MSc Thesis in Interaction Design
Bridging the Gap - A Method for Involving Designers as Active Participants Anna Dahlberg & Anna Götesson Göteborg, Sweden 2004
C e
halmers Department of Computing Scienc
REPORT NO. xxxx/xxxx
Bridging the Gap
- A Method for Involving Designers as Active Participants
ANNA E. DAHLBERG ANNA L.M. GÖTESSON
Department of Some Subject or Applied Information Technology
IT UNIVERSITY OF GÖTEBORG GÖTEBORG UNIVERSITY AND CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY Göteborg, Sweden 2004
2
Bridging the Gap
- A Method for Involving Designers as Active Participants
ANNA E. DAHLBERG ANNA L.M GÖTESSON
© ANNA E. DAHLBERG, ANNA L.M GÖTESSON, 2004.
Report no xxxx:xx
ISSN: 1651-4769
Department of Computing Science
IT University of Göteborg
Göteborg University and Chalmers University of Technology
P O Box 8718
SE – 402 75 Göteborg
Sweden
Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 4895
[tryckeriets namn]
Göteborg, Sweden 2004
3
Bridging the Gap - A Method for Involving Designers as Active Participants ANNA E. DAHLBERG
ANNA L.M. GÖTESSON
Department of Computing Science
IT University of Göteborg
Göteborg University and Chalmers University of Technology
ABSTRACT The objective of this master thesis was to create, perform and evaluate an experiment for finding a method for solving the design problem of transforming groups of elements identified in user studies into a final design concept. This method was developed in the research project Underdogs & Superheroes at the point when the gap between the elements and the final concept was identified. The method was designed as a tool, or a bridge, for bridging the identified gap. The project uses a game-based methodology throughout the design process. Before the experiment was created it was important to understand the structure and purpose of the project, as well as the earlier performed work of the design process. The focus of this method has been on the human needs and therefore inspiration was taken from the drama sphere. The designers were in the performance of the experiment active participants because they were asked to role-play. This resulted in a strong understanding and insight in the interaction between human needs, places and qualities in the context. An understanding of how the interaction worked and emerged was achieved. This material worked as the base for the transformation of different elements into several design concepts. The experiment resulted in a method and an identification of the strong characteristics that created a structure and a basis for the method. Keywords: Interaction design, participatory design, game-based methodology, role-playing, drama, improvisation, creativity, imagination, design methodology
4
SAMMANFATTNING Målet i denna magisteruppsats var att utforma, genomföra och utvärdera ett experiment för att finna en metod som löser problemet med att omvandla grupper av element från användarstudier till ett designkoncept. Metoden utvecklades i forskningsprojektet Underdogs & Superheroes vid den fas där luckan mellan elementen och det slutliga designkonceptet identifierades. Metoden utformades som ett verktyg, eller bro, för att överbrygga den identifierade luckan. Genom hela projektet tillämpas en spelbaserad metodologi. Innan det var dags att planera experimentet var det viktigt att förstå projektets struktur och syfte, liksom det arbete som tidigare hade genomförts inom projektet. Metoden bör fokusera på människans behov och för att stödja detta tog vi inspiration från dramavärlden. Vid genomförandet fick designerna en aktiv roll genom att de ombads rollspela. Detta resulterade i en stark förståelse och insikt för hur interaktionen mellan människans behov, platser och kvalitéer i kontexten fungerade. Detta material utgjorde grunden för omvandlingen av elementen till designkoncept. Experimentet resulterade i en metod och en identifikation av de utmärkande karakteristikerna som utgjorde strukturen och grunden i metoden.
