applying generative tools

Terence Fenn University of Johannesburg South Africa, Johannesburg [email protected]

Applying Generative Tools in the co-design of digital interactive products in development contexts.

Abstract This paper begins by briefly introducing three key concepts. Firstly, the value of design prototypes within human- centered design practice. Secondly, the difficulties of using design prototypes when designing interactive products with and for developing communities. Thirdly, The value of storytelling as an alternative mode of creating shared understanding between designers and community participants. The paper then proceeds to position Generative Tools, Personas and User-journeys as three design methods that collectively, connectedly and reciprocally utilize storytelling to communicate understanding. By referring to an ongoing co-design project involving farmers from Soweto, the paper then explains how these design methods can communicate, at various times, the contexts of the users and the interpretation of these contexts by the designer in a manner that is accessible and valuable to all participants of the co-design team Keywords: co-design, interaction design, generative tools, personas, user-journey design Introduction Interactive digital products have immense power to improve the lives of others. The role of information

and computer technologies (ICT) as an enabler of solutions that respond to the needs of developing

communities1 has long been recognised (Manson, 2011 A [O], Vrasidas et al, 2009:3).

Problematically, inaccessibility to ICT, due to inappropriate design product is prevalent in developing

communities (Malony, 2006: 1-2). In order to better understand the needs of the community and

subsequently provide solutions in response to these needs, many designers working in development

contexts have applied participatory modes of human centered design (HCD). Co-design, which is the

form of Participatory Design used in this study, involves engaging with everyday people as “experts of

their own experiences” during the design process in order to understand current practices and to

envisioning alternative practices (Steen 2011: 52).

Within most HCD methodologies, the design prototype is used as the principal tool that focuses and

fosters communication between the designer, the community and stakeholders. However the design of

interactive digital products, which often rely on programmable software to operate, present a different

set of problems for participatory design projects. Often, as will be discussed in detail in subsequent

1 It is acknowledged that the term ‘developing communities’ is problematic however it is used here to refer to communities that lack the

infrastructure and resources of a ‘normative’ urban environment.

sections of this paper, participants from development communities do not often have the experience to

conceive opportunities offered by technologies driven by software nor are they able to interact with

many of the prototype conventions found in interactive design practice. Thus community participation

in the design process can be limited

In response to this dilemma, this papers positions three design methods; Generative tools, Persona

diagrams and User -journey design diagrams as viable design tools for co-designing digital interactive

products with development community participants.

Discussion Design Prototypes

Design prototypes take tangible forms that imply how a final design product or aspects of the final

product will look, feel or behave. As such in HCD a prototype can be considered as a designer’s

creative hypothesis for solving the design problem that reflects the designer's interpretation of the

aspirations and needs of the community. In HCD prototypes are generally constructed in such a way

as to allow the community participants involved in the evaluation of the design to understand the

decisions taken by the designer and to accept or refute aspects of the design during feedback

sessions. This feedback allows the designer to amend the prototype and then retest with users.

Prototypes are often described in terms of their fidelity with a low- fidelity referring to a prototype that

is in its early stages of conceptual and formal development and high- fidelity implying a prototype very

close to the intended final product (Rogers, Sharp and Preece 2012: 390). Much of the success of

prototyping in HCD relies on the community participants’ ability to conceive the uses, affordances and

constraints of the designed product and it's materiality through an engagement with the prototype.

Interaction Design Prototypes In the discipline of interaction design (IXD), which in this paper is understood as the design of

interactive products that support the way people communicate and interact in their everyday life

(Rogers et al 2012: 9), the development of prototypes for user-testing is pervasive (Rogers et al 2012:

390, Cooper 2007: 70). Examples of different types of prototypes used in IXD include: scenarios

(Cooper 2007: 111), Sketching (Rogers et al 2012: 393), work- flow models (Cooper 2007: 106), user-

mapping diagrams, Figure 1, (Caddick and Cable 2011: 79) task- models (Caddick and Cable

2011:45), wireframes, Figure 2, (Caddick and Cable 2011: 161), low-fidelity interactive products (such

as simple paper-based mock ups, Figure 3, (Rogers et al 2012: 392), and high fidelity interactive

products (such as beta- sites).

Figure 1. An example of a simple User-journey mapping showing the lifecycle of a users relationship to a

book.

Figure 2. Examples of wireframes for a mobile phone ‘bookstore” application. These wireframes depict three different approaches to finding a selected title.

