1.) Reading the interview transcripts gave a good sense of the prospective users’ wants and needs, I think because of the way they were presented. Even though they were written as interview transcripts there was in many ways a flow to what the user was recounting about their recent trips, more like a story than an interview.
2.) The clustering of similar information and then the subsequent categorizing of that information I thought was pretty useful for a beginning step. What I think was difficult was trying to generalize across the different clusters, simply because it involved a level of abstraction away from the information itself, and it is tricky to know whether or not you are actually discerning patterns from and between clusters or if you are just prescribing your own categories onto the information for the sake of expediency.
3.) If I were to create an affinity wall again I think I would be a little more thoughtful in the initial clustering of similar information. Our group I feel made our categories first and then organized our post-it notes accordingly, instead of letting the categories arise more naturally out of the information. I also felt that there was maybe a little bit of superfluous information as well, the challenge I found was with eliciting useful information out of the interview transcripts.