Tell me more about “Zero to Hero.”
Tell me more about the interview questions.
How did physically acting out help to explore ideas?
There were some kinks in our design ideas that we wouldn’t have spotted without acting it out. It helped us identify these small yet valuable insights, for example, that you get interrupted twice when you’re sleeping on an aisle seat on a plane and the person inside the aisle wants to go out, and then you get interrupted once more once he gets back in. These small details doesn’t seem much, but it actually affects people a great deal.
Did you refine your ideas and solutions to the problem through bodystorming? In what way?
By bodystorming, we acted out scenarios that would suit the idea best – least kinks. We also acted out scenes with different kinds of personas in place just to see how well the idea works for different kind of people. Like some of ideas involved bringing your boarding pass with you when you go to the restroom, but some people pack their boarding passes once they’re on their seats. By acting it all out, we managed to refine the idea to suit most people if not all.
What was difficult or challenging about bodystorming?
Bodystorming is actually quite fun, but the challenge we encountered was that we can’t build our ideas physically to test them out. We had an idea of bunked seats for airplanes, but not having the means to simulate it made us just scratch it off.
Does bodystorming lend itself to certain types of problems?
Yes, although we can assume that acting out personas while bodystorming refines ideas, it doesn’t necessarily iron it out fully, we are still limited with what we can think of at the moment, and our physical bodies’ capabilities. There are too much factors in play once the idea has been incorporated into the physical space: person’s psychology, build, etc.. We are also limited to our props.
Creating a persona is actually kinda fun, it was something like making a character for a short story I’m about to do – having a little piece of me here and there. It wasn’t surprising that there were a lot of commonalities between my group, as everyone has just come from abroad, studies, and was living as a student. So creating a persona from that wasn’t quite as fun as I thought since everyone was almost alike, but for the sake of the activity it did prove very successful.
Personally, I think the final persona did generate empathy with the users – that being us too – because it had a little bit of ourselves in it. It generated relatability as the behaviors of the persona did come from us.
Reading through the interview, I identified a number of things he needed and wanted. However, clustering them made me understand which needs he needs more then the other. It allowed me to prioritize which frustration to tackle and try to solve more.
Clustering would’ve been the most challenging, I’d say, because the needs and frustrations are so interconnected that my team and I had to really pick out aspects to put unto another column.
I guess I’d have more time to read the interview twice next time, and know what exactly I was looking for. It wasn’t explained clearly what exactly are we looking for in the interviews, so I just identified problems and insights based on the lecture.
1. How did engaging with a real person, testing with a real person, change the direction your prototype took?
==Designing for someone else isn’t particularly new to me, however doing it in an almost real-time manner is. I found it much more engaging in such a way that inspiration just came gushing in. The key here, I think, is that in a way both parties contributed to the prototype instead of just making assumptions on what the other person needs. The design is not just my idea for someone else, but a collaboration between that person and I.
2. What was it like showing unfinished work to another person?
==I actually do this a lot, so it’s no biggie. I like showing the progression of my work so that if the other person doesn’t like it I can scrap it altogether easily or I can address his/her concerns early on. Quite often, the challenge with showing unfinished works is that the other person has no idea what your work is, fortunately my partner got my concept pretty well.
3. As a User, how did you interact with your partner’s level of lowly-resolved prototype; how did the level of resolution impact your experience as a user?
==Though the prototype my partner presented was quite finish – like mine, and everybody else’s I assume – I actually enjoyed it. It gave an experience as if I was a part of the design team, making something great. My partner was very considering with my concerns and changed/added features to her prototype accordingly.
4. Design thinking is an iterative, self-directed process. Based on what you learned, what would you go back and do next? What would you do over again?
==I would ask more questions, and go over the whole process a couple of times to attempt to draw out the imperfections of the prototype.
5. What principle, what tool would you infuse into the work tomorrow?
==The main tool that I learned throughout the whole experience is to communicate. I found it refreshing presenting ideas back and forth through the prototype while taking notes on how to further the design considering the concerns of that of my partner. I also like that the process enabled me to present open ended ideas that instigated insight from my partner instead of solving problems based under certain assumptions.