Figure 3, an example showing a ‘paper prototype’ version of the same application shown in Figure 2.

As exemplified in Figures 1 and 2, many of the low- fidelity prototypes of IXD take the form of

diagrammatic models. This can be problematic when co-designing interactive products with

development community participants as they often “struggle to make abstract decisions” based on the

“paper sketches” of IXD’s low- fidelity diagrams (Marsden, G in, Rogers et al 2012: 453, Molapo and

Marsden 2012: 2). Compounding these problems further community participants can often have little

comprehension of the malleability and affordances of digital products. Thus digital prototypes are often

not capable of generating the dialogue needed to drive product development (Molapo and Marsden

2012: 1). Therefore, while the need to design interactive products applicable to the contextual and life

experiences of users is an acknowledged goal of IXD (Hassenzahl 2010: 43-49, Cooper 2007: 3), in

execution this need can be frought with difficulties.

In Technology as Experience, Wright and McCarthy (2004: 18) position Mikhael Bakhtin’s dialogical

theory of ‘creative understanding’ as an important component of co-designing interactive technologies.

Creative understanding is described as a dialogical communication process “of bringing together

different perspectives and, in this creative bringing together, forging understanding” (ibid). In creative

understanding all participants involved in the act of communication are seen as “mutual, present, and

responsive to each other” (ibid). In this sense, the act of understanding in a dialogical approach is

centered on creating a new shared meaning between those involved in the dialogue rather then a

transfer of understanding from ‘speaker’ to ‘listener’ or alternatively ‘designer’ to ‘user’.

While the use of prototypes in the traditional sense can also be considered instrumental in the act of

creative understanding, Wright and McCarthy position storytelling and narrative as central to dialogical

understanding in design (Wright and McCarthy 2010: 28) and thus an alternative to traditional

prototypes. Storytelling is identified as valuable in generating shared understandings as it involves not

only the teller’s account and their consideration for the listener’s point of view but the listener point of

view as well (ibid). Thus a central argument of this paper is that a dialogical approach to creating

understanding is particularly useful approach in interaction design particularly when co-designing with

communities where traditional prototypes may not aid decision-making.

In the remainder of this paper the role of three design methods that embed dialogical practice namely

Generative tools, Personas and User-journeys will be discussed in reference to an ongoing co-design

project involving the author and small- scale urban farmers in Soweto, South Africa. The final aim of

the co-design project is the design of a mobile web application that facilitates the farmers accessibility

to information so that they may better ensure the economic sustainability of their emerging farming

businesses against the threats of commercial competition, poor resources and knowledge, and

community apathy.

Generative Tools

Generative Tools are the main mode of design research in the co-design methodology of

Contextmapping. Contextmapping was developed at the Department of Industrial Design at Delft

University, Netherlands in the early 2000s (Visser et al 2005, Stappers 2010, Sanders 2000).

Contextmapping techniques have been successfully applied across numerous domains (Stappers

2009: 7) in order to explore the “hidden world of user experiences” in order to build a better

understanding of experience.

Although the main focus of the discussion will be on the use of Generative Tools to elicit user insights

through storytelling and the corresponding storytelling involved when the designer presents and

discusses their mapping of the user contexts in the form of Personas and User-journeys, for the

purpose of flow and contextualization this discussion will be orientated by the various stages of the

Contextmapping methodology. The Contextmapping methodology consists of six phases (Visser et al

2005: 5, Stappers 2010: 7) namely Preparation, Sensitization, Sessions, Analyses, Communication

and the Development of new concepts. However the focus of this discussion primarily involves the

Sessions, Analyses, and Communication phases. The other phases will be discussed briefly and only

to the point of contextualizing the main discussion.

The Preparation phase involves the formulation of research goals, preliminary mapping, selecting

participants and choosing techniques.

The Sensitization phase involves the preparing of participants for the co-design groups sessions.

Sensitizing is a process where participants are encouraged and motivated to think, reflect and explore

aspects of their own personal context, independently of the group. This process normally takes the

form of an exercise pack given to the participants prior to the group sessions.

Figure 4. An example of 2 pages of an 11 page Sensitization pack used in the Soweto farmers project.

The Sessions phase involves conducting co-design group workshops. It is in the Contextmapping

workshops that Generative Tools are applied to elicit participants’ current and potential future

experiences. In these workshops the participants assume the role of experiential experts and are

provided with creative materials to enable them to “play an active role in requirements setting, idea

generation, and even concept development” (Stappers and Visser 2007: 1).

