are there! It is the aim of interaction designers to
rectify these issues.
“[…] The situated nature of design- a sensitivity to the human context in all its richness
and variety” (Winograd 1987)

The Design Process

Interaction Design is very user focused. The aim is to fit the product around the user and
their needs rather than expecting the user to adapt to the product. An interaction designer
develops new interfaces or products using the Design Cycle (understanding, design,
prototype and evaluation). During the understanding phase designers spend a lot of time
observing, questioning, and learning about the people who may be using their product
and the context or setting it will be used in. In the design phase the focus is on
considering a range of ideas that have been generated from the understanding phase. This
is achieved by techniques such as scenario-based development. Moving on to the
prototype phase the designers have an clear picture of their final concept and should be
confident that it not only meets the needs of the users but it is also aesthetically and
ergonomically pleasing. The evaluation phase is when the designers review their work
and note any changes that may need to be made. The cycle continues in a loop until the
final product is perfected.

Project Phase One

Phase one of the Interaction Design project began with the selection of the campus space
in which we would conceptualise an interactive device. During this selection process we
considered the potential of three different areas of the university campus, The Student
Union Courtyard, the Arena and the Living Bridge. On close inspection all three spaces
had potential, bit we felt that the Student union courtyard would have many design
possibilities as it is a large open space which often changes from busy to quiet in a short
space of time due to lectures. I was enthusiastic about this space from the beginning and
when I shared my views with my teammates, they agreed.

The IDEO cards played a substantial role in our primary

research. Kenneth, Jason and I carried out the “Fly on the
Wall” research method from the “look” category at
various times individually and as a group. This methods
allowed us to “Observe and record behavior within its
context, without interfering with people’s activities”
(IDEO) this method is useful to see what people actually
do within real contexts and time frames, rather than accept
what they say they do as fact. This method gave us a good
insight into what took place in our space. It was
Interesting to see that many of the people occupying it
were just passing through also I was surprised to see the
number of non students using the space, such as staff and
delivery personnel. However on reflection I think some of
the time we spent of this activity was unproductive as we
were observing the same activities over and over again.

From the “look” category Jason and I also carried out the “Still Photo Survey” method.
Through the completion of this method we “followed a planned shooting script and
captured pictures of specific objects and activities” (IDEO) I taught it method was
beneficial as it gave us visual evidence of behavioral patterns within the space an allowed
to document where the market stalls were during the farmers market which was important
as we did not want to hinder other events in
the courtyard with our future development. I
have no negative comments on this
research method as it was quick and easy
to do and served us well throughout the
design process.

Following our success with the “Look”

category we continued our quest to
understand our space it’s our users with
the “Ask” category of research methods
with “collage”. Using the photos we
collected from the “Still Photo Survey”
Jason asked occupants of the courtyard to
create a collage using the images of the
space. We asked them to pick out the photos
that were significant to them and that
portrayed their experience of the space. I didn’t feel that we got a lot of information from
this method but it did give us an impression of
the reasons why people frequent the Students
Union Courtyard, as most people picked
the image that showed the busy and
exciting atmosphere in the space.

“Extreme User Interview” was one of the

most successful methods of research we
completed. Kenneth and I interviewed a
range of people who identified
themselves as either “extremely familiar
or extremely unfamiliar with the space
and asked them to evaluate their
experiences using it.” (IDEO) These
individuals helped us to identify the key
aspects of the space and what they think is negative/positive in the space and what could
be done to improve it. The only negative point I could see with this research method is
that we were unable to get the opinion of anyone working in the space as it takes about
five to ten minutes to carry out the interview somebody and the employees were very
busy.

“Cognitive Maps” was the final research method we used during phase one of the project.
Jason and I attempted to gain insight into the space by “asking participants to map an
existing or virtual space and reveal how they would navigate it” (IDEO) This allowed us
to discover significant elements, pathways,
and other spatial behavior associated with
the space. We discovered the busiest areas
of the space through this research but further
down the line it proved to be ineffective, as
it did not show where people were staying
for long periods of time. It was also terribly
difficult to communicate what information
we needed to the participants of the study.

