Varut Rintanalert // Master Thesis // MEDes 2013 // Product Design Department // Glasgow School of Art
Directing Auteurs: Design,
and Prototyping Interaction.
For the privilege to be here and the people who made it happened Stuart Bailey who is always supportive and trusted me to mess with his student Gordon Hush who trusted me to mess with his whole department David Sweeney who never complained about my broken english.
My Family Father, Mother, Sister and Brother without any of you, I wouldn’t be any close to where I am now. and all my test-subjects Jamie Sunderland, Duane Harrison, Frøya Crabtree, Doris Tydeman, Alexandra HumphryBaker, Kathleen Collins, Oliver Dykes, Kaitlyn Dee, Martin Johnsson, Joaö Lourenço, Hannah Steele, Sean Mcharg, Stewart Garins, Harshada Patil, Maria Townsley, Sam Johnston, Josh Benjamin McDonald, Yasmine Li, Slaa Hwang, Nicola Dunlop, Maya McBeetie, Stephen Payne, Rie Watanabe
Introduction Today, designers often deal with many entities during the course of their design process such as other designers, clients, engineers, users and developers and thus designers must be able to stimulate these entities’ minds in order to communicate to with them effectively. By making a simulation of the idea, or a prototype, the designer should be able to use it as a shared viewpoint (Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J, 2000) or a boundary object (Holger et al, 2012) between other entities. Nonetheless, there have been many growing concerns from thee fact that interactive behaviors can be a very complex task to illustrate and communicate, as they are not something that can be represented effectively through static mediums or non-interactive mediums such as paper or video prototyping. ( J Landay& B Mayers, 1994, Battarbee, 2004, Buxton, 2007, B Hartmann, 2009,) The argument here is that interactive behaviors are something that involved thinking with your head as well as your body. By making the ideas accessible only through your head or your imagination without involving your senses, body and your mind at the same time can make the communication incomplete, vague and even misleading. The rise of electronic and software platforms that are intended for non-engineers, such as Arduino, Rasberry PI or Processing (embedded computing), could be a way to help designers develop a way to prototype interaction through interactive means. However, these platforms are not something that everyone can use straightaway, there are steep learning curves for those who wanted to enter as well as a large ‘need to know’-knowledge base that need to be explored while learning. Most of these devices are ‘open-source’ which claim to be easier to use than other ‘closedsource’ platforms due to their extensive community supports. This dissertation aims to investigate the general aspect of prototyping and how it can be used to convey the intension of the creator. It will focus on how prototype can be used to illustrate interactive behavior as well as discussing about the effectiveness of various form of medium that were used in this way. It will look at the general use and consensus about using interactive platform, mainly embedded computing, as a way to prototype interactive behaviors. By doing this, I hope to be able to redesign the way interactive prototyping is used through all these insights and research generated in this dissertation.
Content The design process
8 10 12
The necessity of medium Illustrating Collaborations Problem of ‘language’
The designer as auteur
What is prototyping
24 28 29
How can prototypes be used? Auteur through Prototyping The Satisfaction of the Auteur
How can we prototype? Prototyping interactive behaviors
Tools for prototyping interactive behaviors
The three barrier of prototyping Designers’ views on the barriers of prototyping.
What did I learn?
Breaking the complexity & conclusion
References Web soruces Bibliography List of figures
44 45 46 48
Appendix Example of prototyping technique Workshop and my tools List of users who used define and structuring tool List of users who used the tools List of interviewees Interviews transcripts’ links
52 52 52 53 53 53
The Design Process When designing something in a project, a designer usually goes through some sort of a process. However, the design process comes in many types and definitions (Dorst, K., and Dijkhuis, 1995). Each design field has it own design process and it can, again, contain variations. These variations were usually in the step that it took or the way the process flows. In engineering design process, as Atman and her colleagues described it (Atman, 2005), contained six-steps model which are 1.Problem Definitions, 2.Information Gathering, 3.Generation of alternative Solutions, 4.Analysis/Evaluation, 5.Selection, 6.Implementation/Communication (Moore et al, 1995). These steps can be represented in four process flow styles, which are a linear processed as described by Dixon (1966) or a cyclical process described by Eide et al (2002) where the start and finish line are joined together so that its is a process of continuous development. These two forms of design process are also found in a more general design field. The design process of the Design council in the United Kingdom that is used in institutions such as The Glasgow School of Art is called the double diamond. It is a process where there is a clear start and finish line, starting from Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver. Another variation of the design process of that is used in design education is the process from International Baccalaureate program that is used in the many international schools around the world. It has a cyclical process with an additional element that all the processes are integrated together so that the student can jump from one step to another step or revisit an early step. From my interviews, Design students who used the double diamond process have explained that they used it as a guideline rather than as a strict process as they found that they usually do research along with creating ideas or even testing out their concepts. Thus, there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ design processes and the process is often modified to suit the designers’ situations.
Design students who used the double diamond process have explained that they rather used it as a guideline and not as a strict process.....
Block diagram of the design process reproduced from Dixon (1966 page 11) , as cited in Bucciarelli,2 p. 93
Cyclical Diagram from the NASA Engineering process www.nasa.gov .
International Baccalaureate Design Cycle http://www.ruthtrumpold.id.au/designtech/pmwiki. php?n=Main.DesignProcess
Design Council UKâ€™s design prcess http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess
The Necessity of Medium
“A rough hand-drawn prototype would not have made the idea seem real to the broad audience the video addressed: high resolution was necessary to help people concretely visualize the design. Again, while team members learn to interpret abstract kinds of prototypes accurately, less expert audience cannot normally be expected to understand such approximate representation” Houde & Hill, 1997, p. 8
But why is it necessary at all to mention the design process in this context? All of the different design processes exhibited one particular value: the ability to identify what the designer must do or deliver. Hence, this helps the designers to realize who he/ she must interacts with. Some entities may become important in one part but not in other parts of the process. For example, there may be a client who states what they want but is not involved with any of the internal work; a team of designers that he/she has to work with; users who the designer need to ask questions of and do user tests with; engineers or developers to realize the concept and so on. In order to communicate or interact with these entities effectively, designers often employ different design tools and techniques. The important part here is the medium that is used for the communication. The medium of communication is a very crucial integrator among these entities or within the team itself (Hartmann, 2009). If the medium is chosen appropriately, it can reveal many insights to the topic as well as making an effective bridge between the designer and the particular entities. This would result in the creation of ‘Lingua Franca’ or a bridge language that is used to make communication between people who ‘speak’ differently understandable. In this context, it would be referring to a bridge that create mutual understanding and a shared space between people of different disciplines. For example, a designer showing the concept of paper prototyping of a website to other designer will understand that it is an unfinished product but in the case of a non-designer this might be very different as described by Houde and Hill (1997: 8) for the case of Apple’s Knowledge NavigatorTM
“A rough hand-drawn prototype would not have made the idea seem real to the broad audience the video addressed: high resolution was necessary to help people concretely visualize the design. Again, while team members learn to interpret abstract kinds of prototypes accurately, less expert audience cannot normally be expected to understand such approximate representation” Houde & Hill, 1997, p..8
The medium does not only act as a communication tool between other entities but also between the designer and the idea itself as well. This means that a medium, if used correctly, can be informative on its own without the need for other people to be involved. One of my interviewees, Jon McTaggart, stated that “Once you have the physical prototype, you understand what you have to remove and you understand what doesn’t actually work”. Jon McTaggart, Personal interview. 21 March 2013
These were the insights that only appeared by realizing his idea through an interactive medium or interactive prototype. These insights did not appear when he did 3D CAD, cardboard mockup or through any other medium. Hence, working with the right medium is not just important but crucial to help a designer progress. How the medium can be used, its benefits and other issues will be discussed in the next chapter.
F R EA EV S IE IBI W LIT Y
C R ON EV C IE E P W
In order to show specifically how other entities play a role in the design process, it would be wise to choose one standardized process to avoid confusion. I will use the design council’s design process (www.designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess) in this case. In the Discover phase, the designer will mainly interact with three entities: first, the clients as the one who sets out the brief for the investigation or a set problem that needs to be solved; second, talking to users as a way to find insights and opportunities; third, talking to experts who are specialized in the subject that the designer is investigating but not as users. Designers can use tools that allow them to dig deeper into the user’s life and expectation. One important thing here is that designers could also become a user themselves by interacting in the same way that the user would do. This technique is called co-experience (Battarbee, 2004) or reflective practice (Schön, 1983). This will allow the designers to understand some of the aspects that only able to capture through bodily means or acting out. Potentially, it could also be used to reveal new insights. The ‘define’ phrase is where all the insights are analyzed and realized as opportunity. The design council put a clear emphasis on team involvement in this part
“Communication with other experts and departments internally is important at this stage. In most cases the design process oversees clear lines of communication between designers and other area experts, such as engineers, developers, materials experts, Research & Development teams, and product or service managers who are able to input the right information that will guide the designers’ initial ideas.” Project Development, as part of the Define phrase, www.designcouncil.org.uk
It is also a part where the team chooses which opportunity(s) seems to be the most sensible or the most interesting to progress forward. Normally, only one will be selected as a final decision. The designers involvement in this part should be rather like a facilitator for other entities to comment and share opinion on each opportunity as well as an evaluator that selected the opportunity to progress forward. Some designers may only interact with other designers, clients and key users while some may introduce experts to help them identify the viability of each of their opportunities. Nonetheless, the designers still need to act as described to facilitate the process effectively.
DEFINE & DEVELOP Develop phase; this part is mainly about coming up with ideas and concepts, testing, implementing and evaluating. According to the design council website, this part is where technique such as brainstorming, visualization, prototyping, testing and scenario comes into play. Here, entities such as engineer and developer becomes very important as they can help the designers realized their concept through various prototyping techniques. However, it is also the job of the designers to make sure that they can communicate with engineers and developers effectively through a medium that can illustrate their concept in the language that is useful for engineers and developers. Designer often use sketches, use cases (list of possible use), mockups, scenario as well as video prototypes to illustrated their idea. By doing so, designers are creating a shared space between them and other entities to allow the idea/ concept to be discussed ( Junginger, 2007).
DELIVER Deliver phase, this is where the final concept is tested and launched. This stage usually involves client and the intended users of the concept as both receiver and user of the final concept. The feedback can be taken and evaluated. The designer or the client may decide to use a Feedback loop in order to maintain constant improvement or spotting new design opportunities.
