skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It is indeed a tough assignment. Firstly, deciding on methodologies was a problem to start with. As all Singaporeans are, we are kiasu. We wanted to use every that was taught. But well, after much discussions we decided to stick to laddering, interviews and ethnography. However, later on, I was planning on categorizing and organizing information and thought of using the 3 emotion designs. But it is hard to articulate on reflective aspect of using the LTs. Lucky Geri came up with the idea of the experience matrix, which is indeed used for noting down the experience of an event. And in our case, the event is to use LTs.
Well, besides having to decide on methodologies, we have to decide on the sample. It was another long discussion and debate. Finally we decided to settle on Arts LTs. Why? Because we were thinking that the culture in Engineering, Science etc. is very much different from Arts. The design of the LTs are very much different and the topics and style of teaching may be very much different too. In order to come with a good solution, I guess the key is to be specific in identifying the problem/situation. Thus, we decided to concentrate on the faculty of Arts and to come up with solutions on improving the learning experience in Arts.
After dividing our work, the execution went pretty smoothly, except for interviews. We couldn't get much out of students whom we interview face to face outside the LTs. Answers were as vague as ever. But we were still lucky in being able to get a couple of good main points. Plus, we had information from laddering. So we managed to collect all our data.
Then there comes another problem. Solution. We had quite an argument over this. (Haha). Mainly because Geri sees the more practical side of solution. That is to improve on the functions. On the other hand, I am more idealistic and 'vague' in the sense that I think there is no solution because the underlying factors to all the complains of interactivity lies in the students themselves, not the LTs. Eventually, we came to a conclusion that well, as designers we could improve on things like making the seats comfortable, improving sound quality, widen the walking space between the rows of seats. But eventually, coming in late, not voicing up are culture embedded problems, which we can attempt to improve by putting microphones, the restrict students from coming in after lecture starts, but not to solve it instantly or be 100% sure it will change things. I guess it's the same as the theory of user experience itself. One cannot create user experience but can create the instances and chances for certain favorable user experience to occur. It's an important take home message I guess.
Well, below are the slides that we compiled. Geri did a voice recording and I used the imovie to combine the slides and the narration to come up with a short clip. And poor Xueli has to compile all the information collected, organise them accordingly and add in analysis of the information.
The thing that has the most impact on me in this lecture is the experience matrix (guess I have a fantasy for methodologies! haha. I do enjoy research though. Can get find out things...). By naming the things that happen during an event and categorizing them, is very much helpful in finding out whether the overall experience is 'low', 'medium' or 'high' one. Because most of the time when people ask you "how is it? do you enjoy it?" One will answer "ok la", "it's not bad" etc., which are very vague replies. And I guess by weighing what has been rewarding and what has been sacrificed, it helps to evaluate the things to improve on. Additionally, whether the rewards are priceless enough to outweigh the sacrifice and thus still great experience. All these took into the consideration of expectations. The designers will be able to gauge what is being expected and thus improve on things/elements of product or experience of an event.
Interesting methodologies that are used to find out about users are introduced in this class. It's the first time I heard of cultural probe and laddering. Cultural probe is extremely interesting in getting to know the users without the observer's obstructive presence. It's something like the ACNielson's media tracking dairy log. I think it's useful for people who can't articulate well. And I guess the best way to learn about one's culture is to analyse his/her life. However, I guess this methodology has its shortcomings. The participant has to be disciplined and consistent or the method will fall apart I think. But nonetheless I think it's best use for designing portable products in my opinion. Designers get to 'feel' and 'see' what kind of lifestyle the participant is having and what kind need surfaces going through the daily lives.
For the case of laddering. The technique may sound pretty 'lame' for the investigator has to keep asking why why why, making him/her sound stupid and retarded. But guess what. It's damn useful! Was trying it in class and it works! It really helps to delve into the person's underlying value. Amazing how things are linked to attitude, beliefs and underlying values.
For the framework of analyzing experience with technology, I find it rather hard to comprehend. Maybe because of the terms. But the explanation of the terms make sense. For instance, the recounting. We do enjoy telling stories and often this process is being left out till recent times when the term word of mouth become really popular. The framework actually take into accounts things that are not really rationale: connecting - we make a judgment in an instant without much thought. This is true in the famous case of Apple products because context and experience made reactions become instincts. The framework captured the emotional aspect in this sense...
