Mikkel Plejdrup DIA @mipl-dia-blog - Tumblr Blog

Last Post

In this last post I will talk about the learning’s from the last project and reflect on my initial wish of improving my design argumentation skills.

The limited time we had to work on this project highlighted the need for a focused, clear, and hands-on design space. At first we were very conceptual with our ideas and we wanted to map our concept before we had created it. The process was solely based on interactional ideas and we lacked the physical prototyping aspect of interaction-driven design approach. The first crit helped us realize this and we started prototyping the box and started sketching with the code. This way we achieved a mixture of a physical interaction-driven design pattern and a technology-driven design pattern, which helped speed up the process significantly. Maeng et al. (2012) argues that an interaction-driven approach is useful for a product design with significant interaction concepts and not with products with complicated functions. This was also evident in our design phase, as our design of the hole, went through several stages, where we actively used our hands to test different simple interactions. We had a need for combining the interaction-driven and technology-driven approach, because the complexity of the technology, in our case, set some limitations, which we had to consider in all aspects of the concept.

My wish to develop my design argumentation skills has been achieved on different levels. In the process of reading theory and then actively using it, when working in groups, I was able to cultivate terminology and use it in a sensible way. The theories taught also provided different levels of abstraction and use, as some articles such as “Interaction Frogger: A Design Framework to Couple Action and Function through Feedback and Feedforward“ and “Exploring relationships between interaction attributes and experience.” helped provide a practical design vocabulary, which can be effective in talking about concrete aspects of a product. Furthermore we read articles, which helped provide a overall mindset for approaching design. This could be in terms of different approaches to a design project, processes one go through or the establishment of design spaces. For example in the article “Educating the Reflective Practitioner” or in “Aesthetic Interaction — A Pragmatist’s Aesthetics of Interactive Systems”. (These theories have been used and cited in earlier blog posts). By having these different layers of abstraction in the theory, it helped me improve my design argumentation, by having to think about design on a practical concrete level and on a more theoretical conceptual level. The sketching and the group work also helped, as they along with teachers provided a reflective design practicum (Ehn, 1998). Here I was able to reflect-on-action with my group member after receiving feedback and also reflect-in-action while sketching or prototyping, both based on the actual theory (Schön, 1987).

References:

Maeng, S. and Lim, Y and Lee, K. (2012) Interaction-Driven Design: A New Approach for Interactive Product Development. Department of Industrial Design, KAIST. DIS 2012, June 11-15, 2012, Newcastle, UK.

Schön, Donald. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco.

Ehn, P. (1998). Manifesto for a Digital Bauhaus. Digital Creativity, 9(4)

Greet the digital world

Yoke Presentation

Last week we had our final presentation, where a representative for Yoke was present. Our approach to the presentation, were to have a volunteer try our installation, before we explained the ideas behind the concept. This way the audience and the volunteer would not be affected by our understanding of the concept. Luckily the representative from Yoke volunteered and tried it out, before we explained any further. This brought some interesting insights, which differed from our slides. In our presentation we explained the main idea of greeting the digital world in a mysterious explorative hole and also explained theories, which helped us form the concept, such as the interaction attributes and the feedback and feedforward.

Our interactional attributes helped us argue for how it was designed, but it was not specifically used as step-by-step tool, butelements from the model were discussed in the design phase.

Interaction attributes (Lenz et al. 2013 ):

The inherent feedforward was created in the form of the hole and the green hand, which afforded insertion of a hand. The digitalization of the hand served as an augmented feedforward as the slow process of the digitalization afforded one to keep the hand in. The digitalization of the mirrored hand also served as augmented feedback as it was a direct feedback of inserting the hand into the mysterious box (Wensween et al. 2004). These elements from our presentation, served as an explanation to the concept, but because the different elements had a natural coupling and was easy to understand, the interactional qualities of the installation seemed effortless. This allowed for further exploration of the installation’s possibilities and qualities. The feedback was related to how the volunteer used the actual installation, which showed how important it was to have an easy-to-use prototype.

