HCDE518
Ruoxi Li rl496@uw.edu
Prerna Rao prernar@uw.edu
Emily Bascom embascom@uw.edu
Juan Flores juan00@uw.edu
DESIGN PROBLEM & PROCESS DESIGN PROBLEM & PROCESS
PROJECT THEME
Team project developed as part of a graduate level course in Human Centered Design in Autumn of 2022 at The University of Washington
• Back To A Future Life Together
» Design an experience for people to do life together.
RESTRICTIONS
• No Apps or Websites as the main project solution
• No diet or weight loss projects
Initial Collaborative Team Brainstorming
• Humans are social creatures and we need support networks — we need com munity to feel better and better support our community as a whole
• Strive to help people experience a sense of belonging.
• Identifying new ways of getting to know each other — test out new ways of being together
• Gamifying community building
• How do we support people when they’re trying to navigate a potentially vulnerable process of getting to know someone else?
• How do we make ice-breakers actually useful and meaningful?
• a system for identifying people who have the capacity to help others and match them with people who are struggling (think this could be particularly helpful for older people or incoming students) — design social program for an adult home?
• How do we foster relationships beyond first meeting? (i.e. like you meet someone at orientation but don’t know what do after that)
• Can we design some sort of facilitator or system to bring people together?
• Design a new establishment (like a coffee shop, bar, etc) that is solely de signed to build community -- Community centers.
vulnerable process System Community Center Inclusive Public Spaces COMMUNITY New Establishment Gamifying Community Building Sense of Belonging Problem Definition and Collaborative Brainstorm PRELIMINARY DESIGN QUESTION USER RESEARCH REASSESS DESIGN PATH BASED ON USER FEEDBACK WHY??
NARROW DOWN END-USER CHANGE DESING QUESTION BASED ON FINDINGS
USER RESEARCH 2.0
IDEATION & SKETCHING
DESIGN PROPOSAL PROTOYPE TESTING & EVALUATION
DESIGN SOLUTION
PRELIMINARY DESIGN QUESTION:
How might we increase the sense of belonging of individuals who have traditionally been excluded from gatherings and community activities on the basis of their identities?
Design question was too broad. This presented severe difficulties in recruiting end-users and comming up with a solution
USER RESEARCH USER RESEARCH
METHODS & TARGET USER
• SCENARIOS - Constructed from our own experiences and assumptions around marginalized abilities. We wanted to expose our biases and assumptions. [Design without user input]
• OBSERVATION - At local climbing/gym facility. Obesrving a space that claims “everyone is welcome”
• INTERVIEWS - Community leaders who worked directly with individuals with a wide range of marginalized abilities, and executives form local community centers in Seattle.
» We wanted to understand the work that was already being done.
KEY RESEARCH INSIGHTS:
• “Don’t try to Impose your ideas onto marginalized individuals”
• “Ask them, everytime.”
METHODS ( Scenario, Observation, and Interviews )
AFFINITY DIAGRAMS INTERVIEWS
OBSERVATIONS SCENARIOS
REASSESS DESIGN PATH REASSESS DESIGN PATH
Needed to change the approach of our design solution and define who our end-user was going to be.
LESSONS LEARNED
We learned and gained invaluable insight into our end-users from community leaders and others who worked with individuals with marginalized abilities on a dialy basis.
Our target end-user was still too broad. Who did we want to focus on? Community organizers? Individualds with marginalized abilities? What marginalized abilities?
Again, and again we heard the same thing: “You need to be talking to your end-users directly, ask them, don’t impose your ideas onto them”
NARROW DOWN END-USER NARROW DOWN END-USER
OBSTACLE
• Our Target user definition was too broad. We were trying to include everyone and was therefore challenging to design one solution that worked for ALL.
Solution
• Focus on individuals with marginalized physical and cognitive abilities
» We recruited individuals with marginalized abilities and focused on their specific physical and cognitive abilities and challenges in traditional community event spaces.
PERSONAS
• Insert Here
CHANGE DESIGN QUESTION CHANGE DESIGN QUESTION
REFINED DESIGN QUESTION AFTER INITIAL RESEARCH AND END-USER FEEDBACK:
Question answered who and how we planned to approach our design solution
How might we create an adaptable toolkit to transform a physical space for an audience that accommodates marginalized abilities?
USER RESEARCH 2.0 USER RESEARCH 2.0
METHODS & END-USERS
• INTERVIEWS
• INDIVIDUALS WITH MARGINALIZED PHYSICAL AND COGNITIVE ABILITIES
KEY RESEARCH INSIGHTS:
• Physical spaces often do not prioritize being accessible to people with marginalized physical and cognitive abilities
• individuals with marginalised abilities are their own best advocates and experts of their experience
• currently individuals with marginalised abilities decide whether an event is accessible or not after showing up which can limit their ability to engage with the event fully
• knowing about the event space beforehand benefits individuals with marginalised abilities
AFFINITY MAPPING
IDEATION & SKETCHING IDEATION & SKETCHING
WITH RESEARCH FINDINGS WE MOVED ON TO IDEATION PHASE
• Our team had an ideation and sketching sessions. First we indi vidually sketched and proposed several different solutions. We then took turns presenting each one and analyzing together as a team. We then implemented a voting system to determine the top solutions we wanted to explore further and eventually select the trajectory we wanted to pursue.
DESIGN PROPOSAL DESIGN PROPOSAL
DESIGN GOALS
•
1. The design should prioritize individuals with disabilities.
• 2. The design should solve challenges faced by individuals with marginalized abilities when in physical spaces.
• 3. The design should allow individuals with marginalized abilities to integrate into the space without compromising their safety or well-being.
• 4. The design should be tolerant to access conflicts in physical/event spaces.
• 5. The design should enhance communication about accessibility needs between event organizers and participants.
• 6. The design should help participants feel safe about voicing their needs.
• 7. The design should help organizers feel able to work around the constraints of physi cal environment to accommodate for traditionally marginalized needs.”
STORYBOARDS
PROTOTYPE TESTING & EVALUATION PROTOTYPE TESTING & EVALUATION
KEY FINDINGS
• 1. The design should prioritize individuals with disabilities. • 2. • 3.
CHANGES TO PROTOYPE
• 1. The design should prioritize individuals with disabilities. • 2. • 3.
END-USERSFLOW
EVENT ORGANIZERS’ USERFLOW
DESIGN SOLUTION DESIGN SOLUTION
TURNTABLES
PHYSICAL TOOLKIT
TURNTABLES 2.0
VISION - WORKING OURSELVES OUT OF A JOB
• Beyond personalized feedback from event attendees going to a specific event, event coordinators would have access to a database of accessibility tips based on the type of event they are hosting and who is attendingr