5
Acknowledgment We would like to thank our two supervisors Margot Jacobs and Lars Hallnäs for all help and support during our work. Further we would like to thank Ramia Mazé, Staffan Björk and the other people at PLAY for giving us valuable feedback. This work has required lots of time and efforts and therefore we are also grateful to our close and dear ones that have encouraged us during this time. Anna & Anna
6
Content I Introduction .....................................................................................................10
1. Introducing the thesis.................................................................................10 1.1 Raising the research problem...............................................................10
2. Objectives of the thesis ..............................................................................11 2.1 Course of action ...................................................................................12
II Background ....................................................................................................14
3. A historical overview of design .................................................................14 3.1 The view of the design process............................................................14 3.2 Three generations of design thinking...................................................15
3.2.1 Four design themes .......................................................................16 3.3 The history of IT-design ......................................................................17
3.3.1 Interaction design..........................................................................17 3.4 Information Technology ......................................................................18
3.4.1 The design material.......................................................................19 3.5 Participatory design .............................................................................20
4. Good design ...............................................................................................21 4.1 Designing for the future.......................................................................22
5. The design process.....................................................................................23 5.1 Different views of the design process..................................................24
5.1.1 Vision, operative picture and specification...................................25 5.1.1.1 Vision.....................................................................................25 5.1.1.2 Operative picture....................................................................26 5.1.1.3 Specification ..........................................................................26
5.1.2 Divergence, transformation and convergence ..............................27 5.1.2.1 Divergence .............................................................................27 5.1.2.2 Transformation.......................................................................28 5.1.2.3 Convergence ..........................................................................28
6. The designer...............................................................................................29 6.1 Design abilities ....................................................................................30
6.1.1 Knowledge ....................................................................................30 6.1.1.1 Reflection over action............................................................31
6.1.2 Communication.............................................................................32 6.1.3 Creativity ......................................................................................34
6.1.3.1 Design and creativity .............................................................35 6.1.4 Imagination ...................................................................................36 6.1.5 Improvisation ................................................................................37
6.2 Improving the design abilities..............................................................37 6.3 Three views of the designer .................................................................39
6.3.1 The designers as black boxes........................................................39 6.3.2 The designers as glass boxes ........................................................39 6.3.3 The designers as self-organizing systems.....................................40
7. Design methods and techniques.................................................................41
7
7.1 Using design methods..........................................................................42 7.2 Choosing design methods ....................................................................43
7.2.1 Methods in the divergence phase..................................................44 7.2.2 Methods in the transformation phase............................................45 7.2.3 Methods in the convergence phase ...............................................45
7.3 General design methods.......................................................................46 7.3.1 Ethnography..................................................................................46 7.3.2 Scenario-based design...................................................................47 7.3.3 Game-based methodology ............................................................48
7.3.3.1 Games ....................................................................................48 7.3.3.2 Games in the design process..................................................50
8. The dramaturgical framework ...................................................................50 8.1 Theatre .................................................................................................51 8.2 Entering the stage.................................................................................51
8.2.1 Acting............................................................................................52 8.2.2 Role-playing..................................................................................53 8.2.3 Props .............................................................................................54
9. Drama and design ......................................................................................54 9.1 Applying drama in the design process.................................................55
9.1.1 Acting and design .........................................................................55 9.1.2 Role-playing and design ...............................................................57 9.1.3 Props and design ...........................................................................58
10. Underdogs & Superheroes .......................................................................60 10.1 Game 1: Superhero survey.................................................................60 10.2 Game 2: Automatic mapping.............................................................61 10.3 Game 3: Public mapping....................................................................61 10.4 Game 4: Story of the object ...............................................................62 10.5 Game 5: Superpower prototypes........................................................63
III The experiment .............................................................................................64
11. Game 6 – becoming a superhero..............................................................64 11.1 The framework of Underdogs & Superheroes...................................64 11.2 The outcome from the previous games..............................................65
11.2.1 Understanding of the elements ...................................................67 11.3 Identification of our task....................................................................69 11.4 The problem viewed from a meta-level.............................................69 11.5 Our objectives of the method.............................................................71