While he used it, the concept expanded from a experience relating to a single person and became a performance, as the hand was projected up on the wall for everyone to see. Dalsgaard & Hansen (2008) argues for the notion of performance perception, which is based on three levels:

“(…) The act of interacting with the system, thus understanding which possibilities she has and how she can operate the system; the act of perceiving the relation between her and the system and her and the surroundings; and finally the act of performing where she is a performer for others to observe.(…)” (Dalsgaard & Hansen, 2008, p. 31)

This notion of performance perception was particular evident in our concept as the easy of use allowed for the simple interaction with the system. Furthermore the volunteer’s knowledge about it being a presentational context, where the rest of the audience had the same limited knowledge as him, allowed for a performance, while exploring the box. This set the stage for the performance, as the volunteer could make several funny and unexpected hand gestures and hand movements, which triggered reactions from the crowd. The decoupling of his hidden physical hand and what was shown on the projector also allowed for the freedom of the performance as his hand was hidden from the crowd. This added another dimension to our concept and the reception differed from what we as designers might have expected, which is the case with many prototypes (Dalsgaard & Hansen, 2008, p. 32). Furthermore we learned that the rewarding part of the concept was not as evident as we might have expected, as the volunteer expected something more to happen, when he moved his hands. This could be explored by slowly changing the colors of the hand or tracking different hand gestures, to create a different output.

I will show a video presentation of the concept in the next post.

References:

Dalsgaard, P. and Hansen, L. K. (2008). Performing perception—staging aesthetics of interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 15, 3, Article 13 (November 2008), 33 pages.

Wensveen, Stephan, Tom Djajadiningrat, and C. J. Overbeeke. (2004) “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward.” Proc. of DIS2004. ACM

Lenz, Eva, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marc Hassenzahl. (2013) “Exploring relationships between interaction attributes and experience.” Proc. of DPPI2013. ACM

Greet the digital world

After our presentation of the more focused concept with the black box, we received feedback, which were very helpful in moving the project along. For instance, the topic of decoupling came up, initially in the form of the natural decoupling between the hidden physical hand and the digital version. We thought we could push this further, while still maintaining the interactional qualities of the idea, by mirroring the digital version of the hand. This simple change created a totally new experience as the mirrored hand now served more as a separate digital version of the hand instead of just being a digital layer on the physical hand.

This change was made in this code, where the elements are created with Javascript and then mirrored on each other with CSS.

We also came up with a theme for the black box concept, which were “Greet the digital world”, this was based on the idea of shaking hand or interacting with your digital self.

Initially we created feedforward by creating the peephole in the form of a hand, which was a very direct form of feedforward, showing that the hand should be inserted. We moved away from this idea because of what Dalsgaard and Dindler (2009) calls the inviting of inquiry, which the hole itself presented. Instead we added a green hand beside the hole, which along with title of the installation created the needed feedforward. This notion of inviting inquiry were also further explored by making the box odd and natural looking, creating an unknown mysterious factor of the installation.

The mysterious box:

The feedback also revolved around the engagement part of the installation, as in the installation could use some sort of reward. This reward could either be based on gestures, time, or other elements, which could enrich the experience and create a satisfying interaction. As this is an installation piece, the immediate user experience is the central part of the experience, but a prolonging of this could be purposeful to create longer sense of what Karapanos et al. (2009) calls the initial orientation. This initial orientation is based on the qualities of stimulation and learnability, so by creating a more challenging experience, with some sort of reward, we can lengthen the initial orientation. As the code were very complex, this idea of rewarding after gestures or time, was easier said then done, but we found a way to decrease the digitalization of hand, thus creating the reward of a slowly fully digitalized hand, based on the amount of time the hand is inserted into the hole. This was accomplished by this code:

This subtle change allowed for a more engaging experience, without contradicting the main experience of greeting your digital self.

References:

Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J-B. (2009). User Experience Over Time: An Initial Framework. In CHI 2009 ~ User Experience, pp. 729-737

Second round - The black box.

The obvious conclusion to the first crit, were that our ideas were to abstract and we had to many and really needed to find a focus as soon as possible.