Problem of ‘Language’
... entities such as engineers/experts/developers have their own ways of working, thinking and implementing their practices, what we might call the discourses of their disciplines. This can lead to discursive clashes when trying to collaborate across disciplines where different ideologies, methods and rules are brought into play The designers may not use this process strictly but rather adaptively. The way the process will be laid out or conducted will be heavily influential on the nature of the project, the designers as well as the involvement of key entities. Nonetheless, it is clear that a designer always interacts with different entities during the process for different purposes. However, the result from interaction with different entities might not be in the way that the designer wants or intended. For example, two of my interviewee stated that “As a designer, you can talk about narrative or experiential aspect design aspect but then it just got lost when you are talking to engineers. They do not really care about it” Craig Alun Smith, Personal interview,
“In our agency, if ones sic] come up with an idea and wanted to make a prototypes, usually they will talk to our guru (engineer). The guru will often say no. Thus, it is up to the owner of the idea to find a way to convince the guru to that it is possible and actually makeable” Sorraya Phiboon, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand, Personal Interview
TThis outlines the problems that some entities such as engineers/ experts/developers have their own ways of working, thinking and implementing their practices, what we might call the discourses of their disciplines. This can lead to discursive clashes when trying to collaborate across disciplines where different ideologies, methods and rules are brought into play. It is also a problem of specialism and it is seems the more specialized you are, the more ‘directive’ power you will often have. Designers often work
collaboratively and thus need to be able to deal with other ways of thinking in order to be avoid discursive clashes – or at least find something meaningful in them - even with other designers. discursive clashes, even with designers themselves. During my years of exchange, I have found that designers from different design institutions have very different processes to tackle one design task. Some are more focused on the engineering and making, some were more about aesthetics, shape and form and some were about interaction and users’ involvement. This also applied to client ands users. They may first appear to be open to any design or suggestion until a design or a service is proposed in a way that they can relate to then the client may become supportive of the idea or complete object the idea because they now understand what they really want. The effectiveness of the collaboration will depends on their own practices, needs and wants. During my time at Köln International School of design, I was working with the web design project for LVW Business Park scan project (Rintanalert, 2012) The client was very open about the design of the website and the factors that we are using the evaluate business park. However, once we came up with a few ideas, the client seemed to know exactly what she wanted, she did not want any of our proposed solutions and clearly suggested many factors and the way to use them. Federick Brooks already pointed out in 1978 that “For the truth is, the clients do not know what they want. They usually do not know what questions must be answered, and they almost never have thought of the problem in the detail that must be specified” Brooks. F.,1986, P13
Not only this but also the result from my interviews, entities such as engineers/programmer/developer can have the tendency to become the main driving force during the development process since each discipline brings a unique understanding of the issue and individual approach of solving a problem (Suri&Muchenau, 2000). This can either becomes a contributing force or can totally change the original intent of the designer. For example, they could act as the ‘designers’ themselves by simply changing the idea or simply not allowing the designer to process on with their as it is seem impossible in engineering perspective. This is due to the fact that an engineer is trained to think in a following way that uses more ‘practical’ logic and notion that is different from the ‘creative’ logic of a designer. “We have almost the same process but instead of calling it a creative process, we called it logical process where we are trained and the underpinning thing is math and logic” Professor D K Arvind, Personal interview, The creator of Speck
“A lot of engineers who worked within big cooperation tend to be very rigid on what can and cannot be done and they always trying to take the role of a designer”
“As a designer, you can talk about narrative or experiential aspect design aspect but then it just got lost when you are talking to engineers. They do not really care about it” - Craig Alun Smith, Personal interview
Craig Alun Smith, Personal interview
Other designers that I have interviewed, reported that sometimes the only way to make them believe that your idea is possible is to make the initial prototype yourself and let the engineer/programmer/developer act as an ‘improver’ rather than the ‘creator’ of your idea. “I have the code that produce a shaky 3D image …. Then I gave my brother who is a programmer and he worked out and turn my shaky 3D image into a crisp 3D image.” John Flicroft, Personal Interview
“The only way you can convince us to believe that your idea is possible is to make it real before you come to us.” Sorraya Phiboon, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand, Personal Interview
The insight here is that without having the right medium of communication to bridge the gap between two different entities can lead to a lot of confusion, lost of focus and even the change in the original intention of the designer. On the contrary, if a designer can find a right medium then it can turn to become a powerful way to communicate their ideas and rationales with each other and other stakeholders (Lim et al, 2008).
“The only way you can convince us to believe that your idea is possible is to make it real before you come to us.” Sorraya Phiboon, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand, Personal interview
The Designer as Auteur?
The word ‘Auteur’ refer to the embodiment of the original vision or personality in the medium. The word ‘Auteur’ refer to the embodiment of the original vision or personality in the medium. John Caughie (`1981, P.9 )stated that The Auteur theory refers to the director or the artist whose personality was ‘written’ in the film,. This theory emerged in 1950s from the French cinema enthusiasts who wrote for the journal Cahiers du Cinéma. The original concept itself only focuses on the fact that a film should reflect a director’s personal vision. Andrew Sarris, a film critic stated that. “Over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain recurrent characteristics of style, which serve as his signature” Sarris, 1999, p.515
The reason why I introduced the ‘Auteur theory’ in the context of prototyping is because I see that design and filmmaking are both collaborative processes and the Auteur theory focuses on the ‘vision’ that is embodied in the final outcome. It is interesting if you start thinking about the collaborative process since there are multiple visions but yet there is only one or a few main outcome, which has to hold all, if not only the strongest vision. The question lies in how that strongest vision emerges, maintain and even evoke, if it is not from absolute directorship that the ‘director’ has. How does a ‘director’ control and give chances to other collaborators to embody their visions and to what extent do they allows it? Does a ‘director’ encourage a collaboration of new vision or discourage it? I will also be looking at how ‘Auteur theory’ manifests itself in other disciplines. In this section, ‘The Designer as Auteur’, I should be able to see the pros and cons of the ‘Auteur theory’ and see whether there is a real need for designer to be the one and only true ‘Auteur’ of their project and how it could be use properly inside the design world. However, this is a term that originates from another discipline and to make a complete mapping of both design and filmmaking would be rather impossible since the natures of both are different. However, I found that there are links that are worth exploring further. As a remark, the Auteur theory is still a very controversial theory that depending on context can be both beneficial and destructive at the same time. This will be illustrated later on with the case of screenwriter Joe Ezterhas, designer John Gruber and film director Steven Soderbergh
To achieve the title the ‘Auteur’ of a film, the director will need to have an absolute control as well as the final say over his production of the film. The director personally oversees the way the camera works, the soundtrack sounds and all the other elements of the film from script down to costume design.However, this does not means the director does everything: rather, he controls the outcome of each unit in the way that he wanted. Thus, allowing a degree of freedom for collaborators to express themselves within the vision of the director. This is similar to George Orwell’s phrase in Animal Farm (1945)”All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” where everyone has the right to say or do thing but only some have the right the decide things. This also implies that the quality of the film reflects the director’s involvement and care toward the process of filmmaking, as he/she is now becomes the leading figure in that production. Nonetheless, filmmaking is still a collaborative process as suggested by Carrol Hodge, 2009, where every part of the film has to be produced collectively from script, screenplay, soundtrack, set, costume, right down to the way it is cut and edited. “Creating remarkable, memorable films requires a complex form of artistic collaboration—a team of filmmakers with multiple craft perspectives and diverse personalities must find and follow the same story, theme, and vision for a film on an arduous schedule” Hodge. C., 2009, p.23.
However, the director can choose to become the main controlling force of the collaboration. The films that were produced in this way will bear a distinctive style that reflects the director’s vision of how the film should be. The film that is directed by Alfred Hitchcock will bear the ‘Hitchcockian’ style, which is distinctive from other directors. An animation studio like Studio Ghibli is another good example. Although the director, Hayao Miyazaki, works with many screenwriters, painters, composers, set and stage design, he is the one who directed, control and hold absolute decision when making the film. He has also been know for his ‘no cut-no edit’ policy (Brooks, 2005) The ‘Auteur theory’ may be focused on the director but it seem that some screenwriters in the past had acquired enough influence to be able to rule over
“Creating remarkable, memorable films requires a complex form of artistic collaboration—a team of filmmakers with multiple craft perspectives and diverse personalities must find and follow the same story, theme, and vision for a film on an arduous schedule” - Carroll Hodge, 2009, p.23.
how the script is directed and thus became more significant than the director themselves such as Joe Ezterhas and his predecessor and role model Paddy Chayefsky. Ezterhas has written scripts for movies such as Musicbox (1989) Jade (1995), Showgirls(1995) and his most successful, Basic Instincts (1992). Ezterhas, believed that a screenwriter should not stay in the ‘shadow’ of the director and should never allow the director to change the original vision of the script as he mentioned in his interview in 2004 “The studio system and the producers and directors will do everything to keep the screenwriter in the dark and in the background. Screenwriters are supposed to be neither seen nor heard. I certainly violated that rule.” Rabin. N., 2004
To go further, Ezterhas also mentioned in the same interview that a director is not someone who has control over everything in the movie but instead, someone who has the duty to fulfill the screenwriter’s vision, thus positioning the screenwriter as the real Auteur and relegating the director to the role of serving the vision of the screenwriter. “When it’s an original screenplay–and most of mine have been original screenplays–with characters created by you, the story created by you, and it’s a single artistic vision from the beginning, where you sit down in a little room by yourself and make up this story, that is your story and your vision from the get-go. I differentiate with screenwriters who do adaptations of novels, for example, because that vision belongs to the novelist, in that case. With original screenplays, it comes out of your heart, soul, and gut, and it’s then handed to a director. I view myself as the composer of a piece of music, and the director is the conductor working with other musicians–the editor, the makeup people, all the other technicians–in terms of presenting it up on stage.” Rabin. N., 2004
But how does this reflect on the designer? If the ‘Auteur theory’ suggests that a director is the one who is in control and have a final say then should the designers become the Auteur themselves? In fact, I am not the first to look at the analogy of the design as Auteur as the director as Auteur. People like Prof. Michael Erlhoff and Prof. Timothy have coined the term ‘Auteur Design’ which written in the Springer Reference as The Auteur designer (sometimes referred to as a “signature designer”) can be seen as analogous to the Auteur filmmaker in that both are both motivated by their own unique personal vision. Both are typically
not commissioned by nor obliged to answer to anyone other than themselves. Because they are responsible for defining their own project briefs, securing their own funds, and promoting their own designs, Auteur designers can act more independently than other designers in formulating and expressing their particular philosophies of design. Spriner, n.d.
The use of the term ‘Auteur’ has been found in many disciplines, from Music, Art, Design and even found in Game industry. An article in Wired magazine in 2011 by Jason Schreier title ‘Videogames need Auteur, but good luck finding them’ discussed about the struggle between having a central figure and a design committee. Danny Bison, vice president of core game at THQ mentioned in this article that “Ultra-collaboration can be deadly in the game business,” and “One voice must lead.” The director of the game Braid, Jonathan Blow, stated in this article clearly that a creative director without serious interdisciplinary skills might fail when trying to steer a game development team “If someone can’t program, then I would be skeptical of their ability to be a competent Auteur,” said Blow, adding that a true Auteur would need a programmer’s ability to think procedurally … Programmers make a huge number of important decisions, and it’s difficult for a nonprogrammer to really understand the effects of those decisions.” Blow. J., 2011
In design related industries, John Gruber, a tech-writer, has shown an interest in using the concept of the Auteur theory and implies the term the designer as Auteur, which has important force to steer design outcome. His presentation at Macworld on the topic “The Auteur theory of design” stated that “The quality of any collaborative creative endeavor tends to approach the level of taste of whoever is in charge” (Gruber, 2009) then if the designer or the design team has poor taste then this would affect the quality of the solution that the team is purposing or vice versa. But is this the case? The question that was raised here is the fact that should the designer chooses to even take total control at all? And what would be the benefit of doing that? John Gruber has adopted a particular interpretation of the Auteur theory in which the director asserts his personal taste over the process and its collaborators. In my opinion, this is only one way to see the Auteur theory. For me it seem like a double edged sword that allows total control and vision to stay the same through out the whole process but is also a way to totally severely inhibit the creative inputs of collaborators that could lead to a better designed outcome. John Gruber may not be the best representative for the use of the Auteur theory as he emphasizes the controlling aspect of the Auteur theory where only one voice is heard.