12. The Creation of Game 6...........................................................................72 12.1 The Framework of Game 6................................................................72
12.1.1 The theatrical framework............................................................73 12.1.2 Designers as active participants ..................................................74
12.2 Giving life to the game ......................................................................75 12.3 The transformation of the elements ...................................................77
12.3.1 Transforming qualities to characters...........................................77 12.3.2 Transforming needs to missions .................................................78 12.3.3 Transforming many places to few ..............................................79
8
12.3.4 Bringing the elements together ...................................................79 12.4 Creating props for game 6 .................................................................80
12.4.1 The accessories ...........................................................................80 12.4.1.1 The investigation kit ............................................................81 12.4.1.2 The superhero diary .............................................................82 12.4.1.3 The tags................................................................................84 12.4.1.4 The camera...........................................................................85 12.4.1.5 The evaluation paper............................................................85 12.4.1.6 The initial envelopes............................................................86
12.4.2 Documentation................................................................................86 12.5 Designing a day of a performance .....................................................87
12.5.1 Before the performance ..............................................................88 12.5.2 During the performance ..............................................................89 12.5.3 After the performance.................................................................90
13. Performing the experiment ......................................................................90 13.1 Impressions from the performance ....................................................90
13.1.1 Before the performance ..............................................................91 13.1.2 During the performance ..............................................................92 13.1.3 After the performance.................................................................99 13.1.4 Summarizing the impressions.....................................................99
13.2 Working with the material ...............................................................101 13.3 The concepts ....................................................................................105
IV Analysis of the experiment .........................................................................106
14. Questioning the experiment ...................................................................106 14.1 Game 6 as a bridge?.........................................................................106 14.2 Localisation of the design problem..................................................107 14.3 The entrance into the design process ...............................................107 14.4 Analysis of the game-based methodology .......................................108 14.5 Analysis of the working context ......................................................110 14.6 Analysis of the dramaturgical framework .......................................111
14.6.1 The characteristics of role-playing ...........................................111 14.7 The active designer ..........................................................................113 14.8 The importance of documentation ...................................................115 14.9 The characteristics of the method ....................................................116 14.10 The conclusions of the experiment ................................................117
V Seeing the future ..........................................................................................119
15. Generalising the method ........................................................................119 16. Future work............................................................................................120
VI References ..................................................................................................122
Appendix
9
I Introduction This chapter introduces the thesis and its research field. It follows by a presentation of the research question and the objectives of this thesis. The chapter ends with a description of the course of action.
1. Introducing the thesis The society of today is constantly developing. Research fields within several areas contribute to this development. Interaction design, which is a relatively new field, focuses on the interplay between humans and artefacts created with computer technology as one of the materials. When focusing on the interaction new areas such as psychology and behavioural science become significant in the design process. With this focus the human behaviours, needs and contexts are central. To be able to support the interaction one has to understand the situation of the people. Design methods can work as tool and support for designers in order to understand this complex world. When it comes to interaction design it is necessary to apply methods that can support the specific aspects that are important within this field. There is a need of new design methods that are developed to be appropriate for this specific field. We consider design methodology to be an essential part of interaction design. It is here that designers are given the opportunity to apply tools for supporting their inner potentials such as creativity, imagination and the ability to reflect. It is important to make the design process pleasant not only for users, also for designers. Different methodologies can be helpful for this purpose. If the work is pleasant this will probably affect the design work as well as the final result in a positive direction.
1.1 Raising the research problem Underdogs & Superheroes is a research project that aims to create a design concept for public places in the city of Gothenburg. The project has a participative approach that involves a game-based methodology throughout the design process. The project initiates without any idea of a design concept. We joined the design process when several user studies were performed which had the purpose of generating knowledge about the city and its people and objects. Our task is to use this material as a ground for constructing a final design concept. We identified a specific problem in this phase
10
of the design process. The design problem concerned bringing separate groups of elements together into a final design concept. We look upon this design problem as a gap that shall be bridged. The bridge is expected to overpass between the separate groups of elements and a design concept. Our task is therefore to build a functional bridge that manage to take all the conditions into consideration and that will take us to a strong design concept. This bridge will be a kind of method that aims to solve the expected design problem. For instance, this method will be able to take input in form of different data, such as user needs, qualities of the context and different locations, generated from earlier user studies. When applying the method it would take these inputs and transform them into one design concept. We consider the identified problem to be common in other design process as well as in this specific project. The approach to the problem can be critical for the result of the design process and therefore it requires much effort from the abilities of the designers. A method that supports designers to bridge this gap and that take the humans, context and interaction into consideration could be valuable. Our expectation is that our work in this thesis will take us a step forward in the research towards a method for solving this problem.