Therefore we chose to work with the black box concept as this concept presented interesting opportunities, both as an installation piece and was also manageable to work with in terms of prototyping and exploring opportunities within the design space it presents. In terms of thinking of it as an installation piece Jonas suggested the text “Peepholes as means of engagement in Interaction Design” by Dalsgaard, P & Dindler, C. In this text Dalsgaard and Dindler (2009) explore the notion of engagement in peepholes. They argue that the qualities in peepholes lies in the opportunities for inviting inquiry, having a gradual unfoldedness, and suggesting active user involvement, but it is important to note that peepholes not inherently have these qualities, but it is up to us to design the box to create a sustained engagement. Therefore we then proceeded to explore what kinds of output we specifically wanted from the analog input of inserting a hand into an unknown mysterious box. We were intrigued by the notion of converting the analog input into a digital output and also argued for the connection between ITU and this idea. At ITU a lot of hands-on experience leads to a digital outcome, this could be through the form of typing on a computer, drawing on a computer or doing practical research, which leads to insights for a digital concept. Therefore the connection between the brief and this notion of analog-to-digital were a sensible one. We decided that we wanted to turn physical movements of the inserted hand into a different visual experience; this could be either in the form of colors changing, drawing or changing graphics on a screen, by simply moving your hand. This visual experience should then be the rewarding and engaging extension of the peephole concept. To do this we found a hand tracking Javascript library, which helps track the motion of your hands and also detects and isolates hands on the screen. We wanted to tinker with this code, but it was very complicated JS code, so first we decided what elements we wanted to tinker with. This limited the exploration of the code to specific elements, which in this case was very helpful, as there wasn’t much online documentation or explanation to the code. We decided we wanted to work with the delay, colors and materialization, in the first iteration. When working with the code it also presented further affordances of use as we were tinkering with it. For example the code worked best with black background, which is perfect for our case with box, but it also needed light to work, which there wasn’t much of in a closed box. Therefore it presented a need for extra elements in our design of the box, in this case some lighting.

References:

Dalsgaard, P & Dindler, C. 2009. “Peepholes as means of engagement in Interaction Design”. In Engaging Artifacts. Oslo. www.nordes.org

This video shows our first setup, where there is direct connection with the analog hand and digital output you see on the screen. Even though the physical hand is out of sight, there was still a direct connection in the interaction.

First round

After the initial brainstorm we had a lot of different ideas, which were very abstract and not refined. Our main ideas revolved around the use of the ITU’s swing doors or elevators and the concept of nerd-alert. Our idea regarding the swing doors was based on the wide use of the swing doors, which had inherent interaction opportunities for triggering responses based on where the user of the swing door is located. For instance when a user were walking in the swing door, a sensor could detect him and then starting a form of output. The output we thought of first, were an alert sound either through a “nerdish” theme song (Ex. Star Wars theme), making the user aware of the fact that were entering a nerdish place. The term nerdish was not meant in a negative way, but in our definition just meant people who have a interest in a specific topic and are passionate about it. The same kind of interaction was present in the elevator, but that also presented an opportunity for a longer period of interaction along with a concept of different levels (Floors). The interaction could then be based on the inherent feedforwards and feedbacks of the elevator. This could be the use of the buttons and the lights, which indicate what level you are on, which then could be enhanced through our idea of nerd-alert and the use of sound.

The last idea was an idea we had just before entering the initial show-and-tell, which were the idea of an installation of a box with a hole in it. The box would then represent the unknown world, which could be explored, and the physical interaction and gesturing with the hand inserted into the mysterious hole, should then be converted to a digital output. This was our ideas heading into to the first showand-tell. Reflecting upon the ideas afterwards made me think of “Interaction Design as a Bricolage Practice” by Anna Vallgårda and Alva Fernaeus, which I first read with a somewhat skeptical mind, because my initial thought was that designers would not be limited to using simply what was in the room or building (Vallgårda & Fernaeus, 2015). This brief though very much invited us to use what was already there and coming up with a design, which was based on what resources presented themselves at ITU.

References:

Vallgårda, A., & Fernaeus, Y. (2015) Interaction Design as a Bricolage Practice. TEI 2015, January 15-19, 2015, Stanford, CA, USA.

Final project process.

As I haven’t written any posts after we received the final brief I will in the following posts recap our process in these last weeks, where we started with our initial brainstorming, received feedback, further conceptualized and focused our ideas, received the last feedback and finally finalized our concept. I will divide this in two posts for easier readability.

Designing an interactive artifact that lets ITU visitors experience that they are visiting an IT University

Final brief.