“If someone can’t program, then I would be skeptical of their ability to be a competent Auteur,” said Blow, adding that a true Auteur would need a programmer’s ability to think procedurally … Programmers make a huge number of important decisions, and it’s difficult for a non-programmer to really understand the effects of those decisions.” Blow. J., 2011
In filmmaking, the mark of the Auteur is usually represented in the form of ‘possessory credit’. (Director Guild of America, 2004). In filmmaking, the mark of the Auteur is usually represented in the form of ‘possessory credit’. Possessory credit is where a director and/or the main influencer of the film put his/her name into the film’s title (Director Guild of America, 2004). For example, ‘Alfred Hitchcock’s …’, ‘A film by Quentin Tarantino’. The director Steven Soderbergh does not use ‘possessory credits’.
He is known for being a collaborator rather than a controlling figure by the fact the he had worked with George Clooney for six films such as The Ocean Trilogy (Ocean’s Eleven, twelve and Thirteen), Solaris and Out of sight. Although Steven Soderbergh collaborated with actor like George Clooney on many full feature films, one can almost never find the name of Steven Soderbergh displaying ‘a film by Steven Soderburgh’ in the title of the name with the exception of his independent film in 2006, Bubble, which is presented as ‘Another Steven Soderbergh Experience’. His work with independent film side is rather interesting. His raise to fame was actually from his independent film Sex, Lies, and Video tape (1989). He explained in his DVD commentary track that the script of this film was written in eight days during a cross-country trip and he was also the one who auditioned the main actor and actress himself. Although he has become extremely successful and highly regarded in mainstream cinema, his involvement with independent film has never faded. There is even a suggestion that he has this policy of ‘one for me, one for them’ which means that he do big films like Ocean trilogy (Ocean’s Eleven, twelve and Thirteen) so that have would have the money to make smaller and more experimental films. However, this was denied on his the interview with Vulture.com “No. There may be some directors who do that, but anyone who works with me can tell you that I don’t operate that way. I can’t spend two years on a project without being totally excited about it. Any movie I’ve made has been because of the challenge it offered me as a director, because it provides a new canvas. Even the big-budget stuff like the Ocean’s films.” Schilling. K. M, 2013
“The fact that I’m not an identifiable brand is very freeing, because people get tired of brands and they switch brands. I’ve never had a desire to be out in front of anything, which is why I don’t take a possessory credit. That’s why, if I can help it, I don’t like having my picture taken or doing television. I don’t want to be out in front of this stuff at all.” Stewart. R., 2009
Nonetheless, Soderbergh stressed the important of giving the actor/actress as much freedom as possible, thus treating them as collaborators rather than mere functionaries. However, he didn’t stated that he is openly accept everything that comes in this way but rather giving an actor/actress a chance to put in their own input for a review by him. “It’s not that I never say no; I’m just not trying to control them. I’m looking to amplify and showcase whatever it is about them that I find compelling. You know, my attitude is that all of us have to submit to what the film wants and needs to be. So the best version of the thing is sitting up here, and you have to submit to that.” Schilling. K. M, 2013
Now the question here is that who is the Auteur if the film is being done in this way where everyone has their own creative input that flow through the director? Is the director as Auteur still valid in this case? Or is it valid to say that everyone is an Auteur in their own right? For me, being an Auteur is also about being a collaborator and being able to communicate what you want exactly and in a way that is understandable by everyone. Thus, allowing everyone contribution to the outcome in a way that is beneficial to the project. This led me to think about the design process as a process of Multi-Authorship involving a number of Auteurs (instead of a single Auteur) collaborating under the guidance of a ‘director’-like designer.
For me, being an Auteur is also about being a collaborator and being able to communicate what you want exactly and in a way that is understandable by everyone. Thus, allowing everyone contribution to the outcome in a way that is beneficial to the project. This led me to think about the design process as a process of Multi-Authorship
The interesting argument that I could make here is that if everyone is an Auteur or Auteurs of the project then we would face the situation of ‘the clash of discourse’ since everyone would try to contribute to the outcome and without any authority it would be a disaster. Imagine giving each of the five children a shovel to work on a sand castle at the same time. It would result in a complete destruction of the sand castle since everyone would try to show what he or she could do through different means. One might work with the existing sand castle, one may draw up a plan while another two talking about how it should be done and the last one purely trying to workout how to actually use the shovel. I am not stating that everyone is acting like children. The analogy here is to point out that each of the participants has different way of contributing and communicating their intensions through different means and methods. Hence, there should still be a central figure that directed these people together but without limiting their input or a Director of Auteurs. However, it would be naïve to state that the jobs of ‘Director of Auteurs’ should lies in the hands of the designers. Designers are usually not in control of such decision. Thus, we stuck with the question, if we want everyone to contribute then how do we make sure that we satisfy every entities? And what does it mean by satisfaction? I think this question is mainly to do with communication. It is about how can we establishing a shared space that everyone can understands, a shared mind not an individual mind
I think the ‘satisfaction’ in this context is not referring to how successful your solution will be but rather a satisfaction in realizing that you are able to communicate your ideas or concepts properly and clearly. It is the creation of ‘lingua franca’ or a bridge language that will create a shared space where everyone understands and able to contribute effectively. The team argues for the sake of improving the solution and not because of a misunderstanding of a solution. To go beyond communication, if a designer can communicate in a way that is clear stimulating, this could lead the collaborators to become Auteur themselves. So, a lingua franca that acts as a communication tool as well as an encouragement to stimulate Auteurs-ship. The question would be how can we do that in practice? And how can a lingua franca be created and how could it lead to a shared mind? I think the answer lies in the use of prototyping.
“In Order for a team to work, you need to have that kind of intimate relationship where people are willing to go in the same room and brainstorm together, they wanted to believe that shared mind is going to be more effective than a sum of an individual mind.” Moggridge, B., 2008
I think the ‘satisfaction’ in this context is not referring to how successful your solution will be but rather a satisfaction in realizing that you are able to communicate your ideas or concepts properly and clearly. It is the creation of ‘lingua franca’ or a bridge language that will create a shared space where everyone understands and able to contribute effectively.
‘What is Prototyping’ There are many descriptions of what is a process of prototyping or building a a prototype or even what can both of them be used for. It would be more effective to start by explaining the concept of prototype first. Prototypes are described as a representation of a design made before final artifact exist and serves as a model that can be judge (Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J, 2000). Hennipmanet al, 2008 has published a paper stating that a prototypes in an ambiguous term since many things of very different medium and quality can be called a prototypes and so things such as sketches, cardboard model to look-like and work-like model can also be called a prototype. Bechenau and Fulton (2000) also mentioned that a prototype usually consisted of three levels, which are prototype that looks like, behaves like and work like. This posed a problem on what we can really be called a prototype? Would it make sense that everything that we try to pull it out from our minds can be called a prototype? If we took this term of looks like, behaves like or work likes, we are implying that things such as word or written descriptions of an idea is also a prototype since it could describe how the idea might looks like through the use of narrative, a story or a precise description where things will be. Rough model up to a 3D simulation would also be a representation of an idea in some form. Put it simply, everything that we do as an act of storing or creating idea can be considered as making a prototype or simply an act of prototyping Let’s take an act of sketching for example. When we say sketching, we usually means draw an idea or a concept on to paper, sometime we give it a form, we give it a narrative then we might write down annotation. We may even construct a story by making a storyboard out of our drawing. Sketches are quick but can be unclear and often non-interactive. Goldschmidt, G (1991) stated that sketching is about externalizing ideas and creating a representation of idea. If we followed the concept of Goldschmidt, Buchenau and Suri then sketching is a also form of prototyping since it is showing how the outcome will looks like and might even describe how the outcome might works. However, people like Buxton have written the whole chapter in one of his books, Sketching the user experience : Getting the design right and the right design, called ‘Sketches are not prototypes’, p.139
“Sketches and prototypes are both instantiations of the design concept. However they serve different purposes, and therefore are concentrated at different stages of the design process. Sketches dominate the early ideation stages, whereas prototypes are more concentrated at the later stages where things are converging within the design funnel. Much of this has to do with the related attributes of cost, timeliness, quantity, and disposability.” Buxton. B., 2007, p.139
He even illustrated the different as sketches is explorative and prototype is about refining
Buxton. B., 2007, P. 140
In my opinion, Buxton is partly right. Sketches are quicker and cheaper to do. However, as I have illustrated before that prototype are not about evaluation. It allows exploring and experimentations. Lim et al (2008) had conducted a research and stated that the actual design practices in which prototypes are pervasively used as an evaluation tool are only a small part of a design process. Other researchers also reported on the fact that prototypes can be used to reveal insights (Hennipman et al, 2008) as well as allowing designer to understand the experience (Koskinen et al, 2009). Thus, sketching is still in act of prototyping, which result in a creation of a prototype in my opinion.
Hennipman et al, 2008 has published a paper stating that a prototypes is an ambiguous term since many things of very different mediums and qualities can be called prototypes and so things such as sketches, cardboard model to look-like and work-like model can also be called a prototype. Bechenau and Fulton (2000) also mentioned that a prototype usually consisted of three levels, which are prototype that looks like, behaves like and works like.
How can prototypes be used? The main intension of using prototypes is mainly to receive feedback in which it can be done through interacting with the prototype directly, giving to potential user or to experts for evaluation. Prototypes can be used to explore many aspects at different stages of design. Researchers suggested that it could be used in three ways, which are Exploring the question or the interest, Experimenting the design ideas and Evolving the design ideas (Lim et al, 2008, Buchenau and Suri, 2000, Hennipmanet al, 2008, Tim Parsons, 2009, Hartmann 2006, Floyd, 1984). Exploration : Techniques like interviews, probes and surveys are often used to mainly get the insights from potential users during the discover phrase. However, I often found that there are gaps that cannot be filled by simply talking or learning for written words. For example, A designer could ask someone about the experience of driving a boat but if that designer never actually drive a boat before then the depth of understanding will never be the same as those designers who have driven one. One of the projects that I had was about creating a new way to control the ship. We didnâ€™t find the interview with the captains to be very useful since we didnâ€™t have the real experience of controlling the ship. We decided to build our own ship controller using a Wiimote combined with a form that fits together then we played it through a ship simulator. In the end, our model made us understand a lot of things that the captains were saying.