2. Objectives of the thesis The research question has been raised from the identified problem within the design process of the research project Underdogs & Superheroes. Our research question is the following:
How to create a method that can work as a tool for designers when bridging the gap between groups of elements from user studies and a final design concept?
The objective of this thesis is to create, perform and evaluate a tool that can work as a method for approaching and solving the identified design problem. We want this method to be sensitive to and focus on the human aspects of interaction. The objective also involves forming the method to the conditions of the project context in which the problem exists. We understand that the creation of the method plays a decisive role for the performance of the method as well as the final result. Therefore the work of
11
structuring the method will be an important part of our thesis. It is here we have the possibility to decide upon the focus of the method. Consequently, it is necessary to investigate the existing conditions before it is possible to make the appropriate decisions for the structure and content of the method. In some sense, we must try to predict the outcome of the method before we have created and performed it. Clearly basic design theoretical discussions are of importance here. We want to explore other fields that are related to the existing framework of the project to find new ways of approaching the actual design problem. From this knowledge we want to investigate how these fields can contribute to a deeper understanding of the interaction between contexts, artefacts and human needs. Further it is important that the choices concerning the performance of the method are well thought out, such as who, how and where the users of the method should be. The generated material from the performance of the method will be evaluated in order to understand the outcome of the method. We also want to understand the important characteristics of the methods as well as its critical phases. The evaluation of the method is therefore essential to figure out if the method is applicable for this project as well as other that involve this kind of design problem.
2.1 Course of action Here follows a presentation of our approach of finding an answer to the research question. We regard our thesis as an experiment that concerns solving a specific design problem that we identified within the research project Underdogs & Superheroes. The experiment involves solving the problem by creating and applying a method. Because of the fact that the thesis consists of this experiment it is difficult in detail to foresee the work. We want the findings of our work to continuously lead the way to a final solution. These are the following phases that the thesis consists of:
• We will begin our work by understanding the context of the project in which we have identified the design problem. The project’s framework, purposes, objectives and methodology are therefore necessary to explore. This work also includes exploring the earlier work performed in the design process. This work will be done by reading material about the project and discussing it with the rest of the project team.
• Next step is to understand and relate the outcome from the previous work.
This material will be the ground for us in our experiment. We must
12
understand the material that we have received in order to make good decisions later in the process. We will try to explore the material and find patterns that are valuable in the design process. The approach of the material depends on how extensive and complex it is. If it is needed, we will try to apply techniques or methods to understand it better.
• After the preparation work it is time for us to start designing the method. This
is a critical phase of the experiment. The structure and content of the method must be decided upon carefully. We view this phase of the experiment as crucial for the performance as well as the final outcome of the method.
• The performance of the method is the next step of this experiment. In this
phase it is necessary to perform the method in a suitable context as well as choosing the right participants. Motivation is also an important factor when applying the method.
• The last part of the experiment is the analysis and evaluation of the
application of the method. Here we will at upon the method with the help from design theory to better understand it. It is important to explore the specific conditions and the characteristics of the method. Hopefully it will be possible to draw some conclusions concerning the method.
The process of reading design theory will continue frequently during the whole thesis. Exploring the associated design theory and related work is necessary in order to understand and analyze our design problem in the design process.
13
II Background This background chapter involves theories and related works to our research field. The chapter mainly consists of three parts. The first part both presents the development of design and the components of a design process. The next part introduces the dramaturgical framework and its different features. It follows by a presentation of how the two worlds of drama and design can be unified. The chapter ends with an overview of the research project Underdogs & Superheroes which constitutes the base for the research question of this thesis.
