1.How did thinking in terms of shots and scenes influence your approach to communicating your design concept?
Shots and scenes surely helps to deliver the information to our audience in a vivid way. It can help to set the scene, and to capture the audience’s imagination. Also, the video from different angle and way to present can have different effect. In this way we demonstrated that in a methodical way to interate with the audience.
2.What motivated your choice of storyline structure? Can you think of an exemplar from a film that uses the same structure?
The main purpose of the storyline is to rise the interest of the audience, try to catch their attention and rise their curiosity at the first place. By using shots of their daily life, it creastes an affect for the audience whereby they get involved and engaged. In our case, we need to focus on the wearable device on the hand with a “normal” life with the patient.
3.What choices did you make about audience and style? Were they related?
Ideally the audience are the friends or families of the mental disordered people, so they have sympathy of the video and they can feel how good their family/friend can be when they are using the device. Also, the scene should include the interact these patient with their friends.
1.What kinds of information and insights did it give you about the usability of the prototype?
The think-aloud technique is very useful in determining the user’s thought processes. It enables them to give direct and spontaneous feedback at every step of the process. I was the designated user to employ this technique while using the Officeworks website. I feel that it was effective in communicating my decision making and explaining the issues that I encountered. When assessing others using this technique, it was easy to follow and led to insights such as them not being able to find certain features. User observation, on the other hand, is more difficult to follow as an evaluator because facial expressions can be ambiguous, and sometimes hard to read when the user is looking down towards the screen. As a user, they are automatic. For this reason, they may be able to expose more genuine insights, and those that are too difficult or transitory to verbalise.
Think -aloud is a very good way to understand the users, from their mindset when using the product to the behavior they had when interacting with it. From recording the words and users’ feeling they told, we could know, from a user’s perspective , how people may look and think of it. From observing the face expression, we could know the pattern they have.
2.What aspects of the technique worked well or were frustrating?
A advantage of think aloud is that it works for both professional tester and non-professional ones. A professional think aloud tester can to do better job, obviously. Howevr, some one who never know what Think aloud is can also perform a test after explainning to them in a short time.
Another pros is that is relatively cheap( the reason is we don’ t need to pay a lot for the tester), and with a certain number of participant, we can get penty of useful information.
The frustrating part is that we might find our participants aren’t really telling us what they were thinking, they tried to act professional and lie. Also, sometimes we tend to lead to the users unconsciouly, when can lead to wrong understanding about the result.
1.Choose one of the objects you selected and describe how your initial understanding of its affordances changed over the course of the exercise?
The object I chose is a cloth hanger, initially I only knowed it could be used to hang clothes, pants, etc. But when you manipulate the hanger, I found I could also use it for hit somebody lol. Further more, the hanger can be used as a cable holder when you bend it to a certain shape.
2.Given that affordances is 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.
The manipulation of the object and the person’s abilities can totaly change the object’s affordance. I think people will have different reactions whe thy are relating to an object. A good design help user to learn how to use it itself and make their life easier. It should be simply and clear. We won’t think about what object could be used in other way since it’s designed for a certain purpose. But in the affordances lab, we would think of it and realize how important the concept is.
1.How did physically acting out to help to explore ideas?
when do the phycial acting, you start to understand the users and notice some unrealistic things you thought are is natural. In other words, physical activitity provides insight that unable comes with inmagination only. whats more,it helps people to express and share their ideas in a natural way.
2.Did you refine your ideas and solutions to the problem through bodystorming? In what way?
yes, our initial idea wasn’t quite match the reality after we performed the bodystorming, so we need to change another way to think about the question. At first we try to rearrange the lay out of the chair but then we realise it is the direction that matters.
3.What was difficult or challenging about bodystorming?
The limitation of space and materials(tools) available, which stop us from doing a more realistic acting. Some people might not feel comfortable enough to act things in front of people.
4.Does bodystorming lend itself to certain types of problems?
I think people tend to think alike after performing the bodystorming, especially when we discussed meanwhile acted, we sort of making up the conclusion during this process.
1. How did taking the position of an extreme user influence your thinking in relation to the design challenge? Was is different to how you usually generate ideas and empathy?