Exploration : we didnâ€™t have the real experience of controlling the ship. We decided to build our own ship controller using a Wiimote combined with a form that fits together then we played it through a ship simulator. In the end, our model made us understand a lot of things that the captains were saying.
Wiimote ship controller that we built to test out the shipâ€™s control in the simulator game
Experimentation: A prototype that is used in a develop stage can be used to experiment different version of a design idea. It allows the idea to be compared or even force to convert thinking during the design phrase (Rhinow et al, 2012). In the field of HumanComputer Interaction (HCI), prototypes that is used during the design phrase allows the ‘matching of intended experience’ which allows the designer to compared the prototype with their intended use (Hennipman Et al, 2008). To be precise, experimental prototyping is closely related to the meaning of prototyping as it is used to illustrated design ideas. Designers can employ different ‘fidelity’ to illustrate their prototype. It can be from lowfidelity model such as drawing, cardboard mockup. High fidelity prototype such as a precise model of the idea, functional prototype or a mixed fidelity prototype which contained both form such as a precise model representation that can partly mimic the interaction or vice versa. Different fidelity of prototype will give different kinds of feedback to the designer. In the paper ‘Anatomy of Prototyping’ by Lim et al, 2007, illustrated the case of using a blue print and a 3d model of the house. “The individuals that dealt with the blueprint of the house used a language that, not surprisingly, consisted of words that referred to the layout and spatial relationships between rooms. They commented on the overall use of the space, such as “the kitchen seems small compared to the living room.” The group that dealt with the three-dimensional virtual model commented on the appearance of the house interior, using aesthetic concepts rather than structural concepts. They also commented on how they felt about the house; they mentioned that the house felt large or small, airy or tight. The language they used also expressed their experience as if they had “been” in the house.” Lim et al , 2008, p. 7:17
The choice of prototyping should be considered on the aspect of what is need to be analyzed. If a designer wanted to analyzed the appearance of the idea then a 3d mockup or a drawing can be sufficient to illustrate the point. If the designer wanted to analyze the experience of using the idea or concept then the only way to do it is to create an interaction-able prototype. Some may argue that video prototyping is sufficient enough to illustrate the experience. However, illustrating the experience through a static means is never the same as experiencing the actual experience. This is linked to one concept of prototyping, which is called Experience prototyping and will be discussed later on in the dissertation.
Experimentation: Experiment different version of a design idea. It allows the idea to be compared or even force to convert thinking during the design phrase (Rhinow et al, 2012). In the field of HumanComputer Interaction (HCI), prototypes that is used during the design phrase allows the ‘matching of intended experience’ research
Evolutionary prototyping is often used when a designer do not understand all the requirements and trying to develop the idea through constant use in the real context. Evolutionary: This is a combination of both exploring and experimenting. Evolutionary prototyping is a way to constantly evolving the design outcome to fit the new insight or needs that is discovered during the process (Floyd, 1984). Evolutionary prototyping is often used when a designer do not understand all the requirements and trying to develop the idea through constant use in the real context. â€œâ€Śevolutionary prototyping acknowledges that we do not understand all the requirements and builds only those that are well understood.â€? Davis M. A., 1992. Page 71.
With evolutionary prototyping, a structured and partly working prototype often being created at the start and through constant implementation, the prototype will then develop and forming different versions through out. This allows the design team to work on specific part rather than everything at the same time.
‘Auteur’ through Prototyping
Köppen and Meinel (2012) have talked about prototyping as a ‘boundary object’ that have an impact on the understanding and the exchange of design ideas in an organization and view it to be a crucial for a success of the social integration within a design team.
I have stated in the previous chapters that there are different fidelities of prototypes. Using the wrong fidelity of the prototype with a particular audience can lead to a confusion or even a misunderstanding of the concept as illustrated by Houde and Hill (1997) on their Apple navigator concept in the first chapter. Junginger (2007) suggested that any kind of representation of the idea such as early sketches and mock up, however rugged or rough, will allow ideas to be shared or discussed. Researchers such as Rhinow, Köppen and Meinel (2012) have talked about prototyping as a ‘boundary object’ that have an impact on the understanding and the exchange of design ideas in an organization and view it to be a crucial for a success of the social integration within a design team. I certainly thinks that the word ‘boundary object’ that is used here is referring to the idea of sharing the personal vision through the form of an ‘object’ and thus can be referred as representing authorship in that object or being the Auteur of that object. To refer it back to the process of film making and if we try to apply the process of prototyping through it, I we may consider that the act of script writing, costume making, make up, casting, filming, directing and cutting the film during the process of film making are all acts of prototyping. The reason being that these
are still inside the process of filming and thus remain unfinished. By being unfinished, the potential for these element s to change remains, as the script, costumes, the set and even the way of filming itself can be be explored and tried out in different ways. Hence, there may be many different shots of the same scene or scenes that will be cut out during postproduction or introduced unintentionally [HOW SO?] during the production itself. Thus, one film may have a theatrical version, a Director’s cut version and other kinds of versions. For example, Blade runner has a total of 7 versions ranging from Original workprint version (1982) to Ridley Scott’s Final Cut (2007) Now, if we start to see the ‘prototype’ as a boundary object that creates a shared space between the scriptwriter, screenwriter and director or a ‘prototype’ soundtrack as a boundary object between the composer and a director then the ‘prototypes’, in this case, are acting as communication tools that, firstly, created a shared spaced (Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J, 2000), secondly, acting like an inanimate integrator that allows different people from different discipline to communicate outside of their domain (Holger ee, Eva Köppen and ChristophMeinel, 2012) and lastly, allow everyone to perceive and interpret feedback collaboratively (Dow, 2009).
The Satisfaction of the ‘Auteur’
By allowing everyone to contribute to through a proper use of prototyping medium, their unique understanding can then be communicated properly through out the whole team. If we compare this to film making, it would be the same as allowing each of the screenwriter, soundtrack composer, actors, director to have their own personal input in the final film and not merely doing what they were told to do. It is worthy of mention that even though these ‘prototype’ objects were used as communication tool. They have no power to overrule other disciplines. The prototypes only act as a way to communicate the vision of its creator to other collaborators. I have talked about the idea of ‘satisfaction’ that it is not about the satisfaction of the solution itself, but, rather, the satisfaction of being able to communicate your idea properly and fully through the medium that is the best representative of the idea. For example, presenting the soundtrack as a song that can be listened to rather than a music sheet or presenting a script by acting not by reading. In this way, the satisfactory is now referring to the fact that other collaborators understand the ‘prototype’ completely and fully and thus allowing the idea to be discussed, argue, change or reject based on a complete mutual understanding on the same ground and not from a misunderstanding or simply from not having been able to communicate properly. The satisfactory does not only ends there. In a disciplinary team, everyone brings in a unique understanding, approach and solution to tackle the problem (M. and Fulton Suri, J, 2000). By allowing everyone to contribute to through a proper use of prototyping medium, their unique understanding can then be communicated properly through out the whole team. If we com-
pare this to film making, it would be the same as allowing each of the screenwriter, soundtrack composer, actors, director to have their own personal input in the final film and not merely doing what they were told to do. For example, the special effect studio CafeFX was chosen to create a special effect for Pan’s Labyrinth because of their unique style in the same ways as Weta workshop was chosen to visualize the special effect for all Lord of The Ring Series. Han Zimmer, composer, is also notable for integrating electronic music sound with traditional orchestral arrangement as heard in Inception (2010), Dark Knight (2008) or Sherlock Holmes (2009). The example in the field of design would be that the designer could come up with an idea and present it through the appropriate medium which allow the engineer to implement it with extra improvement that enhanced the designer’s vision through the engineering point of view and then the business team could understand and present it as a full-working prototype to the perspective client to properly discuss the strategy. This may sound like an over claim benefit of prototyping but the evidence prior to this point has proven that it is possible to achieve such claims
Interactive Behaviors Nowadays, designers do not do simply design only appearance or the exterior such as shapes and forms. The jobs of designers have started to move into a wider range from strategic design down to planning a system of a service. Many designers have to start thinking beyond appearance and start thinking about interactive behaviors whether it is a screen-based interaction or an object based interaction. To make this part easier to understand, the terms ‘interaction’ and ‘behaviors’ will refer to the same meaning as they are closely linked together. This also included the terms along the line of interactive behavior and interactivity as well. To begin this chapter, it would be beneficial to explain what do I mean by ‘behavior’, ‘interactive’ and ‘interactive behavior’. The research paper that was done by Mayer et al, 2008 has described behaviors as
“Anything that an application does. If you think of ”look and feel” we are mainly focusing on “feel”. Another way to look at it is that we are not focusing on what you cannot draw in photoshop but instead need to describe in otherways such as using storyboard, code, etc.. or if you are developing in flash, the behavior would by anything that require scripting” Myers et al, 2008, p177 – 184 Behaviors can also be define by the way the in which one conduct oneself. However, it is important to be accurate when trying to describe behaviors to other people at all time. For example, the door can be open by pushing it. However, if we only describe the door in this way we will face a problem of ambiguity since there are many ways ones can push the door as they can push up, down, left, right, inward or outward. So, we can describe the door to
other people by saying the door can be open by pushing it to the left. But again, this sentence did not tell us where exactly to push hence an object and its location are need to be used to describe the door more precisely. The door can be open by pushing it to the left using the handle on the right side of the door. Now, what I just illustrated above is using a medium like textual description or words to describe interaction without seeing the door, or to put in it context, prototyping the interactivity of the door through words. This already shows some basic problem of using textual description as the writer of the text need to be able to make the readers visualized how the object is going to properly interact with in their head. The text above didn’t discuss about the material, the texture, and the color of the door, which may have an impact on the interaction itself, and thus leaving the room for the readers to imagine about the door themselves. It would be ridiculous to start explaining what is missing from this text but here are some aspect of it; the texture of the door, the color of the door, the sensual experience when touching the door, the material of the handle, the sensual aspect of it when touching or grabbing the handle, the environment in which the door will be placed, the friction when trying to open the door, the noise that the door will make when it is being pull to the left the size of the door and the handle and so on. This would be fine if it is placed in the novel as it would already have describe the some of it prior to this door and the idea of writing a novel is to allow the reader to have imagination of what it could be. The different between novel and design is that accuracy matters. This is why designers draw and sketch out their idea or uses many techniques from different field to illustrate their idea. i.e. Storyboard from screenwriting, service mapping from marketing and system analysis, wizard of oz from Human computer interaction etc.. To relate back to the ‘door’ problems, designers of today are now moving away from it. We started designing interactive system both on screen and as tangible object, which means that we should have resort to other tools to illustrate or prototyping interactions rather than textual description. However, a recent survey done with 259 designers in the field of software (screen-based) stated that 78% of designer still rely on using textual description, 66% uses static design and only 33% uses semi-functional prototypes when talking to developers. 86% of them reported that behaviors is more difficult to prototype than appearance and 76% reported that communicating behaviors to developer is more difficult than appearance (Myers et al, 2008) Behaviors are complex and it cannot be explored using storyboarding or simply by sketches (Buxton, 2007, Kosinen et al 2009, Myers et al, 2008). Again, let’s take the ‘door’ as an example but now add in the interactivity that the door will automatically open when the user come close enough and close when there is no one left. We then reach another level of complexity. How