Generative tools (Visser et al 2005: 4, Sanders 2000: 10, 2) are creative techniques such as collages,

sketching and modeling that are normally used by professional designers to ideate. When applied as

Generative tools, these techniques are used by the community participants to ‘design’ artefacts that

reflect the participants’ ideas for solving an, often fictional, problem presented to them by the

facilitator-designer. The design activities are constructed so as to encourage imaginative, 'what if'

thinking rather then responding to the constraints of ‘what is’ rationally possible.

The purpose of the fictional design project is not premised on the creation of a professional design

product or concept but rather to help the facilitator-designer elicit insights about the participant’s

motivations, experiences and needs. While these insights can be derived from the made artefacts,

they are gained predominantly from dialogue between the facilitator-designer and participants during

and after the design activity. The logic behind generative tools is that experiences are often

determined by latent needs or tacit knowledge, which are often difficult to directly express verbally

(Visser et al 2005: 4).

In the Soweto farmers workshop two different design activities that utilised Generative Tools took

place. The first activity involved the creation of a collage poster and the second activity involved clay

modeling.

Figure 5. Task reminder for the first Generative tools activity

In the first activity, the farmers were asked to cut out images from a range of magazines in order to

compile an illustrative account of their experience of learning to become farmers and how they

continue to learn to be better farmers. Figure 5 shows the task-reminder that was given to the

participants to help focus their activities. Figures 6a- 8a are examples of three of the collages that the

participants constructed.

Figure 6A. An example of collage made by participants from Soweto Farmers session, using the

generative tools methodology.

Figure 6B. The corresponding data captured from the participants description of the collage in Figure 6A







Once the participants had finished their collages, they were asked to verbally discuss their designs in

relation to their journey and experiences of learning to be a farmer. The discussions on average were

15-minutes long and involved questions and open conversation around specific points. Discussions

were recorded and filmed. In general the farmers discussions were rich in detail and provided a great

deal of relevant, qualitative information pertaining to their experiences.

The value of the oral discussion was particularly useful in the example shown in Figure 6. The

participant, who constructed the collage, began by talking about the value of farming rather then about

her experience learning to be a farmer2. However the open dialogue format that accompanied the

discussions made it quiet easy for the conversation to be refocused on the task of how the participant

came to learn that those things were important.

In the second activity, the participants were given clay and ceramic modeling tools and asked to

create a fictional tool for farming as detailed in Figure 9

2 It was assumed by the author, that the participant’s reason for articulating the grand narratives of permaculture was due to her experience

of frequently attending workshops run by NGO where those issues are stressed

Task reminder for the first Generative tools activity

Similar to the first activity, participants were then tasked with explaining what they had created and

why they felt their creation would be useful to them in their farming activities. Below in Figure 10A is

an example of a ‘robot helper’ that contains a networked tablet as well as changeable robotic arms to

assist in physically difficult work.

Figure 10A. An example of a clay model made by participants from Soweto Farmers session, using the



In general participants responded well to the exercises although many at first considered the task to

be “for children”. Once the discussions of artefacts begun they become very engaged and often the

role of the facilitator was to only to redirect or end the conversation. Having the designed artefacts as

the focal point of the conversation did allow for insights to emerge in real time that became critical to

the authors understanding of the farmers needs. For example, in the second exercise many of the

farmers modeled farm equipment such as mulchers3, tractors, water purification systems, robotic arms

etc. At first these items seemed to offer very little relation to a possible interaction design solution

however it soon became apparent that what was been described was the farmers need to expand

production and farm more smartly utilizing semi- industrial methods and smarter business practice.

This became a highly informative insight that orientated much of the later design strategy.

Analysis of user data.

In the Analysis phase of Contextmapping, the qualitative data collected from the artefacts and verbal

narratives is analysed, discussed and organised around key insights. In the Soweto Farmers example,

data obtained from the audio recording of the discussions (as depicted in all the ‘B’ Excel-sheet

diagrams presented earlier with the corresponding designed artefacts), was organised into thematic

categories such as the information needs and the information seeking behaviors of the farmers.

3 Mulch is small shavings of wood spread over soil to increase water retention. A mulcher is a machine that shaves the wood.

Figure 11. Schematic representation of the farmers’ information needs

Figure 12. Schematic representation of the farmers’ information seeking behaviours.