Today we got introduced to this very broad brief, which is an interpretation of the work Yoke is doing for DR BYEN. We got started on the project by brainstorming on the different places, spaces, interactions, themes and experiences that we could use in our project. As you can interpret this brief in a number of ways, we quickly realized that a framing or a limitation of our project was needed. Furthermore we were also somewhat in doubt of what technologies we could use, as the small Arduino kit seemed insufficient to perform a bigger exhibition with and would already set some limitations in that regard. We will meet again Wednesday to discuss and explore this brief further.

Crit session

Last week we had the crit-session on our physical project, I was not able to attend as I were sick, but instead I was informed about the feedback to our project by my other group member. I will comment on this feedback below.

The feedback was relating to utilizing the affordances of the specific teddy bear, in this case the zipper. This we did not consider to explore as we had decided what to explore before we had the teddy bear. As this was a random teddy bear and the expressed feeling were supposed to be desire I can not see the effect of using the zipper. Furthermore some feedback were relating to using other movements than tilting to activate the slow heartbeat. This was also our intention, but we were very limited in terms of sensor capability, as the sensors were very unpredictable (Either that or we had a loose connection in our Arduino setup). But it could have been interesting to explore further. Either way, further explorations could definitely have improved the personality traits of the teddy bear and created a more natural coupling between interaction and reaction.

This project is the last before the final project, so I will reflect upon my current status, learning’s and development of skills up until this point. A common skill required in both of these projects is working within a frame and argue for design decisions based on that frame. This notion of framing is something I have reflected particularly on. Schön (1992) talks about a design world being unique from person to person; therefore a framing and focus must be made to make all participants operate within the same design world. In this latest project we were told to integrate a light behavior into a physical object, while at the same time giving the light behavior a personality. This brief already sets a lot of different limitations, which is also part of framing a design problem. For instance there is physical limitations and also the Arduino lights presented limitations. Within this design frame we were then presented with relevant theory, which we could use to argue for our process, decisions and designerly behavior. Ross & Wensween (2010) argues for the use of physical objects, when prototyping and testing ideas. In our case we used the Arduino and the teddy bear, making the form of these objects help us reach the final design, by exploring the different opportunities the form presented. This seems like a natural process, but the theory helps us reflect on the method, while we use them, as Schön (1987) would describe as reflection-in-action. By reflecting upon how we work, while we are in the design process, it helps us create a design vocabulary, which I think has been the key element of this course. This vocabulary is created by participating in the design practice, or in the reflective practicum (Ehn, 1998). I especially think I personally developed as a designer in the small discussions with my two groups, because it allowed for an instant dialog and a freedom of expressions within that dialog. Therefore the reading of the theory and actual utilization of it, is the key element for development of designer skills and it is something I wish to keep working on.

References:

Ross, P. R., & Wensveen, S. A. (2010). Designing behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design. International Journal of Design, 4(2).

Schön, Donald. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco.

Schön, Donald A. (1992). “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation.” Research in Engineering Design 3.3 (1992): 131-147.

Ehn, P. (1998). Manifesto for a Digital Bauhaus. Digital Creativity, 9(4)

Sound exploration

The toy has a desire to be used, when it sees a person a light heartbeat starts pulsating fast, and when it is picked up and played with, it calms down.

When you put it down again, the light disappears to illustrate the desire is reached.

Design Explorations

Our group met today to explore our intended design of the light behavior and interactions, which should express desire. As mentioned in the previous post, we have intended to work with the physical object of a teddy bear (In this case a duck), and we had bought one to experiment with.

We did different explorations of the light behavior, when an interaction occurred. First we put together the Arduino with the teddy duck, to explore how desire was expressed with our initial thoughts. We realized that a continuous glow when the toy saw you and a slow blinking, when you played with it, did not express desire enough. Therefore we altered it to blink, when it sees you, and then calm down, when you interact with it. This increased the feeling of desire as the toy was “calling” to you, wanting to be played with and then calming down when it was satisfied. The desire feeling still felt a little mechanical, as the blinking were very monotone and we wanted to create a more natural feeling. Therefore we altered the blinking to express a heartbeat blinking instead, which gave it a much more natural and meaningful feeling. The interaction was the same, but instead of a blink, when it spotted you, the heartbeat started and then it calmed down when you played with it. The code to make the heartbeat beat quickly when spotting a person is here, where the “spotted” Boolean is set to true if the sensor value is above 500. Then if the “spotted” Boolean is true, the lights starts blinking with a quick delay of a 100 milliseconds and ending with a delay of 200 milliseconds:

We were satisfied with this result (Video is shown after this post), but also reflected on further explorations of using sound as a trigger to start the interaction (See the “Sound explorations” video after this post) or also implementing a light sensor so that the interaction only takes place when there is enough light in the room, and not at night.