3. A historical overview of design This is a short historical overview of the development of the view of design and the design process. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that every human activity that can be demarcated has a history. Thus all areas of design have a history as well as a future. They also consider today’s design practice to be strongly affected by the one of yesterday. Time changes the humans’ view of design. Design can in one period be concerned as radical and in other periods be looked upon as insignificant. New materials create conditions for new possibilities in design. In the beginning of the nineteenth-century new techniques and materials made it possible to develop objects that earlier had been limited to a smaller and richer part of the society. According to Woodham [50] objects can in some sense be seen as transformers of the society. His example of this is the aeroplanes that changed our view of the boundaries of how the world is. The objects push the limits of what people believe are possible. Changes in society have affected design and the product development. When mass-production became a reality there were many opinions about it. Different viewers of design had different opinions about mass-production. According to Woodham [50] the French design world saw mass-production as a threat to the freedom of artistic creativity. Further he means that the American view, on the other hand, welcomed the mass-production and saw great possibilities within it.
3.1 The view of the design process The view of the design process is constantly developing. Rosell [42] means that the design process for long time was seen as something that happened inside the head of a designer or in the board of a large organisation. In the beginning of the twentieth-century, he means, attempts were done to describe and develop design methods.
14
Rosell considers that the aim of these methods was to create control over the design process that according to some people was forced by random. Methods have during different time periods reflect different views of design, techniques, science and the society. According to Rosell [42] there have in some periods been a strong belief in the outer factors and in other times there has been a strong belief in the creative ability of the single person. These views, he means, always have had an impact on how methods are created and used. Each era of design has its own characteristics and some of these characteristics survive and linger on in new eras. One thing that has survived from the methods of functionalism is, according to Rosell [42], the function analysis. In the early phases of the design process efforts are made to analyse the functions a product is supposed to have. Rosell means that it is first in later phases that efforts are done to find technical solutions that fulfil the functionality demands.
3.2 Three generations of design thinking In the history there have been different views of design thinking. Lundequist [29] describes three generations of design thinking. In the 1960s the first generation worked. The researchers that were active during this period were affected by people that said that humanity was facing a new era. Lundequist describes that this was the post industrial era that involved both information technology and research which were seen as important factors in production. Lundequist [29] means that this generation also saw design as a process of problem solving where the problem should be solved by a splitting of the initial problem into sub problems. One central thought, he describes, was that design should be about adjusting the product to its future context. The second generation of design researcher was, according to Lundequist [29], active during the 1970s. During this time the research changed and the earlier view that the first generation have had of the design process was replaced with a view of design as a process of negotiation. In this process arguments were placed in relation to each other. Further he describes that during this generation empirical methods started to be developed for studies of concrete design projects. This generation started to be interested in the idea generation as well as the development phases in the design process. A general thought in this generation, Lundequist describes, was that problem solving is a search with small steps towards a vague and distant goal. The factors that
15
decide the shape, the function and the structure of a product are based on cultural conventions. Lundequist [29] describes that the third generation was interested in questions concerning knowledge and wanted with a critical eye examine the experiences that had been made by earlier generations. This generation, he also means, started to realise that a significant part of the design knowledge is tacit, this means that a person is unable to tell about his or her knowledge. Therefore the thoughts and the competence of the designers were placed in focus. Lundequist [29] means that during the 1980s the thoughts from the third generation further developed the view of design. During this period the discussion concerned the view of the importance of a designer’s tacit knowledge. Further he describes that the knowledge that a designer needs is tacit and can never be expressed in a sufficient way through our language.
3.2.1 Four design themes Lundequist [29] describes four themes in design research that have been developed between the 1960s and 1980s. He means that these themes create a research program for design. These themes have been developed from the three generations described earlier:
• The first theme concerns how new methods and tools should be integrated in the design process. This is a question of how to organise and structure a design process so it becomes as systematic, effective and rational as possible.
• The second theme regards the analysing about how a design problem is formed and how the problems should be solved and how these problems differ from other kinds of problems.
• The third theme concerns how to describe, analyse and document the design work with help from case studies.
• The final theme involves reflections concerning theory and practice in design. These themes are however the result from conflicts between the generations. Before the 1980s it was, according to Lundequist [29], only one theme at a time that governed. During the 1980s a general view developed, of that the themes could be seen as overlapping perspectives.
