1. How did physically acting out help to explore ideas?
Bodystorming brought a couple of new elements in. Firstly, it forces you to totally integrate your solutions with normal behaviour, or fit them into everyday life. That part of the process doesn’t receive very detailed attention in user scenarios, or storyboarding. Secondly, it puts you in the position of people using your service when it fails – another perspective that is hard to get into while designing. Thirdly, it makes you much more aware of the mundane physical properties of the solution.
2. Did you refine your ideas and solutions to the problem through bodystorming? In what way?
My group and I produced a wide range of features off-the-cuff, because of problems that came up during the bodystorming (the problems too were invented spontaneously). When group members put me on the spot, it made me develop really simplified, intuitive solutions- whatever got us over the hiccup.
3. What was difficult or challenging about bodystorming?
One issue was that the above process of challenge and invention slowed down the process and broke focus. Often I felt like I needed to ‘pop out’ of the exercise to ask for group validation. Another result of the improvised features was that by the end of the exercise our device had suffered huge feature creep – becoming a larger, more expensive, and complex beast. Many ideas were also just too difficult to make props for – aeroplane seating, for example.
4. Does bodystorming lend itself to certain types of problems?
Bodystorming seems great for ideas that already have most of their parameters specified. In a car, or a mobile device, it really shows up problems in seconds that no designer would ever have imagined just by thinking about it. I feel as though the process is very pressure-heavy and tends to quickly distort a half-cooked concept, though. It is also more suited to a later stage of development because it gives you time to make prototypes to use as props.