Google drive link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6zFwqSd4DY3ZmJJYzR6S19QRU0
- Choose one of the objects you selected and describe how your initial understanding of its affordances changed over the course of the exercise.
The candle. It has a cylindrical shape, it is relatively heavy, and its material is malleable. At first well, it´s just a candle… On its usual orientation, it could also be a paper weight (although it made me doubt because it´s not so heavy and it could stain the paper), then I turned it to its side and could be a wheel to something. Something about its ‘graspability’ with one hand made me think about stamps and if you add a high relief on its bottom could totally work as such… hey, its material is easily transformable, could also do a low relief! Or even re-shape it with my hands’ warmth into something else.
- Given that affordances are a relational property between a person and an object, how did the manipulation of the object and the person’s abilities inform your understanding of the concept? Did it give you inspiration or insight for how to work with affordances as a designer? Discuss this through the specific objects you explored in the exercise.
It made me aware of considering all the possibilities of interaction that a user can have with a particular design, to be able to design the most affordances that a product can hold and make it more efficient and effective, as well as try to predict affordances that may not be in the design scope but could represent possibilitesfor a future version of the design or another reason why a user would want to buy it. Or in my case, in architecture, assess if the space I’m designing will be used as I’m thinking it will or if the user can find other ways to explore the space in a positive way or in a negative way. Such as pathways nobody uses, or corners people cut just because a straight line is easier than the wavy one you designed on paper.
Couldn’t add more images because the database is full
Reflect on your experience of conducting and participating in usability evaluation. Comment on how you experienced the techniques as both user and evaluator…
For each of the 2 techniques (user observation, think-aloud):
- What kinds of information and insights did it give you about the usability of the prototype?
As an evaluator, the better the usability of the sites the less guidance or cues the user needed to complete the tasks, and the feedback the user gave was more fluent and with less negative behaviours, comments or body language.
As a user, sites that had sufficient or good usability were usually simple, the sequences of links and buttons were intuitive, and the names of the categories or options were sufficient and clear not too complex or intricate (pathways). As an example, the Officeworks site was simple and had a very common or well-known interface which was easy to navigate, but it wasn’t too aesthetically appealing, engaging or efficient: just good enough to get a task done. The Sydney Uni library website was too complex, not very efficient (too many options, too many pathways, vocabulary to identify buttons or links was intricate) and not intuitive, the task could not be performed by the user and ended up ‘googling’ it.
- What aspects of the technique worked well or were frustrating?
As an evaluator, it is a challenge to remember to keep the user ‘on track’ by keeping him/her talking and by asking the right questions and documenting them. As well as just guiding the user and not being able to interfere. What works well is that once you get the user speaking, it comes a bit more naturally to keep narrating as the task goes on.
As a user,although sometimes we speak aloud when we are alone performing tasks, it requires some attention to be constantly narrating what you’re doing and thinking, the moments in which it gets complicated or frustrating. Or even when it’s flowing, to remember to articulate coherent sentences to give proper feedback. Another thing is that you ‘feel the pressure’ that you’re being documented and that you have to perform and finish a task, feels like there ‘expectations’ about you as if you are the one being tested and not the prototype. Privacy is not the best with his technique.
1) How did physically acting out help to explore ideas?
It helped understand space and dimensions to figure out the design challenges and their possible solutions
2) Did you refine your ideas and solutions to the problem through bodystorming? In what way?
Time was not enough to actually refine ideas, but it was helpful to visualise if our ideas could work, generated other ideas we didn´t have and other questions we hadn´t asked.
3) What was difficult or challenging about bodystorming?
It was difficult keeping focus on the main idea or on the problems/solutions we had identified and not diverting too much due to limited frames for the tutorial. As well as coming up with ideas that were actually possible.
4) Does bodystorming led itself to certain types of problems?
I think mostly spatial problems or problems that require activity or movement
1) How did taking the position of an Extreme User influence your thinking in relation to the design challenge? Was it different to how you usually generate ideas and empathy?
I think it helps to try a bit more to take out personal considerations or preferences when you actually put yourself in the thought of ‘being’ that other person. I would usually ask myself the same questions, such as, ‘what would that person do/say/want, etc’, but not as consciously as this exercise allowed.
2) Did any of the other design thinking techniques (design provocation cards, stories, storyboards, etc.) hep you to work through ideas and collaborate with your group members?
I would say that creating a storyboard helped the group think creatively in a collaborative way, it enriched the story and it is easier to walk faster when you´re getting ideas from different types of thinking. And we came out with a funny background story and a good phone booth reinvention.