16
3.3 The history of IT-design The development of the design field has during the years led the way towards today’s IT-design, which focuses on information technology (IT). In a historical view of design it becomes clear how the theoretical design ideologies and styles arise, develop and then disappear. It is therefore, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], not only knowledge and the view of the role of the designer that changes the conditions for design. Despite the short history of IT-design, it faces a similar situation. IT-design is the creation of IT-artefacts. IT-artefacts need to be designed. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that if the person performing this work is a craftsman or works at a large factory does not matter. In the end, they point out, the important thing is to develop a design. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that if IT-design can be associated with a design era it should be the one of functionalism. The conceptions of efficiency and adoption to purpose, they describe, can be connected to modernism and functionalism. Woodham [50] describes that the expression forms follow function is strongly connected to a modern time and a belief in machines. This phrase, he points out, is strongly connected to modernism that used standardisation forms. Not everyone approved with this adage, some critics believed that this could limit the creativity in design. There are two areas within the field of IT-design that constitute an important part of the understanding of it. Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Participatory Design are, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], the two areas which both have a focus on the usability aspect of IT-artefacts. In the middle of 1980s the term Human Computer Interaction worked as a description for a new research field. According to Preece et al. [39] the interaction between users and computers was the focus in this field. HCI design is, further they mean, dynamic because of the constant development of technology. HCI had according to Preece et al. until the beginning of the 90s a focus on the design of interfaces.
3.3.1 Interaction design Interaction design is related to academic disciplines, design practices and interdisciplinary fields. According to Preece et al. [38] HCI is among these interdisciplinary fields. This understanding calls for people from different disciplines
17
such as psychologists, sociologists, product designers and graphic designers. There are many views of interaction design. Preece et al. [38] describe interaction design as the designing of interactive artefacts which aims to help and support the everyday life of a person. Due to this, they point out, it is important to understand how users act and react to events and also how they communicate and interact with each other. Winograd [48] begins his description of interaction design by mentioning HCI. He concerns HCI as a multidisciplinary field which focuses on the interaction between humans and machines, virtual realities and computer networks and as well as a wide spectrum of meeting between objects and behaviors. In the centre of all these Winograd discerns interaction design. Further he means that technology should not alone determine the solutions for the design, there are many more aspects such as individual psychology and social communication to take into consideration.
Successful interaction design requires a shift from seeing the machinery to seeing the lives of the people using it. In this human dimension, the relevant factors become hard to quantify, hard to even identify.
- Winograd [48] Winograd [48], speculates, that in the future irrelevant details of today will have an important role in the designing. Consequently the view of interaction design will develop and take new factors into consideration. He also sees a future involving more human considerations, such as communication and interaction, and that the technique has to adjust to this.
3.4 Information Technology Computers in different shapes and sizes are surrounding us more and more. Living with systems is soon fully natural to humans of today. Therefore computers play a significant role in this society that continues to grow [49, 16, 19]. Ehn [16] points out that these are facts that people in the science of design must constantly take into consideration. He also means that the design field and its artefacts should never be taken for granted. According to Ehn [16] nowadays computer systems must be seen in a wider spectrum than earlier. They must be seen as a kind of social occurrence that coexists with us in our everyday life. When changing this view of computer systems, Hallnäs and Redström [19] mean, we might have to change our perspective when both designing
18
and evaluating these computational things. They point out that the physical presence of computers is increasing and they become more invisible in the environment. This is called ubiquitous computing. When starting to surround oneself in everyday life with computers, Ehn [16] means that one has to understand the computer technology. What is computer technology and what can it do? According to Ehn one way to understand this new technology is to reflect upon the design of this technology or in other words what happens at the meeting point between understanding and creation. The question, he means, is how the society forms inventions that in turn change the society. Therefore it is important to investigate what the artefacts do instead of only looking at how they operate.