Persona diagrams and User-journeys

The Communication phase of Contextmapping requires the designer to present their articulation of

the users experiences, resulting from the analysis, to the design team in a visual mapping. In an

orthodox Contextmapping project the design team, to whom the mapping is presented, is made up of

other professional designers. However in the Soweto farmers project a decision was made that due to

the vast differences in life experience between the designer and the community participants, to

present the mapping back to the farmers so that they could assess the validity of the mapping.

In the Soweto farmers project the mapping of the farmers’ contexts culminated in two key methods of

mapping, Persona diagrams (Cooper 2007: 77, Rogers et al 2012: 360) and User-journey diagrams

(Caddick and Cable 2011: 79, Hobbs and Fenn and 2013: 191, Samolonis 2007: 435). These methods

were selected specifically as they utilise fictional narrative as a primary tool for communicating user

contexts and needs (Personas) and design solution concepts (User-journeys). Both these methods

allow for the designer to represent their understanding of the users’ context in a way that is story

driven and thus capable of communicating intent to non- designers while still maintaining a rigor and

validity due the strong emphasis on data driven insights obtained from the research data.

For example in the Personas shown in Figures 13A, 14a and 15A, the background story of the three

different users types, the novice farmer (Nomsa), the experienced farmer (Sithole) and the agriculture

trainer (Morena) communicates a fictionalised account of the farmers contexts. While fictional in the

sense that none of the Personas described here are real people, the information presented is directly

connected to the origin stories described by the farmers, when they presented their collages.

Similarly, the user journeys depicted in 13B, 14b and 15B use the narrative device of the relevant

persona’s journey towards their intended goal (becoming a farmer, growing a business, passing on

knowledge). While none of the farmers had experienced those identical goals the journeys were

composites of all the farmers attempts, aspirations and successes in terms of those goals.

Using what was familiar to the farmers, channeled through the fictional characters in a narrative form,

allowed the farmers to engage with the problem contexts in meaningful way and provide clear and

purposeful feedback about the accuracy of the mapping.

From the participants’ feedback related to the Personas and journeys, it appeared that the participants

could begin to conceive how the final interactive application may work, who would use it and how it

would be used. One example of the participants level of engagement was the discussion of

appropriate level of English that should be used in the description of the agricultural information on the

application, which were made in reference to what type of farmer, the participants thought, was more

likely to use the application. Another example was the discussion related to the different needs of

Nomsa and Sithole. One participant commented that he thought that it was important that different

types of farmers (novices and experienced) could use the app for different goals. Specifically, he

thought it was valuable that “One could go to something that’s relevant to him, rather then starting at

the bottom [of the learning process]…. when he just needs the other stuff”. While there were

numerous examples of the ability of the user journeys to communicate the intention of the design

solution perhaps the most definitive was in the concluding exercise of the day. In this exercise the

participants were asked to rate discrete modules of functionality taken from the various journeys such

as a ‘community notifications’, a ‘classified section’ management knowledge’, etc. The farmers

completed this task effectively with very little discussion or questioning of concepts. This

understanding implied that they were quiet comfortable assessing the value of the functions in terms

of their personal needs and were not constrained by a lack of understanding related to the definitions

of the terms or the contexts in which the terms would be applied.

The final value of using Personas and User-journeys is that they are widely used design tools in

interaction design for the articulation of design concepts. They are thus, when constructed well,

important communicators of design decision-making within the field and can help to bridge the gap

between users experience and actionable design product. This aspect is the focus of the last phase of

Contextmapping, the Development of new design concepts within which the scope of practice

returns to the ‘disciplinary’ design practice.

From the discussion presented in the preceding description of Contextmapping and the Soweto

Farmers project, three key concepts emerge. Firstly, Generative Tools are capable of providing to the

designer a rich account of the experiences and contexts of users in a manner that allows for analytical

exploration and subsequent synthetic recreation and articulation. Secondly, Personas and User-

journeys both of which articulate concepts using dialogical techniques are capable of communicating

designers’ synthesis of users experiences, contexts as well as related design solutions in visual forms

that are potentially easier to understand by community participants then other low-fi prototypes

typically used in IXD. Lastly, when used in the same design process Generative Tools, Personas and

User-journeys can be viewed as an integrated and systematic continuum as these methods in

essence form a reciprocal relationship with each other.

