A few things we encountered in our test: What we’ve tested turned out to be somewhat different from our initial concept. People at the party took more than one picture with the camera, ignoring the instructions we gave them. Almost everyone that took a picture at the party also showed up the next day. People were confused about the way they could navigate in our 3D world. Our initial idea was to make a map of Terschelling and to test this out on a small scale, but because the party was a nice opportunity to test our concept we went with that form. But because the party was held in a space of around 30 m2 we decided to use another format instead of a map. So we decided to make a 3D model of the party space in Unity. It was a bit of a long shot but it seemed like the best parallel to the map. In this Unity environment we sort of lost ourselves. We were presented with so many possibilities that we didn't completely stay true to what we needed to test. Instead we started adding mechanics to the application because ‘we could’ and started to communicate a somewhat different message. This we think has a lot to do with the difference in context of the different media. We’ve used a game engine for our test, which led to us adding a few game-like mechanics to the test which didn't fit with what we wanted to tell with our initial concept. The reactions we’ve received from our participants on the application gave us a confirmation on this insight. The 3D environment we used to test our concept gave the participants the idea that they were playing a game with a goal or a clear ending, which was not what we wanted to communicate. This doesn’t mean the whole test was a failure. We actually did learn a lot about the things we needed to know if we actually were to develop our initial concept. There were certain questions we did get answers to, like; does placing a picture on the same location as where it was taken, give someone a more emotional experience than a normal picture slideshow? Looking at our feedback, yes it does.
40