individual report reflecting on the entire ixd process

8/8/2019 Individual Report Reflecting on the Entire IxD Process

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/individual-report-reflecting-on-the-entire-ixd-process 1/10

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 becausewe 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 andergonomically 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 wasInteresting 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 allowedto 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 withthe “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 couldbe 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 areasof 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 thatpeople 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 needsstatement 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 variousother 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 developmentreally 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 devicesactually 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 wellwhen 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 fora 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 thespace 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.



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 wecould 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 clearerdepiction 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 theresearch 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.

.

individual report reflecting on the entire ixd process

Documents