How did physically acting out help to explore ideas?

H:  By observing and participating in the situation, we’d gain more accurate understanding of contextual factors.  We act out the problems/issues that we had imagined in our own minds then receive feedback from the imitated environment even possible to interact with the set-ups as well as with our peers, thus same as brain storming, we are not design individually but leverage on the team knowledge and creativeness to generate more ideas.

Did you refine your ideas and solutions to the problem through bodystorming? In what way?

H: We did.  We identified that space is a big issue preventing people to comfortably rest themselves on the plane, we didn’t think of a sliding chair until we really sit in the chairs narrowly lined into two rows locked us up in a small space, we were desperately trying to move the seats, adjusting the back is far from enough.  After I got home I was still thinking of this bad user experience and refined the sliding chair to put it on top of a slope thus with the constrain of space in economic class sliding back and raise the seat height could provide more space for legs.


What was difficult or challenging about bodystorming?

H: We couldn’t simulate the environment to be exactly same as the real one, we could miss out on certain factors that were not successfully mirrored from its original situation. 

Does bodystorming lend itself to certain types of problems?

H: Group contribution is crucial to bodystorming, it is more demanding than brainstorming in requirement of having a group of active and expressive team players.   While the process brought us new ways of thinking and new discoveries,  there are chances that we amplified on the wrong issues or exaggerated issues because the process could be manipulated by people’s acting and performance, it might lend to lacking impartial attention to all factors, we could only be able to notice the issues that can be performed and miss out those can not be interpreted by us (amateur actors).