A recent survey done with 259 designers in the field of software (screen-based) stated that 78% of designer still rely on using textual description, 66% uses static design and only 33% uses semi-functional prototypes when talking to developers. 86% of them reported that behaviors is more difficult to prototype than appearance and 76% reported that communicating behaviors to developer is more difficult than appearance (Myers et al, 2008, p.182)
long would it take for the door to fully open? How does it detect the user? What does ‘when the user is close enough’ actually means? Would difference in the distance to trigger the door to open impact the experience of using the door? Can the door be open fast enough so that the user can run in and out? These are just interaction of the interactive door. Now, let’s talk about a network of objects that connects together and react differently if different condition is met. The textual description of it would be more than absurd to discuss in this dissertation. So, I will leave it at that. It might be a coincidence, I started programming when I was 12 years old and since I studied design, I have experienced that interaction has a link very close to one of the programming concept which is called ‘Conditionally’ such as the use of ‘If Then Else’ statement (the behaviors only happen when the interface or the object reached a certain mode or state). Most of the interactions can be defined in the way of (let’s take the interactive door example) If the distance is less than 12 meters) Then the doors open at the speed of 50cm/sec Else (which means if the distance is more than 5 meters) the door close at 50cm/sec. Using this approach, it is a lot easier to describe how the product will be interacted using the Conditionally concept borrowed from Programming. However, most of the designers will not understand this concept since programming is not something that is widely taught in school. “Most designer don’t know how to program, they don’t know how to think in logical terms” Professor D K Arvind, Personal interview, The creator of Speck
This also result in a conflict between developer and designer which was pointed out in the research paper my Myers et al, 2008 “there is a need among designers for quickly and easily protoyping interactive behaviors. Many do not program, and have difficulty prototyping behaviors. Consequently then resort to heavy use of annotation and other means for communicating their intention to people who do program” Myers et al, 2008, p177 – 184
One research paper suggested the term ‘Protosketching’ which refer as “a set of design techniques aimed at elaborating a study of interactive concept through bodily means (Kosinen et al, 2009). What is important here is that it is claiming that interaction is not something that can be effectively explored purely by thinking or using static means. One must explore interaction through interactive means in order to understand the experience of using
the interaction properly (Barttabee, 2004, Kosinen et al, 2009, Aarts & diederiks, 2006, Lim et al, 2008). Thus such prototyping techniques such as experience prototyping existed to support this argument. Experience is an ambiguous term. Some described it as continuously evolving story of the user who first has expectations about an artifact, then gets confronted with it, uses it, and evaluates it afterwards. This takes place in a specific context, at a certain time and the user brings previous findings, mental models and experiences to it (i.e. Vyas & van der Veer, 2006; Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003; Yamazaki & Furuta, 2007). Two of my interviewees also suggested an important of being able to feel the experience as follows “You can demonstrate the experience but the only way to prototype the experience, which is important, is to do it.” John Filcroft, personal interview
“Even though what I produced is not full interaction but it worked and you get more tactile sense of what might it be like” Oliver Dukes, personal interview
It is seem that to really understand the interaction and act upon it effectively, one must be able to experience it through the use of bodily means and also using all the five senses. Simply thinking about interaction will never be clear and extensive enough to understand every aspect of the interactive behaviors. So, how do we actually create interactive systems in order to experience it?
.... interaction is not something that can be effectively explored purely by thinking or using static means. One must explore interaction through interactive means in order to understand the experience of using the interaction properly. (Barttabee, 2004, Kosinen et al, 2009, Aarts & diederiks, 2006, Lim et al, 2008).
How can we Prototype? Before I begin talking about various ways to prototype interaction using interactive means, it is important to understand that there are other methods of prototyping that are used specifically to understand the experience that is given off from interactive product/service. These are things such as experience prototyping that I have outline in the previous chapter. Experience Prototyping is any kind of representation of an idea (product and service) in any medium that is design to explore and communicate what it might be like (Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J, 2000). It can also be used as as a tool of â€˜matching the intended experienceâ€™ (Hennipman Et al, 2008 ). Thus, experience prototyping is a ways that can be used a explorative, experimental and evolutionary as well as evaluative but it is mainly focusing on learning and understanding the experience that will be given out from a particular product or service. (The complete explanation of these key terms are in the appendix section) Here are three main ways that one can focus their aspect of prototyping on. Form Prototype (Look, feel-like prototype), Work-like Prototype, Functional Prototype Below are how the prototypes can be delivered or used to explore, experiment or even for communication and persuasion. Sketches, Storyboarding, Paper Prototyping, Role playing & Bodystorming, Wizard of Oz, Video Prototyping. There are more ways to use prototyping for different purposes. It is up to the designer who choose what kind and how the prototype will be delivered or communicated. Prototype can be used with different level of fidelity or completeness as illustrated in the first chapter of this dissertation.
Prototyping Interactive Behaviors
I think it is more than necessary that any designer who wanted to explore or study interactions must learn how to create this interaction through interactive means. I found the exploration purely through forms and imaginations are ineffective and incapable of understanding the experience of the interaction. Although there are many ways to create different kinds of prototypes, most of them ended up being presented in a static form rather than an interactive one. This is due to the difficulties of building interactive prototype. Form prototyping is much easier to build and a lot faster to explore. Video prototyping is often used as a technique to simulate interactivity. However, what I found during my interviews and research about video prototyping is that it can represent and simulate interactive behaviors but it does not allows the audiences to get involve with the interactive behaviors directly. Thus, the thing that the audiences understand is the simulation of the experience and not the experience itself. This creates the problem of understanding the interaction purely by thinking and not by actively engaging with the interaction. Interaction is not something that can be understood purely by thinking passively. The effective way to understand interaction is to create the experience and involving with the experience actively through bodily means. Many research papers have emphasize the fact that there is a major different between engagement with static and interactive means such as Johnny et al (2004) who made the Calder toolkit, Dourish (2004 : 202) who talked about the concept of engaging with ‘invisibility’ and S Holland on the deeper engagement using the whole body as compared to screen. “However, those working with forms do not typically have an equivalent option, limiting them to the use of non-functional prototypes. Further, this forces exploration of interactivity to remain separate from exploration of form, making it difficult to understand the important relationships between them” Johnny et al, 2004
“The trial suggests that the whole-body version of Harmony Space offers several new opportunities compared with the desktop version. Key differences appear to be: deeper engagement and directness; rich physical cues for memory and reflection, full embodied engagement with rhythmic time constraints; hands which are free for other simultaneous activities (such as playing a traditional instrument); and qualitatively new possibilities for collaborative use” Holland et al, 2009
“… you cannot be engaged with something that essentially isn’t there. Invisibility is not engaging; invisibility does not communicate,” Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Bradford Books.
Personally, I think it is more than necessary that any designer who wanted to explore or study interactions must learn how to create this interaction through interactive means. I found the exploration purely through forms and imaginations are ineffective and incapable of understanding the experience of the interaction. My imagination will lead me to one particular experience, which is not going to be the same as other people imaginative experience of the interactive experience. Without interactivity, there is no shared ‘interactive’ space that we can mutually understand and we have to uses ‘form’ and ‘looks’ to built that invisible ‘interactive’ space. This is where that ‘interactive’ space is starting to form based on our perception, experience, understanding and so on. This makes it unreliable and un-relatable.
Tools for prototyping Interactive Behaviors There are different tools out there that can be used to prototype interactive behaviors. The problem with these tools, however, is that it often involve programming on both front-end (GUI) and backend (System) for the interaction to be created interactively. The tools can be used for different outcome such as screen-basedâ€™s interaction down to physical or hardwareâ€™s interaction. To be clear about this part, I am going to talk interactive behavior in hardware. The reason being that screen-based interactions are a lot easier to achieve and prototype through medium like paper prototyping as the mediums are in the same dimension (Screen & paper are both 2-D). However, interactive behaviors becomes much more complex when it is a three dimensional form. Sketches in 2D plane do not convey the same effect as 3D form and 3D form prototypes are very hard to illustrate interactivity. For example, changing a shape of 3D form may involve the uses of mechanical knowledge and structural control. Changing color or making sound may involve the use of electronic and responsive system. One of the most used platforms to prototype hardware interaction is the use of embedded computing or physical computing. Embedded computing or Physical computing in the board sense is usually refer to a system that uses software and hardware to build up a physical interactive system. These are platforms such as Arduino, Rasberry pi, Beagle Series, Dwengo, or .Net Gadgeteer. More simpler platforms that only deals with electronic are also available such as LittleBits, Snap Circuit and Gekken system. The major differences between both type of platform is that the embedded system allows the user to program in the software interface as well as electronic to achieved the desired result while the simpler electronic platform only used pre-define electronic parts. It can be said that the embedded computing platform is much more flexible to achieve the desired result but can also be harder to use.
The second barrier is the use of electronic. In any physical interactive system, it is more than likely that there will be a use of electronic part involved. I am referring to the use of electronic components such as Breadboard, Resistor, Capacitor, Transistor, Relay, different kinds of sensor and output component such as flex sensor, distance sensor, button, LCD screen, LED lights and Motor. Most of these component do not works out of the box and needed to be used in conjunction with other component such as resistor to limit the electric current flow or capacitors to store the electrical power or diode to redirect the current flows. Each of the component can be wired up differently with different component and can uses both AC and DC current (in case of relay). This is where the complexity comes in. Since one component can be wired up differently, it will affect the way it should be controlled which will be represented in Coding. Component such as Thermistor will required a mathematical calculation before the value can be read meaning fully. The resistive value of 1000 from a thermistor can represent 27, 50, -40 Celsius depending on the calculation that is used. In Arduino, some components come with its own libraries that contain functions that offer pre-define functions so that the user does not have to construct their own calculation. However, these libraries usually made for a particular set-up and may not works with different set-up variations. The third barrier is the area of construction. In some project, this may be about making electronic component small enough to make it portable but in most project, this will be about constructing moving parts or construction that mimic the function of a desired concept. This often involves the use of motors, gears as well as the knowledge in engineering, construction and tooling. The construction can be referred to the aspect of reliability and durability of the system. If a prototype is poorly constructed or put together then the user must amend the code to cope with the error that the system might creates or uses electronic parts that is stronger or fitting to the construction and how it going to be used so that the sensor can give more accurate reading After analyzing all these barriers. I have combined these three barriers together and formed the triangle of prototyping. This triangle of prototyping links all the aspect of Programming (presented as Platform), Electronics and Construction, which represented the fact that all these aspects must be understood and analyzed before creating anything any “work-like”-physical interactive system. In the early physical interactive system, the main focus often on the electronic and the programming rather than the construction since there is no need to make a durable and reliable system. The construction will become more important once the prototype is getting close to the desired concept.