If I was doing this project again there are

some things I would do differently, for
example
I would have carried out the “Personal Inventory” research to “Document the things that
people identify as important to them as a way of cataloging evidence of their lifestyles” I
think it would have given us a clearer picture of what needed improvement. I would also
conduct an experiment that involved placing a foreign object in the space and observing
peoples reactions, I feel that, that sort of research would give us a grasp of whether or not
a new device would be welcomed in a particular area of the SU Courtyard. Overall we
were pleased with our varied choice of research methods as it gave us a good foundation
on which to build our project.
Project Phase Two

The second phase of the project started by Kenneth, Jason and I coming together as a
group and analyzing our primary research to develop a needs statement. The needs
statement consisted of the most prominent aspects of our findings and the final list of the
areas our device needed to cater for and the problems it could rectify within the space. As
group leader I then suggested that we individually develop one or two concepts each. We
all agreed that this was a good plan, as when we met again we would each have fresh and
original ideas. Deciding which concepts we would develop further was a difficult task,
but in the end we settled on, Kenneth’s “Under Pressure, Jason’s “Interactive Table” and
my “Ninja Bin”.

We carried out field-work on scenario-based design methods and learned that “The core
of any design scenario is a narrative around a user, trying to achieve a task goal involving
a ‘thing’ within a given context or environment” (Fowler 1988) After examining various
other design scenarios we noticed that good scenarios have a narrative in which
characters are taking part in both specific and everyday activities. The scenario always
takes place within a given time frame and the characters usually have some sort of
decision to make.

The next step was to develop our own scenarios for each of our concepts, this task made
us consider the detailed functioning of each of our concepts. “In scenario–based design,
descriptions of how people accomplish tasks are a primary working design
representation” (Carroll 1999) During the development of the scenarios we realised flaws
in each of our concepts. It made me realise just
how important and valuable scenario development
really is.

I taught the format of our scenario development

was successful, as we gave a brief description of
the concepts first and then went into detail with the
cognitive experience of the device itself. But on
reflection and also following the feedback from our
tutors we became conscious of the fact that the
scenarios were too short and that we could have
gone into a lot more detail and explored the various
other problems that may have arose if the devices
actually were built. When we made our final
selection and chose the Interactive Table as our
final concept I pleased with the choice and excited
to develop the idea further through storyboarding
and the video prototype. However I have to admit I
was a little disappointed with the dismissal of my
concept the Ninja-Bin, as I had grown quite attached to it!
Due to the lack of detail in our final scenario we agreed as a group the best way to rectify
the situation was to develop it further before transferring it to storyboard.

Project Phase Three

It was difficult to decide on one final scenario as we felt all three of our concepts were
strong. We agreed to go with the interactive table as it had more potential for further
development than the others. Kenneth and Jason designed the content of the storyboard
from our improved scenario. As Jason is the beat artist in the group I delegated him the
task of drawing the various scenes that would be translated onto the video prototype.

I brought my presentational skills to the project by structuring the layout and mounting
the images on the board. We were very pleased with how the storyboard turned this was
partly due to us presenting a draft to our tutors after the disappointing result we received
in the scenario development. The high quality storyboard we produced served us well
when it came to the shooting and editing of the video prototype.

Entering the prototyping stage of

the project, I developed a
shooting script and a sequenced
list of the shots we needed from
photographs Jason and I had
taken of the storyboard before
it’s submission. Once we had the
script and plans completed Jason
made use of his drawing skills for
a second time by designing the
paper props we would use when
shooting the video. I played a
part in this process also by giving
my design opinions and again utilizing my presentational skills by rendering the sheets
and giving them a high quality finish which went on to lend our video a degree of
professionalism.

