Prototype

The high fidelity prototype is now finished. We think we manage to capture the feeling we desired. The personality of our high fidelity prototype come across as simplistic, straightforward and simple to interact with (Affordance)  as we wanted it to. 

As we have mentioned we have created three  high fidelity prototypes for three stages of the museum-visit. 

And here are the prototypes for each stage:

1. Informative part at the start of the exhibition.
http://invis.io/SD1O6FZAE

2. Competitive part during the exhibition.
http://invis.io/AY1N3A33F

3. Ending screen at the end of the museum with feedback about the visit.

http://invis.io/351PTPF9V

Random "sneak peaks" from the prototype:

Seminarium 1, Textreflektion, Kyriaki Sarampasina

After having read the three chapters I found myself reflecting over the four major ways to analysing data which are noted in chapter five. As mentioned, there are four ways to do so. And these are the following:

• Analysis 
• Summation
• Extrapolation
• Abstraction

These four are all of course useful in different ways. I personally thought that the extrapolation way of analysing data was the most interesting one, and this may be because it is so different from the way we usually learn to analyse data. So what is it that makes it so dissimilar? Well, instead of breaking data into tiny parts (as analysis does for example), extrapolations focuses on making new, different  whole from different parts. I think this is an interesting approach of analysing data, but I do not know if we will apply this method on this project. But I think it is an intriguing way of seeing data differently. 

In the project group we have not yet come to a conclusion of how we will process data, which is not that odd, since we just started this project. But it is an important stage in the process, and in time we will see which one or ones of these methods we will choose.

Question: What is the best way to analyse data? Should one diced to go with only one method or combing them?  

Seminarium 1, Textreflektion - Rickard Bergeling

A thought that occurred to me when reading the book, more specifically chapter 5, was that the notion of using personas for designing for different demographics is simply basing your design on prejudices. I believe that this could be a handy tool in the later stages of the design process, but that it should be strictly complementary to the rest of the research.

When it comes to our situation in the group project, I think that we should make a hunt statement that we can proceed from. We should also form a moderator script for the interviews.

After conducting the interviews, we need to structure the data in some way to get a good overview of what we have to work with, and to be able to distinguish patterns. However, since we do not have an office or a room which is dedicated to the project.  

Another reflection that I made while reading, was that there are a lot of different approaches to designing something. It also got me thinking about what method we are going to use in this project. I think that I would instinctively go for the genius approach and draw conclusions from my own experience within the subject. However, I don’t think this is the way to go about the task in this project, since we are focusing on museums and I don’t have too much experience within this field. I believe that a user-centered design would be more ideal in this case.

Question for the seminar: How can we pinpoint the faults in a system or where there is room for improvement if the user doesn’t experience any? Also, how do we identify a need or want in a user that the user themselves does not know they possess?