O TR EC
AT FO RM
This triangle of prototyping links all the aspect of Programming (presented as Platform), Electronics and Construction, which represented the fact that all these aspects must be understood and analyzed before creating anything any â€œwork-likeâ€?-physical interactive system.
Designers’ views on the Barriers of Prototyping. During the course of this research, I was attempting why there are such a problem with these barriers. I have been programming for a long time and I self-taught myself electronic and so I can related to some of the aspect that I have found. I have conducted interview mainly with students and some other profession what works in the field of design. The reason why I chose to focus on students is mainly to do with the fact that students often have limited capabilities and cannot out-source these aspects to developer or programmer. They also have to work under a very short time scale. Typical student project usually last for a month up to three months and so they always have to engaged in a very fast paced project either alone or in group. I had conducted interviews with 15 people ( two engineering professionals, one professional design researcher, one innovation development officer, one designer with 10 year+ industry experience, one user interface designer, one computer science student and eight design students) The interviews revealed many insights from the fact that prototypes are the main way to get feedback and as a communication tool when talking to non-designer. All interviewees stated that prototypes are important to the project and especially using the work-like prototype to illustrated interaction. However, most of the interviewer (especially with design students) are reluctant to implement ‘work-like’ prototypes because of the fact that they felt that ‘work-like’ prototypes involving too many factors that they are not familiar with such as learning how to program, electronic, debugging program and electronic as well as finding the right open source codes and trying to implement them for their own use. Time and skills are the main issue for students. For design professional, the problem is to do with convincing to developers or engineers to believe that the idea is makeable. Another interesting insight is that the majority of the design students only believed that the word ‘prototyping’ or ‘prototype’ has no relation to the act of sketching on paper. From my observation at the Glasgow School of Art, many design students usually uses drawing to illustrate interactivity and would spent so the majority of their time contemplating what would be the outcome of that particular interactivity instead of trying to build the actual prototype and learn from it. Exploration through building ‘worklike’ prototype is rarely seen and experimentation with various versions of ‘work-like’ prototypes is rare. However, 4 of the design students stated that it would be more than beneficial to be able to prototype interaction from the start as it can be used for user research as well as for product development. All design students as well as interface designer agreed that the user of video prototyping is great to communicate the ‘intended’ experience but not about interacting with the experience. One design student stated that video prototyping is more useful than ‘work-like’ prototype when it is used to create the context or the environment for the design idea.
All the design students, interface designer and design professional stated that it is not in their interest to ‘learn’ how to making working prototype as it is not what they wanted to do. They felt that getting the prototype to work is more important than learning how to make it. Two designers stated that they are not interested in learning anything about electronic or programming. They mentioned that if they can state what they want ‘clearly’ then they felt that their part is done. They do not care about making or learning; they just want to get it working as fast as they can. Interview with computer science student and engineering professionals also reveal the insight that there is a different in the way of thinking in computer science process (as known as Human Computer Interaction) and design process. In computer science, it is called logical process, which focuses more on making logical statement and logical operator to create a set of working prototypes to test out the idea. The develop stated that “there is a different in the way we think and the way designer think and it is really hard to bring them down and get them to programming”. This is interesting if you start thinking about design as a discipline. For me, design seems to be a discipline that was created from a combination of other disciplines. Some of the techniques we used were borrowed from Marketing (User journey, Service Blueprint), Film making (Storyboarding), Human Computer Interaction (Wizard of Oz, Paper prototyping) and much more. Would it be beneficial if I can bring another knowledge from the field of computer science or HCI to help designer to communicate their idea. Myers et al (2004) have stated that there is a close link between interactive behaviors and programming. What if I could make designer think like a programmer? What will I uncover if I do that?
All interviewees stated that prototypes are important to the project and especially using the ‘work-like’ prototype to illustrated interaction. However, most of the interviewees (especially with design students) are reluctant to implement ‘work-like’ prototypes because of the fact that they felt that ‘work-like’ prototypes involved too many factors that they are not familiar with
What did I learn? The question here is there is a need to teach them how to program? or is it more important to teach how to approach the problem from a ‘designer - computer science’ base? What I have learn from reading and interviews are that there are
1. A problem with ineffectiveness from using non-interactive medium to illustrate interactivity a. Making communication of an idea more about thinking about the possible experience rather than the actual experience b. Feedback and Collaboration becomes ineffective as a result of an ineffective communication and could even be misleading. 2. Interactive behaviors are complex and cannot be understood purely by thinking. It need to be experience through bodily means 3. Prototypes allow exploration of design question, experimentation of design idea or both at the same time (Evolutionary prototyping). It is not always a means to an end as it can be used to discover new aspects or version of the design idea. 4. There is a need for designer to be able to prototype ‘work-like’ prototype’ but there is negativity in learning how to actually prototype it. 5. ‘Work-like’ Prototypes are only consider to be used at the end rather than throughout the process thus reduce the chance for learning by doing 6. There is a close link between interactive behavior and the concept of programming 7. There are three barriers that preventing non-programmer to enter the realm of interactive hardware. I called this a triangle of prototyping which are consisted of Platform (Programming), Electronic and Construction
Breaking the Complexity & Conclusion After realizing what I have learnt, I think it is more than crucial to test out some of these finding on real user. One of the points that interest me is the fact that there is a close link between interactive behavior and the concept of conditionally in programming. With this simple but bold claim by Mayer et al (2004), I have set my first hypothesis that there is no need for designers or anyone to learn how to code but there is a need for everyone to be able to think like a programmer. By being able to think like a programmer, a designer, in this context, should be able to communicate their idea better and allows much better collaboration between team and thus become the clear Auteur of his/her idea. Having an interest about prototyping taught me one thing. I cannot simply teach them and expecting them to be able to speak like a programmer. I have to create a bridge between designers who do not program and programmers who are fluent in programming logic. This bridge will be the use of one programming concept; Conditionally. The question here is what is actually that bridge? The best way for me to find out is to start prototyping that bridge to explore the possibility of what it could be as well as learning what I can uncover. This is also called evolutionary prototyping. I already knew the concept of conditionally and programming logic since I have an experience in programming from a young age. I am a design student and this makes me understand how designer thinks and approaches their project. Thus, I was able to construct the first version of the bridge. I called it “Defining and Structuring tool”. I used this tool in my programming workshop to help student realized the interaction of their idea from a programming point of view. There are 4 developments (Version 1, Version 2, Version 2.1 and Version 3). Detailed information of the workshop can be seen in the Appendix section. The tools that I came up with ended up with 3 major development and they was tested with 22 Glasgow school of art students in real project situation. The tools have revealed that any designers, with whatever what background they have, were able to think in a conditionally concept of programming. The tools have shown very promising results. Not only that they can break people ideas down into small bite-size interactions, it is also helping them to define and understand what they actually wanted. The participants were able to think about the interaction much more radically and fully. They start thinking about what should happen when there is a lack of input instead of just thinking about what should happen when the input is triggered. The tools were introduced almost at the end of most participants’ projects with the exception of the third version that is being testing right
from the beginning. By doing these workshops and using the tools, some participant managed to develop their ideas one step further as they felt the experience of their current ideas and thus understood the experiences as well as making proper adjustment to them, The last part made me curious, since making something to be functional can be very hard, especially at the end, because your idea is very complicated. Why do I not see the use of work-like prototypes during sketching? Should we change the way we sketch from using a medium like paper to illustrate potential experience to making interactive sketches that allow you to actually feel the experience? Such sketches could even be combined with drawing in order to illustrate how each part of the idea would work. This could be hugely beneficial to both designers and their collaborators, including users. I feel that the faster the user can experience a ‘glimpse’ of the design teams’ ideas, the sooner they can start to understand them, change them, adjust them and compare them in a much more meaningful way. Being able to illustrate interactions properly will allows the vision or the aspect of ‘Auteur’ of not only the designer but also the members of the design team to be expressed more clearly in the hope that this can stimulate other to also take part and becomes ‘Auteurs’ in the project. The Auteur theory has given me a new perspective on the role and the nature of prototyping: in addition to externalizing our ideas into different mediums it also allows us to communicate our vision of how we see and how we think the design of a particular product should be. It is about making that vision and the design of it communicable as well as the design of it so that everyone can contribute their visions on ours or vice versa. Although the Auteur theory may not be without its suggestion of hierarchy, it has been useful in allowing me to think about how I could take the aspect of collaboration from Auteur theory and apply it to the design process so that all collaborators are understood as auteurs in their own right, and how prototyping can facilitate this understanding. It is the role of the designer to stimulate other colloaborators into becoming Auteusr by creating an effective and stimulating ‘lingua franca’ in large part through prototyping techniques so that the prototypes lead to an outcome of the project which is satisfactory for all involved.