The following day Kenneth, Jason and I got together as a group to shoot the video. On
reflection I think we could have chosen a better day to do this as we shot the video on
Tuesday when the farmers market was on. This made shooting a bit of a challenge as the
space of crowded and noisy. Our aim with the video was to give the impression that our
interactive table was actually a fully functioning interactive device. We achieved this
while shooting by ensuring the camera remained in the same place while simulating the
changing screens, we knew that way when it came to editing the footage it would be
almost effortless ensure a smooth transition between frames. Kenneth undertook the job
of video editor, when completed his task I made some suggestions and together we
produced the final film.
The final scenario of our projects had its strengths and its weaknesses. In my opinion it
gave a clear depiction on the tables operation and features, as it explored all the options
the device had to offer. On the down side as pointed out by out tutors and collogues at the
video screening, we failed to explore the functionality of the device, One issues that was
pointed put to us was that we didn’t show where the music was coming from when
depicting the jukebox feature, also
we should have included a feature
in the table that tied it to the space
we were working in. Simply adding
a camera shot of the speakers that
already exist in the courtyard, and
adding an event guide or Courtyard
information feature to the device
itself could have easily tackled
these drawbacks.

We learned a lot from the

production of the video prototype.
Firstly we gained skills in camera work and video editing and after effects, but it also
gave us insight to value of video prototyping within interaction design, It is a cheap way
of product testing and it also enables further development of your concept scenarios.

Final Reflections

On final reflection I was happy with the project my group and I done. I feel we
successfully designed a suitable interactive device for our chosen space. It wasn’t perfect
of course, some of our research could have done with a bit more expansion or
consideration and there are definitely things I would do differently if I were starting this
particular project all over again.

Firstly to be honest I would give more consideration to the group of people I was working
with, although my experience with my colleagues was by no means a negative one, I feel
it would have been beneficial for me to work with people who operate in the same
fashion I do. It would hopefully reduce the number of argument and lower the stress
level! On the other hand, arguments aside I was very happy with the work we did and
each member of the group brought individual skills to the project. This may not have
occurred within a different arrangement.

Secondly I would try to be more diligent in relation to choosing research methods in the
understanding phase, as I previously mentioned one or two of the methods we used
turned out to be unsuitable to our future work. That time could have been spent on more
rewarding techniques. Also I fear we may not have spent enough time decoding the
results of our research, perhaps if we had looked a little deeper and read between the lines
we may have come up with a more original engaging device. One of the other groups had
a concept which was quite similar to ours and that was unsatisfying to me.

Obviously following the negative feedback we received regarding the scenario-based

design we produced, I would make changes in a future project. I understand that our
scenarios were very short and lacked detail. There were so many different possibilities we
could have explored and problems with the concept we could have solved through
superior scenario development. There isn’t much I would change about the storyboard we
produced except to may add a little colour to the device itself to make it stand out.

If I had to opportunity to shoot the video prototype again I would reconsider some angles
of the shots. The camera shots showing the table screens would have been better shot
from behind the actor (over the shoulder) This way the screens would nit be shown
upside down and would look more professional. This would have also solved the problem
of the visibility of the pencil when we were attempting to simulate the multi- touch
screen drawing pad. Not showing the source of the music in the video is another thing I
would change. Showing where the sound was coming from would have given a clearer
depiction of the devices functionality. The attention and focus we gave some features
over others would be another thing I would review if doing the project again. The
Bluetooth feature of the table was slightly more important than the drawing pad feature.
This is not clear n the video at all as we spent almost twice the length of time showing
that aspect over the other. The game facet got almost no attention at all. Perfecting these
problems would take a more detailed shot plan and more care during the editing phase.

In conclusion I very much enjoyed the work I put in to this project and I can see myself
having a serious interest in interaction design in the future, I will admit though, there
were times during the research phase where I was feeling impatient and wanted to get
started with the designing phase! I may needed to keep reminding myself that the
research and understanding phase is vital to develop a good design and unbeatable for
solving design problems.
Bibliography

www.use-design.com (last accessed: 27/04/2010)

Crampton Smith, G. and Tabor, P. (1996) Bringing Design to Software, Chapter: The
Role of the Artist Designer.

IDEO Cards. (2002) www.ideo.com (last accessed 27/04/2010)

Carroll, J. M. (1999) Five Reasons for Scenario-Based Design, 32nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.

Fowler, C. (1988) Chimera: Institute of Social and Technical Change, University of

Essex.

Winograd, T. (1987) Bringing Design to Software, Chapter: Introduction.