Taking tyhe position of an extreme user make me think in a completeley different way, we tend to consider the question in this user’s shoes, and analysis the issue according to this user’s interest, habbit and mindset.When we do design challenge, thinking from a extreme user’s perspective are somehow more easier to generate empathy and meanwhile the empathy is stronger. I assumption is: that’s because we only need to focus on the very special personality this person has, and thus easier to generate the empathy. And I guess that why we need to take the position of an extreme user.
2. Did any of the other design thinking techniques (design provocation cards, stories, storyboards etc) help you to work through ideas and collaborate with you group members?
Design provoation cards do help a lot.We can summarize and target the characters this user has, which is pretty helpful for the later analysis and creating the stories. The stories help in a way to enrich the details in many aspects and make it more realistic. However, I wasn’t so sure that storyboards helped or not. When I was sketching the it, I felt I pay too much attention on drawing and didn’t really help to generate empathy.
1.Briefly reflect on the lessons learnt from each exercise
a. Reflective listening:I enjoyed the interview and below is what I’ve learnt. AS a listener, we need to delivery your interest to the speaker: a smile or something else to let them know you are listening and interested. Feedback is necessary , but not all the time, just occasionally is enough. Ask deeper question to know what really the speaker thoughts. As a speaker, we need to observe the face of the reader and manage your time.
b. Defamiliarisation of everyday reality : The two videos are just the most common scenery of daily life: waiting a train and taking a bus. However, it gave me a brand new aspects of my experience. I felt the world in the video is completely different from mine. The noise, the wind and the shaking bus have never been so observative to me like that.
c. Experience modelling : walking with a ‘cling wrap- sunglasses’ in a dim corridor impressed me a lot 🙂 I think the this is also a defamiliarisation of every day reality. I would be helpful to experience the feeling of eye-disabled.
2. Complement your reflections with photographs of the process
3. Include a scanned copy of your defamiliarisation forms(public transport)
1.Describe your experience of creating personas from different users’ perspectives gathered in the interview data. Was there enough commonality between the 4 people interviewed to form a coherent persona? Or did it make more sense to create a second different persona?
It’s pretty helpful when we started our discuss and tried to find the commonality. Apparently this helpfulness is based on a well-organized interview, that is , to gather the necessary information efficiently. which I feel all members in our group have done it well.
I think 4 people are enough to find most part of the commonality, though more people (about 6-7 ) are perferable. Since in this way more coherence can be digged out during the process. It depends on how things going on during generating the personas. If we find the the commonality is way more than differences, then stick to one persona is a better way, vise versa.
2.Do you think your final persona(s) was successful in generating empathy with users? What would you change to make it better?
I think my persona was pretty successful in many aspects. All of our members need to use the public transport every day, which means we have a lot of experience about it. Plus the persona is based on the data we gathered , which makes it reasonable. And the background and we tried to make personal detail we made up more realistic.
A better way to make improve of the personas is to get more information and based on that, to fulfill the persona with more details.
How did this exercise help you build empathy with prospective users?
The reading material records all the words throughout whole interview. By reading the whole material, we can get a quite deep understand the whole story, and thus build empathy with the users. The interviewer didn’t ask for users’ requirement directly, instead, they just start a continuous conversation. After the whole talk, we try to dig out the needs by reading the recordings again and again. In this way, we can really place ourselves into to users’ shoes.
How did the clustering of information help you to understand user needs?
A bottom-up way to extract information may help us become more unaffected when finding users’ needs. Since we don’t try to place a certain requirement (or frustration) into certain categories. Instead, we try firstly highlight all the key words, and then try to find the similarity between some of the words. In this way, we won’t be limited by the clusters that are already there.
What was difficult or challenging with the technique? How would you do it better next time?
- There are different types of words we have highlighted: good things about the trip, frustration, all some needs is told by the user directly. I cause some troubles when we tried to find the similarity between various types of information.
Solution: Discussion with team member absolutely helps to find out the needs from users. So, work in group, brain storm and express your own perspective would for sure be helpful.
- Some words can be fitted into two(or three) categories at the same time, in this case I’m confused which categories should I put them into.
Solution: After the class, I realize I don’t have to put them into one category only, some words can fit to more than one. That won’t matters at all.