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
Battarbee, 2004. K. Co-Experience. User Experience as Interaction. UIAH, Helsinki Björn Hartmann, 2009. Gaining design insight through interaction prototyping tools. Stanford University, Computer Science Department Björn Hartmann, Scott R. Klemmer, Michael Bernstein, Leith Abdulla, Brandon Burr, Avi Robinson-Mosher, Jennifer Gee. 2006. Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test and analysis. Standford University HCI group Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J., 2006 Experience prototyping, In Proc. DIS 2000, ACM Press Buxton. B., May 2007, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design, Morgan Kaufmann; 1 edition Caughie. J., 1981.theory of authorship, Routledge; New Ed edition Davis M. A., Operational Prototyping: A new Development Approach. IEEE Software, September 1992. Page 71. Dixon, J. (1966). Design engineering: Inventiveness, analysis, and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill. Donald A. Schön, 1983, The reflective practitioner - how professionals think in action.Basic Books, 1983, ISBN 0465068782 Dorst, K., and Dijkhuis, J. 1995. “Comparing paradigms for describing design activity,” Design Studies, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, 2628BX Delft, The Netherlands Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Bradford Books. Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., &Klemmer, S. R. (2009). The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition CC 09, 165. ACM Press. Eide, A. R., Jenison, R. D., Mashaw, L. H., & Northrup, L. L. 2002. Engineering fundamentals and problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill Floyd. C., 1984, A systematic look at Prototyping. Institute für AngewandteInformatik Goldschmidt, G (1991) The dialectics ofsketching Creativity Research Journal Vol 4 No 2 pp 123-143 Hennipman, EJ., Oppelaar, E. J R.G., van der Veer. G. C., Bert Bongers, 2008. Rapid and Rich prototyping proof of concepts for experience, Open Universiteit Nederland, University of Technology Sydney. ACM 978-1-60558-399-0/08/09 Hodge. C., 2009. Film Collaboration and Creative Conflict, Journal of Film and Video, Volume 61, Number 1, Spring 2009, pp.18-30 (Article), Published by University of Illinois Press Houde S and Hill C, 1997. What do Prototypes Prototype?, Apple Computer, Inc (NY) , in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd Ed.), M. Helander, T.␣Landauer, and P. Prabhu (eds.): Elsevier Science B. V: Amsterdam, 1997. Junginger, S. ,2007. Learning to design: giving purpose to heart, hand and mind. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 59-65 Koskinen. I., Mikkonen. J., Ahde. P., Eckoldt. K., Helgason T., Hänninen. R., Jiang. J, Niskanen. T., Schultz. B., 2009. Hacking a car : Teaching embedded system to designers. School of design, University of Art and Design Helsinki. Landay J. A. and Myers. B., 22 July 1994, Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design. CMUCS-94-176, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Also appears as Human-Computer Interaction Institute Technical Report, CMU-HCII-94-104 Lee. C. J., Avrahami. D., Hudson. E. S., Forlizzi. J., Dietz P. H., Leigh. D., 2004, The Calder Toolkit: Wired andWireless Components for Rapidly Prototyping Interactive Devices. Mitsubishi electric research laboratories Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., &Tenenberg, J. , 2008. The anatomy of prototypes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Myers B., Park S. Y., Nakano Y., Mueller. G., Ko. A., 2008 How designers design and program interactive behaviors – IEEE Symposium on Visual language and human-centric computing (VL/HCC) p177 – 184 Parson, T., 2009 Thinking: Objects - Contemporary Approaches to Product Design, AVA Publishing Rhinow H., Köppen. E., and Meinel. C.,: Prototypes as Boundary Objects in Innovation Processes. Conference Paper in the Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Design Research Society (DRS 2012), Bangkok, Thailand, July 2012 Sarris, Andrew. “Notes on the Auteur Theory of 1962.” Film Theory and Criticism, Fifth Edition. Ed. Leo Braudy. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 515-518. Holland. S., Marshall. P., Bird. J., Dalton. S., Morris. R., Pantidi. N., Rogers. Y., Clark. A., 2009. Running up Blueberry Hill: Prototyping Whole Body Interaction in Harmony Space .Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI’09), Feb 16-18 2009, Cambridge, UK Vyas, D., & van der Veer, G. C. (2006). Rich evaluations of entertainment experience: bridging the interpretational gap. Paper presented at the ECCE ‘06: Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean conference on Cognitive ergonomics. from http://doi.acm. org/10.1145/1274892.1274921 Wright, P., McCarthy, J., &Meekison, L. (2003). Making sense of experience. In M. A. Blyhe, A. F. Monk, K. Overbeeke& P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp. 43-53): Kluwer Academic Publishers. Yamazaki, K., &Furuta, K. (2007). Design Tools for User Experience Design. Lecture Notes in Compter Science, 4550, 298307.
Web Sources 1. 2.
Moggridge. B., 2008 , “design as a collaborative process” at PICNIC 08, 2008 [online] avaliable at http://vimeo.com/2814939 Brooks, Xan (September 14, 2005). “A god among animators”. The Guardian (UK). [online] avaliable at http://film.guardian. co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1569689,00.html 3. Gruber. J., 2009 - Auteur Theory of Design - Macworld Pulse, Jan 2009 [online] avaliable at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=xk3UcgbbmxQ 4. Schilling M. K., 2013, Steven Soderbergh on Quitting Hollywood, Getting the Best Out of J-Lo, and His Love ofGirls, vulture [online] avaliable at http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/steven-soderbergh-in-conversation.html 5. Rabin. N., February 11, 2004 ,Interview with Joe-eszterhas, the AV club [online] avaliable at http://www.avclub.com/articles/ joe-eszterhas,13854/ 6. Phillip, T., 2011 Why the Arduino Won and Why It’s Here to Stay .Makezine [online] avaliable at http://blog.makezine. com/2011/02/10/why-the-arduino-won-and-why-its-here-to-stay/ 7. Rintanalert, V., 2012, LWV Web Scan (Total Quality Scan) [online] avaliable at http://www.behance.net/gallery/LWV-WebScan/3133719 8. SCHREIER J 2011, Videogames Need Auteurs, But Good Luck Finding Them, Wired [online] Avaliable at http://www. wired.com/gamelife/2011/02/game-auteur 9. Stewart, R., 2009, Steven Soderbergh: The Girlfriend Experience, suicidegirls.com [online] avaliable at http://suicidegirls. com/interviews/Steven%20Soderbergh%3A%20The%20Girlfriend%20Experience/ 10. The design Council, n.d. The design process [online] avaliable at http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess 11. Welkos, K., 1998. A Film by [Your Name Here] Directors and writers are battling over the question: Is credit being given where it’s really due? TIMES STAFF WRITER, [online] avaliable at http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/06 12. Wilkinson, C., 2008 Noises off: Must directors stick to the script?, the guardian [online] avaliable at http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2008/aug/23/noisesoffmustdirectorssticktothescript
Bibliography 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
Battarbee, 2004. K. Co-Experience. User Experience as Interaction. UIAH, Helsinki Bill Buxton, May 2007, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design, Morgan Kaufmann; 1 edition (March 30, 2007) Björn Hartmann, 2009. Gaining design insight through interaction prototyping tools. Stanford University, Computer Science Department Björn Hartmann, Scott R. Klemmer, Michael Bernstein, Leith Abdulla, Brandon Burr, Avi Robinson-Mosher, Jennifer Gee. 2006. Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test and analysis. Standford University HCI group Bose. A., 2007, A glimpse into human-spatial dialogue through experience prototyping - www.anjalikabose.com, Institute of Design, Umeå University, Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J., 2006 Experience prototyping, In Proc. DIS 2000, ACM Press Davis M. A., Operational Prototyping: A new Development Approach. IEEE Software, September 1992. Page 71. Dixon, J. (1966). Design engineering: Inventiveness, analysis, and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill. Donald A. Schön, 1983, The reflective practitioner - how professionals think in action.Basic Books, 1983, ISBN 0465068782 Dorst, K., and Dijkhuis, J. 1995. “Comparing paradigms for describing design activity,” Design Studies, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, 2628BX Delft, The Netherlands Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Bradford Books. Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., &Klemmer, S. R. (2009). The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition CC 09, 165. ACM Press. Eide, A. R., Jenison, R. D., Mashaw, L. H., & Northrup, L. L. 2002. Engineering fundamentals and problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill Floyd. C., 1984, A systematic look at Prototyping. Institute fürAngewandteInformatik Goldschmidt, G (1991) The dialectics ofsketching Creativity Research Journal Vol 4 No 2 pp 123-143 Harrestrup, Mette&Engholm, Ida (2012). From pictogram to sensogram - wayfinding through pervasive computing and multisensory perception. Paper accepted for the DRS - Design Research Society Conference 2012, Bangkok, 1.-7. july. Hennipman, EJ., Oppelaar, E. J R.G., van der Veer. G. C., Bert Bongers, 2008. Rapid and Rich prototyping proof of concepts for experience, Open Universiteit Nederland, University of Technology Sydney. ACM 978-1-60558-399-0/08/09 Hodge. C., 2009. Film Collaboration and Creative Conflict, Journal of Film and Video, Volume 61, Number 1, Spring 2009, pp.18-30 (Article), Published by University of Illinois Press Houde S and Hill C, 1997. What do Prototypes Prototype?, Apple Computer, Inc (NY) , in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd Ed.), M. Helander, T.␣Landauer, and P. Prabhu (eds.): Elsevier Science B. V: Amsterdam, 1997. Koskinen. I., Mikkonen. J., Ahde. P., Eckoldt. K., Helgason T., Hänninen. R., Jiang. J, Niskanen. T., Schultz. B., 2009. Hacking a car : Teaching embedded system to designers. School of design, University of Art and Design Helsinki. Junginger, S. ,2007. Learning to design: giving purpose to heart, hand and mind. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 59-65 Landay J. A. and Myers. B., 22 July 1994, Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design. CMUCS-94-176, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Also appears as Human-Computer Interaction Institute Technical Report, CMU-HCII-94-104 Lee. C. J., Avrahami. D., Hudson. E. S., Forlizzi. J., Dietz P. H., Leigh. D., 2004, The Calder Toolkit: Wired andWireless Components for Rapidly Prototyping Interactive Devices. Mitsubishi electric research laboratories Lim, Y, -K, ApurvaPangam, SubashiniPeriyasami, ShwetaAneja (NY), 2006Comparative Analysis of High- and Low-fidelity Prototypes for More Valid Usability Evaluations of Mobile Devices, Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Humancomputer interaction: changing roles, Page 291 – 300 Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., &Tenenberg, J. , 2008. The anatomy of prototypes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Miettinen. S., Rontti. S., Kuure. E., and Lindström. A., 2011, Realzing design thinking through a service design process and an innovative prototyping laboratory : Introducing service innovation corner (SINCO) university of Lapland. Conference paper in the proceeding of the 2012 International Conference on Design Research Society (DRS 2012), Bangkok, Thailand, MikkonenJussi, 2011. Flowcards - a communication toolAalto university, Design Research Society Conference 2012, Bangkok, 1.-7. july. Myers B., Park S. Y., Nakano Y., Mueller. G., Ko. A., 2008 How designers design and program interactive behaviors – IEEE Symposium on Visual language and human-centric computing (VL/HCC) p177 – 184 Parson, T., 2009 Thinking: Objects - Contemporary Approaches to Product Design, AVA Publishing
30. Rhinow H., KĂśppen. E., and Meinel. C.,: Prototypes as Boundary Objects in Innovation Processes. Conference Paper in the Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Design Research Society (DRS 2012), Bangkok, Thailand, July 2012 31. Vyas, D., & van der Veer, G. C. (2006). Rich evaluations of entertainment experience: bridging the interpretational gap. Paper presented at the ECCE â€˜06: Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean conference on Cognitive ergonomics. from http://doi.acm. org/10.1145/1274892.1274921 32. Wright, P., McCarthy, J., &Meekison, L. (2003). Making sense of experience. In M. A. Blyhe, A. F. Monk, K. Overbeeke& P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp. 43-53): Kluwer Academic Publishers. 33. Yamazaki, K., &Furuta, K. (2007). Design Tools for User Experience Design. Lecture Notes in Compter Science, 4550, 298307.
List of Figures
Fig 1. Page 4. Student works on the second version of the tool
Fig 2. Page 4. Student works on the second version of the tool
Fig 3. Page 4. Version 3 of the defining and struction tools
Fig 4. Page 4. Students in the helper class
Fig 5. Page 4. Sam Johnston working on his idea
Fig 6. Page 4. First prgramming workshop
Fig 7. Page 4. Froya working on her idea wit the first version of the tool
Fig 8. Page 4. Josh Benjamin McDonald working on his idea with Tool V3
Fig 9. Page 4. Slaa Hwangâ€™s idea on tool V3
Fig 10. Page 4. sketches of how the tool version 3 should look
Fig 11. Page 4. Sam Johnstonâ€™s interaction rule for his idea
Fig 12. Page 7. Block diagram of the design process reproduced from Dixon (1966 page 11)
Fig 15 Page 7. Design Council UK’s design prcess
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess C R ON EV C IE EP W T
Fig 14. Page 7. International Baccalaureate Design Cycle
F R EA EV S IE IBI W LIT
Fig 13. Page 7. Cyclical Diagram from the NASA Engineering process www.nasa.gov .