Physical Object

Today we got introduced to the second brief were we asked to integrate our LED light into a physical object and create a value based on the interaction with the artefact.

We chose to go for the value of “Desire” and discussed what that means, in terms of light-behavior and physical objects. We found that desire could be interpreted as a want or a need. The need here would then be for interaction and therefore a use of the physical object. Therefore the light should show that the physical object desired to be used. This interpretation was interesting to us and it allowed to be used for a variety of products, all products that can be used or interacted with. We also discussed user experience and context of this light behavior, for example if this light were attached to running shoes, it could be interpreted as an annoying reminder. Therefore we chose to use this light behavior in a context were the light behavior could provide a positive user experience. We chose to work with a teddy bear concept, where the context is a kid who has a toy, where a subtle reminder from the teddy bear could be interpreted as a playful reminder instead. Our integration in the teddy bear is based on it reacting with a turned on light, when it senses a kid is near it, as it would come alive when a kid approaches. This feedback could be interpreted as an augmented feedback and also in the same time as augmented feedforward as it illustrates what to do next and that the bear is ready to played with (Wensween et al., 2004). Further augmented feedback follows as the kid plays with the toy, as lights starting pulsating when you lift the bear up. When the kid is done playing with it, the light shuts off, to illustrate the toy is satisfied and done playing. This closely couples the action of the kid to the kinds of feedback it gets from the teddy bear.

Further explorations could involve different light patterns, colors, physical objects and interactions. We will further explore this the next time we meet in the group.

References:

Wensveen, Stephan, Tom Djajadiningrat, and C. J. Overbeeke. (2004) “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward.” Proc. of DIS2004. ACM

Design brieft: Light Personality.

Calm and secure with a sense of belonging.

Design Brief - Light Personality

Following last week’s introduction to Arduino, we continued working with and learning Arduino. This time we learned about analog input and the use of switches to control the behavior of the light. Following the theory for this week, we were also introduced to the first design brief of giving the light personality.

Ross & Wensween (2010) talks about using “Aesthetic Experience” in itself when designing for an aesthetic interaction. This pragmatic design theory puts value on the context, use value, form and the many skills human possesses (Bodily, cognitive etc.) when your are in the design process (Ross & Wensween, 2010). The reason they put emphasis on this is because, they argue that a simple papersketch is not enough to understand and explore all of these elements. Following this mindset in our design brief, we used our bodies and social understanding, when we designed. Therefore we looked at several videos relating to the different personality traits. We also talked about our understanding of different personality traits. We wanted to create a light behavior, which had the human values of a sense of security and a sense of belonging to whomever was interacting with it and discussed different situations, which might afford this. Furthermore we wanted it to have a calm personality. We started out discussing what these keywords meant to us and how the light could represent them. We wanted to involve the distance sensors, as we felt that using this could involve a meaningful interaction, in this design. We also involved the metaphor of a pet or an animal, as this was a way of framing our idea. We based our example on the analog Arduino example and rewrote that, to reach our designed experience. In our example the light starts slowly blinking, when you are within a certain reach, as to illustrate the sensing of another being. It is a slow blink to illustrate the calmness and the light starts out with being turned off, to show that it is alone. Once you come closer to the object the light will shift from at blinking to a continuous glow to illustrate that it is now secure and “full” as the interacter is very close to it.

We felt as if we reached the desired personality traits, but also had the sense of the opposite as we explored the light behavior further. As one could interpret the starting of a blink, as an alarm that starts once you are near it, and glows once you are to close. These two different interpretations became evident once we used our bodies, cognitive skills and sense of context in the design process and next week we could explore this further.

/* See the video in post above this /*

References:

Ross, P. R., & Wensveen, S. A. (2010). Designing behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design. International Journal of Design, 4(2).

