Construction Junction: Designing Cultural Probe (Team 1)
DESIGN PROCESS
- Framing — Identifying the design question. Questions will reflect the insight the designer gained through each iteration. What are the variables/parameters are essential to the users’ experiences?
- Prototype — Using design principles and research tools, design a cultural probe that endeavors to creatively capture the in-situation user experience.
- Test — Deploying cultural probes and using accessibility/visibility and usability as metrics to determine the design focus on the next round of iteration.
FIRST ITERATION
Concept Question — How can users effectively communicate their shopping experiences? Which variables will clearly indicate the causal trends? How will the research be interpreted?
Design Choices —
Accessibility/Visibility: In consideration of people’s willingness to participate in the cultural probe, one of the primary design choices to appeal to the audience were color choice and physical installation.
Black and yellow was used to not only refer to the iconic construction pattern but also to associate with the black and gold identity of Pittsburgh.
We selected Helvetica as the head, subhead, and copy font in order to emphasize clarity and augment legibility of information.
The installation was intended to make the cultural probe more noticeable and provide physical imposition to our design.
Usability: Our main concern in terms of usability was to find the balance between the user consciously reflecting on his/her experience but that the required task is not burdensome enough to affect the users’ holistic experience.
The size of the survey sheet was designed to fit in the hand so that the customers can record as they shop. Simplifying metrics and recording methods were ways to encourage the user to respond as well as gain perspective of the participant’s decision making process. Colored sticker labels, one-word answers, and free-comment sections were ways our group thought would effectively tap into the user’s thought process.
Results and Reflection—
Our group were not able to collect responses because there were too little participants. One reason the participation level was so low has to do with the ineffective placement. The store placed all of the cultural probes on the counter.
Another reason our group attributed the lack of participation to is our false assumptions of the users. Although there were no empirical evidence to demonstrate Construction Junction’s customer demographic, one thing for sure was that the people were not responding to the design that the group thought the users would respond to.
One way we tackled this issue was discussing with guest lecturers as well as revisiting the site to make more in-situation observations in order to make more accurate conclusions about the user demographic.
SECOND ITERATION
Concept Question — Where do people experience these feelings and what are the more specific contexts in which these experiences happen? How can the probe promote participation?
Accessibility/Visibility : Construction Junction is most of the times filled with customers, and not all the aisles are clearly organized. It reached our concern that it would be important for the cultural probe to be easily distinguishable from the background environment.
We continued on with our original black and yellow color scheme but added the diagonal black and white pattern to include visual elements that would be noticeable even from far distances.
Instead of installing a cultural probe at a single location, the cultural probe questions were placed randomly throughout the space. We also placed these questions on eye-height level and locations where people would easily access.
Usability: Instead of having to hold around a survey, the second prototype promotes participation by allowing participants to be involved digitally. Participants were asked to send photos that capture there feelings to the project-email.
Adding elements of fun and play was also a goal for the second iteration. Taking photos, sharing images and comments, anonymity, etc… were design choices to make the design activity more engaging.
The former iteration asked a sequence of questions. But the second iteration only asks one central question. Our aim was to give more agency and freedom to the participant so that we receive more rich and perceptive data. The questions were free to interpretation and format and structure was less static than the first iteration.
Results and Reflections —
There were also a lack of participation for this iteration as well. People may not have been intrigued by the questions or some factor in the instruction process served as a barrier of participation. Many people may not have had phones that have email features. Most of the customers in CJ are middle-aged residents and may experience difficulty in tasks that are easy to younger age groups.
The questions could have asked too much from the participants. Some of these questions are difficult to address through single photos. Filming is more difficult and people might be less willing to take videos.
The fact that customers are handling potentially dangerous and heavy objects may also be part of the reason participants are not willing to participate. Using phones and taking pictures can be perceived as an unnecessary burden for the participants.