Fig 16. Page 8. Drawing from one of my headphone project
Fig 17. Page 8. Rendering of the proposed headphone in one of my project
Fig 19. Page 10. Design Council UK’s design prcess http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess
Fig 18. Page 11. One of the interviews, my team had conduced in Finland
Fig 20. Page 11. Group work during one of my project in Finland
Fig 21. Page 11. Group work during one of my project in Finland
Fig 22. Page 14 - 15. Assasin’s Creed Behind the scene http://www.joystiq.com/2012/07/09/ michael-fassbender-starring-in-and-coproducing-assassins-creed/
Fig 23. Page 18. Steven Soderbergh: The Girlfriend Experience, suicidegirls.com [online] avaliable at http:// suicidegirls.com/interviews/Steven%20 Soderbergh%3A%20The%20Girlfriend%20Experience
Fig 24. Page 20. Bill Moggridge http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/ Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2010/11/12/1289571278857/billmoggridge-006.jpg
Fig 25, Page 22. Bill Buxton, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. p.140
Fig 26, Page 25. Ship Controller’s photo that I took during my project in Finland
Fig 27, Page 25. Our own take of the ship controller. Built using Wiimote
Fig 28, Page 25. Using the prototype that we made with the simulator game
Fig 29, Page 27. One of my form prototype that I built in Finland
Fig 30, Page 27. One of my form prototype that I built in Finland
Fig 31, Page 27. One of my form prototype that I built in Finland
Fig 32, Page 31. Photo of my ‘poverty’ project in Germany. The website is www.explore-poverty.org
Fig 33, Page 33. Photo of one of the concept during my time in Finland
Fig 34, Page 36. Rasberry Pi system http://www.iact.ie/2012/03/08/we-cantwait-for-the-raspberry-pi/
Fig 35, Page 36. Arduino System http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/ read.php?7,3215907
Fig 36, Page 37. Beagle Board http://beagleboard.org/Products/BeagleBoard
Fig 38, Page 37. Electric Imp http://book.roomofthings. com/2012/12/14/playing_with_the_electric_imp/
Fig 37, Page 37. Littlebits http://www.coolthings.com/littlebits-islike-lego-for-future-engineers/
Fig 40, Page 37. .Net Gadgeteer http://www.slashgear.com/net-gadgeteerlooks-to-draw-tinkering-geeks-away-fromarduino-04169531/
Fig 41, Page 39. Triangle of Prototyping
Fig 39, Page 37. Snap Circuit http://www.fatbraintoys.com/toy_companies/elenco_electronics_inc/snap_circuits_jr.cfm
Appendix Ways of Prototyping Here are some ways that one can use in order to prototype interaction Form Prototype Form prototyping is mainly focuses on how the product looks like or feels like when it is touch or see and not about interaction. The level of fidelity can influence the outcome this technique from cardboard mockup to a detailed scale model of how the real thing will look like. Work-like Prototype The prototype that was produced in this way are mainly focusing on the interaction aspect of how it will work rather than how it will look like. It will allows the user to experience the interactive behavior of the idea/concept mainly through interactive means. Functional Prototype Functional prototype combines both form and work-like prototype together and created a â€˜almostâ€™ final version of the concept. Functional prototype is often very time consuming and requires a lot of skills in order to create Below are how the prototypes can be delivered or used to explore, experiment or even for communication and persuasion. Sketches Sketches are consider to be the quickest as well as the most effective way to generate huge amount of ideas in a short period of time. Buxton (2007) has listed the attributes of what can be consider as sketching as below Quick, Timely, Inexpensive, Disposable, plentiful, Clear vocabulary, Distinct gesture, Minimal detail, Appropiate degree of refinement, Suggest explore rather than confirm, Ambiguity However, the concept of sketching can be very different with context, which result in different use of medium. i.e. Sketch model, video sketch, system sketch or drawing sketch. To prevent confusion in the context of sketch and the act of sketching, I am referring this to sketch that uses pen and paper to draw up a lot of idea. Sketches that produced this way are very quick but may not be able to use to illustrate interaction clearly. Textual description and annotation usually be written to illustrate how will the idea be interacted. Storyboarding Storyboarding is a way to arrange different interaction state that was sketches out with pen and paper into a way that is sequence-able to illustrate a particular interactive behavior, use case or aspect of the idea or concept. Storyboarding usually form as a base of other means of prototyping such as paper prototyping, video prototyping and work-like prototype. Paper Prototyping Paper prototyping usually found within the area of 2D interface design. Paper prototyping is a way to illustrate interaction of the interface when the user click or hover on a particular area. It usually consisted of many pieces of paper to illustrate different screen or idea in different state of interaction. When given to a user to test, there will be at least one person (the puppeteer) who manually changes the paper whenever a user performs a click on this paper interface. Role playing & Bodystorming Both of this techniques involve the use of bodily means to understand and explore different way of how a particular product or service will be used. They can be used as both explorative and experimental means by acting out and this gives a room for the players to put their own creativity if there is something missing as well as understand the experience of using the purposed idea/concept. The use of props and other mock-up can be used to give out more accurate experience.
Wizard of Oz This technique is often used with a look-like prototype or semi-functional prototype that still require manual control. The different between Wizard of oz and paper prototyping is that in this technique does not require the puppeteer to be in the same place as the user. The puppeteer can be somewhere else as long as the he/she can still control the idea/concept. The wizard of Oz is mainly focuses on the interaction of the idea/concept before building the stand-alone version of the idea. Video Prototyping. Video prototyping is about communicating the idea/concept using the means of video. There are different technique such as stop-motion, live action, illustration, 3d animation etc.. Video prototyping can be considered as one of the important tool to illustrate how the experience could be like but not about experience the experience itself. There are more ways to use prototyping for different purposes. It is up to the designer who choose what kind and how the prototype will be delivered or communicated. Prototype can be used with different level of fidelity or completeness as illustrated in the first chapter of this dissertation.
Workshop and My Tools The result of the workshop and the tools as well as interviews can be viewed online at http://varut.net/#/defining-and-structuring-tool/ The idea of this was to get as many real user tests as much as possible. My first user group was the fourth year students at the Glasgow School of Art. At the time, they were about to enter their last week of their project and that made them interested in learning how to make their ideas come to life. I then proposed to the fourth year student that I will teach them a basic to programming but I didn’t tell them that I will be testing out my tool at the end of the workshop. The point of teaching them programing was to learn whether teaching was necessary or not. In the first workshop, I had five students joining my class. None of them know or have any knowledge in programming. The workshop was divided into two parts, which were the teaching part and the helper part. The teaching part was where I teach about different kinds of programming concept. I always started the class with a little human programming using paperclip as a condition.
Basically, it was about checking whether the paperclip inside the box was more than 5 or not. If is not more than 5 then the student will say ‘I hate you’ and then add one more paperclip to the box. Once the paperclip is more than 5 then the student will say ‘I love you’. This pretty much illustrated the interaction of a state machine that only say nice thing if there are six paperclips inside the box. The point of this was to get them to learn about the way programming work as well as teaching them some programming logic such as the use of Variable, Conditioning as well as variable addition. The main reason why I did it this way was to created something that act like a ‘Lingua Firma’ or a bridge that still connect to something that the participant can understood and related to quickly. After this exercise, I introduced basic to programming class. I gave out different kinds of sensors and starting to let the students play around with it. Once the teaching part is done, I then moved on to the helper class where I help them to define their idea by using the programming aspect of conditionally that they just learnt in class. This was the ‘bridge’ that I made. It was neatly introduced at the start of the workshop and then revisited during the helper class. The first version was consisted of five sheets of paper. The first one is about drawing out your concept and identify what kind of input and output that it is sensing or outputting. The second is writing out their interaction using the concept of conditionally (if then else). The third was a Do While() which I did not end up teaching. The fourth is more like an overview all the conditions that has been made. The fifth is about how to construct it with the Arduino platform. In total, I taught four classes and hosted four helper classes. The total participant of each teaching workshops were as followed; - First class: 5 Product design students - Second class: 2 Product design students - Third class: 5 Product Design students and 2 Product design engineering students - Fourth class: 1 Product design student and 1 music student. The helper workshops were as followed; - First class 5 Product design students - Second class; 7 Product design students - Third class: 4 Product design students - Fourth class: 5 Product design students (Please note that some of these numbers on the helper classes were returning students)
In summary, I have taught 16 individual students and run helper classes for 13 individual students. The second version of the tool were developed at the end of the second helper class and used in the and fourth classes. The third version was developed sometime afterwards as was used with the majority of the third year students and some others from first and fourth year. The third version was a complete overhaul of the system and taken in some previous problem that was associated with the first and second version such as the ‘flow’ of the tool, the ambiguity with defining input and output as well as more intuitive pre-condition cards instead of a ‘If then else’ approach
List of users who used define and structuring tool (Version 1 – 3) Version 1 Varut Rintanalert Jamie Sunderland Duane Harrison Frøya Crabtree Doris Tydeman Alexandra Humphry-Baker Kathleen Collins Olver Dykes Kaitlyn Dee Version 2 Varut Rintanalert Martin Johnsson Joaö Lourenço Hannah Steele Sean Mcharg Stewart Garins Version 2.1 Frøya Crabtree Varut Rinatanalert Version 3 Alexandra Humphry-Baker Harshada Patil Maria Townsley Sam Johnston Josh Benjamin McDonald Yasmine Li Slaa Hwang Nicola Dunlop Maya McBeetie Stephen Payne Rie Watanabe
List of interviewees Sorraya Phiboon - National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) Thailand Craig Allun Smith – Designer / Master Student at Glasgow School of Art Jon McTaggart – Design Student at Köln International School of Design Professor DK Arvind - Director, Centre for Speckled Computing Mike Walker – Design Student at Glasgow School of Art Oliver Dykes – Design Student at Glasgow School of Art Santini Basara – Design Student at Glasgow School of Art Jure Martinec - User interace Intern, IDEO John Filcroft – Innovation Design Intern at Glasgow School of Art Beer Wuttiungsavotai – Communication design student at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Andrew Mcshane - Computer Network Technology student atManchester Metropolitan University Sean Miller 2nd year – Design Student at Glasgow School of Art Viet Ngo The PD student – Design Student at Glasgow School of Art Pietro 3yr PD student – Design Student at Politecnico di Milano Roy Mohan Shearer – designer at Zero waste design. http://www.zero-waste.co.uk/
Transcription of interviews Not all interviews are transcribe due to relevancy as well as length of the interview. However, voice recording of these interviews can be requested, if available The majority transcript of the interviews can be view online at www.varut.net/pblog