Figure 13A. The persona for the fictional character of Nomsa

Figure 13B. Nomsa’s journey towards becoming a novice farmer.

Figure 14A. The persona for the fictional character of Sithole

Figure 13B. Sithole’s journey towards becoming a more business orientated farmer.

Figure 15A. The persona for the fictional character of Morena

Figure 15B. Sithole’s journey towards ensuring that his farmers are looked after.

Conclusion While the value of digital interactive products in improving people lives is well established, the design

of such products even within participatory, human-centered approaches can be problematic owing

often to community participants lack of familiarity with the affordance of digital technologies. To this

point this paper firstly, introduces Wright and McCarthy positioning of narrative as a facilitator of

shared understanding as an alternative to the traditional interaction design prototype. The paper then

proceeds to describe how the design methods of Generative tools, Personas and User-journey

diagrams support the generation of shared understanding between the designer and community

participants. This discussion is illustrated by referring to an application of these methods in a recent

co- design project involving small- scale independent farmers in Soweto.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thanks the Soweto Farmers Forum D, The individual farmers who participated in the study and Dr Naude Malan for facilitating my access to the farmer forum. Lastly, the author would like to acknowledge that this paper is an outcome of an ongoing study related to a Masters qualification in Information Technology, from the Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town.

Reference list Caddick, R. & Cable, S. 2011. Communicating the User Experience, Wiley.

Cooper, A., Reimann, R. & Cronin, D. 2007. About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design.

Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Hobbs, J & Fenn, T. Navigating Indeterminacy through the application of User Journeys. Proceedings

of the 3rd International Conference on Design, Development and Research. Kumasi, Ghana. June

2013. 190-209

Garrett, J. 2010. The Elements of User Experience Design. New Riders: Berkley; Ca.

Hazzenzahl, M. 2010.Experience Design for All the Right Reasons. Morgan & Claypool.

Kistemaker, S. 2010, Contextmapping, the basics! in van der Burg, V. & Verhoef, M. ed. Rich Insights

2010: Contextmapping put into practice. Delft University of Technology. 8-12. Retrieved 11 02 2014 as

a PDF from http://studiolab.ide.tudelft.nl/studiolab/Contextmapping/

Manson, H. 2011. The role of ICT in human development Part Two. Retrieved 11 10 2012 from:

http://www.mediatoolbox.co.za/pebble.asp?p=54&relid=3109.

Malony, T. ICT in developing countries. POST: UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

2006. March (261). Retrieved 11 05 2013: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_offices/post/pubs2006.cfm

Marsden, G. in Rogers, Y., Sharp H. & Preece. J. 2012. Interaction Design: beyond human- computer-

interaction, 3rd Ed. John Willey & Sons, Chichester, UK. 452-454.

Martin, B. and Hannington, B. 2012. Universal Methods of Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport

Molapo, M. and Marsden, G. 2013. Content Prototyping – An Approach for Engaging Non Technical

Users in Participatory Design. In P Kotze et al .eds. Interact 2013 part 1. Springer. (Cape Town, South

Africa 2013.)

Rogers, Y., Sharp H. & Preece. J. 2012.Interaction Design: beyond human- computer-interaction, 3rd

Ed. John Willey & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Sanders E B.-N. Generative Tools for Codesigning in Schrivener, Ball and Woodcock (eds). 2000.

Collaborative Design. Springer- Verlag, London Limited, 3-14.

Samolonis, F. Service Innovation. In Moggridge, B. 2007. Designing Interactions. The MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Stappers, P. Background of Contextmapping. in van der Burg, V. & Verhoef, M. ed. 2010. Rich

Insights 2010: Contextmapping put into practice. Delft University of Technology. 2010, 6-7. Retrieved

11 02 2014 as a PDF from http://studiolab.ide.tudelft.nl/studiolab/Contextmapping/

Steen, M. 2011.Tensions in human-centred design, CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in

Design and the Arts, 7:1, 45-60,

Visser, F, Stappers P, van de Lugt, R. 2005. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign:

International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Vol. 1 No. 2, Taylor and Francis, 119-149

Vrasidas, C. in, Vrasidas, C. Zembylas, M & Glass G (eds). 2009. ICT for Education, Development &

Social Justice. Information Age. Publishing Inc: Charlotte, NC.

McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. 2004.Technology as Experience. MIT Press.

Wright, P. & McCarthy, J. 2010. Experience Centered Design Morgan & Claypool.

applying generative tools

Documents