#interaction #aesthetic #light behaviour #lights

Arduino

Today we started on the Arduino project, which is totally new for me, as i had never worked with Arduino before.

The teaching by the external teacher was in a good slow pace, where my new teammate and I, were able to follow along and complete the assignments before we left. The theory for today wasn’t really used today as we mainly spent time on learning about Volt, OHM, resistance and current. It was very different from our previous learning’s as we now dealt with the more physical elements and with electricity.

The theory provided a mindset for our next phase. Where we have to remember the context, use and instrumentality as Graves et al. (2004) argues for. They argue that the aesthetic experience should be looked at from a pragmatist point of view, where the physical and social place of the interaction is key elements for understanding and designing aesthetic interaction. I think this is a point, which is often taken for granted and therefore important to be explored and developed. We as designers might take things for granted when we design, either based on our selves or on our cultural background and it is therefore important to reflect on how that impact our designs in a field, where elements are easily taken for granted. The other text by Eva Lenz “Aesthetics of Interaction – A Literature Synthesis” is more of a condensed synthesis of existing literature on interaction attributes, where it collects the different literature into 3 distinct levels, which are interconnected. The “Be” level, the “Do” level and the “Motor” level. This theory can be used as a guiding point, when designing aesthetic interaction, as to know how the different attributes should be designed and on what level. Different authors take different approaches to design interactions. Some take descriptive/be-level approaches, where the interaction is explained by feelings, which you wish to express. Other authors uses a descriptive/motorlevel approach, explaining the design of an interaction by using words describing movement, size etc. (Lenz et al., 2014). It is very interesting that there is such a big difference in how interaction design is approached and it shows the need for more collaboration on how we can combine different theories, such as this articles tries to. A combination of these approaches also seems like a more extensive and logical approach, which I will take into consideration in my later projects.

References:

Petersen, Marianne Graves, Ole Sejer Iversen, Peter Gall Krogh, and Martin Ludvigsen. 2004. Aesthetic interaction: a pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 269-276.

Lenz, Eva, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marc Hassenzahl. (2014) "Aesthetics of interaction: a literature synthesis." Proc. of NordiCHI2014. ACM.

Reflection

This is the final post of the first phase of designing interactive artifacts, and we have today had the show-and-tell, where we presented our final 1 pixel solution and also got to see others solution.

The show-and-tell seemed like it was meant as much as a part of the learning process as the previous group work. This was because the teachers and TA’s tried to initiate discussions or constructive feedback, using the terminology we have been studying. This allowed us to reflect on our own projects as well as the others projects. The reading for today were Schön’s “Educating the Reflective Practitioner”, which dealt with the overall situation of design work and how you can approach it. I will use this text as a starting point to reflect on this first phase of the 1 pixel project.

During this course we were taught different vocabularies, for interaction attributes or light behaviors. We were also taught different terminology in these subjects, which we then used in our project as we were working on them. This allowed us to have a terminology we could use when we reflected upon the projects, while doing them. Schön (1987) would call this “Situational backtalk”, where the present problem present different elements while you are working on it. It is then our job as designers to effectively respond to the problems, which arises, by doing new iteration or trying new things out. In our case our project developed from a lighthouse to an adventure. It was by exploring how the different attributes and interaction of our project presented themselves, when we tested them, that we were able to reach a solution, which by our account represented an adventure. For example, we explored how a direct correlation between action and interaction was more appropriate in our adventure, as opposed to a delayed one. This was illustrated by the fact that the screen only changes, when you press a key or scrolls, so that the adventure is controlled directly by the user. We also explored different definitions of an adventure, as we felt that a typical adventure was somewhat linear and may have unexpected events. The unexpected events were the bright red color, which also stops the keys from working, forcing the user to try out other ways of finishing the journey.

The final project was a little buggy, but it still showed the overall experience of the journey, which meant we had to explain the different constraints of use for it to make sense. A final version should maybe not have to be explained to the same degree. The overall project of the 1 pixel was very broad, and I was up to us to articulate the “problem” more specifically, by investigating the materials (The code) and the situation (The overall design experience of “Adventure”). By creating a more specific frame, we were able to explore the design space and usethe terminology to further examine how the desired frame could manifest itself.

References:

Schön, Donald. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco.

#design #schon

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Mikkel Plejdrup DIA