3.4.1 The design material When it comes to information technology, Löwgren and Stolterman [31] point out that the material of a design is different from other more common and natural materials such as wood, iron and plastic. These ordinary materials have well-known characteristics and it is known what they are good and bad for. Further they mean that information technology involves in a more complex aspect of designing. A material can, according to Hallnäs and Redström [18], be described as something that builds things. The appearance of a thing, its form, depends on how the material builds this thing. Because of the fact that computational technology actually builds the appearance of things they draw the conclusion that it should in fact be a material. By using this material it is therefore possible to create things so that they will have a computational appearance. The computational appearance, they mean, involves all the aspects of the design that support the computational appearance of a thing. This, however, involves more than just the hardware aspects. Further Hallnäs and Redström [18] mean that it is when programs are executed that the computational thing reveals its total appearance. The execution of programs is the temporal gestalt of the thing. They also mean that to be able to experience and interact with the thing it also has to have a spatial gestalt. It is through these spatial gestalts that the temporal gestalt will have a meaning for humans. They draw the conclusion that these two kinds of gestalts of a computational thing imply that there need to be at least two different types of materials for building this kind of artefact. Design within information technology involves an additional material - computation – compared with other kind of designs. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that the
19
most difficult combination of materials is probably occurs when a technical artefact works and interacts in a systematic whole placed in a social context with people.
3.5 Participatory design Participatory design was according to Preece et al. [38] developed in Europe in the late 1960s and in the early 1970s within projects that wanted to pay more attention to the design work rather than just the production of a product. At first participatory design was most common in Scandinavia but also in England. According to Abowd et al. [1] the field has then been developed quickly since it first was rooted. The Scandinavian approach to system design focuses, according to Ehn in [34], on participation and skill in the design as well as in the application of computer-based systems. Ehn writes that together researchers and trade unions within this field have based their work on the idea of industrial democracy. The democratic standpoint means, according to Ehn, that everyone should have a possibility to participate with the same conditions in decisions concerning his or her life. The efforts of Kristen Nygaard and the Norwegian Metal Worker’s Union as well as the projects called UTOPIA and DEMOS led the way. Ehn in [34] describes that participatory design has two main characteristics associated in different levels of its field. First, it is the political factor that stands for democracy, control and strength at the workplace. The second factor supports the technical aspects and implies that the design process, with participation of users, results in a successful outcome of high quality. Together these two aspects, he writes, indicate that there is a connection between the skill and the product quality of user participation and democracy. Participatory design can according to Ehn in [34] be seen as a learning process in which the designers and users gain an understanding about each other. Abowd et al. [1] mean that participatory design is a tool for the designers to involve the users in the design process. They also point out that one strong argument for user participation is that the users are experts in their needs and their context. According to Preece et al. [38] the aim of participatory design is that the user should be an equal partner with the designer and take an active role in the design development of a product. Further they mean that user involvement in designing may be passive or active but participatory design primarily engages users actively. Ehn in [34] means that participatory design does not only mean that users are participating in
20
the design but also that designers participate in use. A skilled designer, he writes, will try to achieve a shared practice with the users. There is according to Muller et al. [33] a common problem when designers are going to apply participatory design in the design process, due to the fact that it can be difficult to find a suitable user participatory technique that suits the aim of the project. They also mean that there are different opinions about when and how to involve users in the design process. The possibilities of involving users and collecting their experiences and knowledge within participatory design are, according to Abowd et al. [1] and Preece et al. [38], multiple. Preece et al. mean that simple techniques such as paper-based prototyping, storyboarding and workshops are examples where users are involved in the design. There are, according to Muller et al. also other more advanced ways, such as drama techniques and game-playing, to engage users in the design. Ehn, in [34], requires a rethinking of design methods so that people try to see them as a support for creative thinking and doing design in participatory work involving both the abilities of users and designers. He means that it is not only about how much influence participation may have, it is also about finding new ways to make design meaningful and full of involved action to avoid the boredom of traditional design meetings. Ehn also points out that all work during the design process should be playful. An approach to this, he means, can be to apply the use of future workshops, metaphorical design, role-playing and organizational games. Some of these methods will be discussed later in this chapter.
4. Good design All design and product development projects have the objective of creating a product, either by preparing a production or improving an object. According to Lundequist [29] design comprises elements such as construction, engineering and planning. He also means that design can be defined as an activity that is deciding the characteristics, mainly the ones bound to the shape, of an artefact. The main principle of design, Lundequist [29] points out, is finding a solution that fits both the purpose of the design as well as the context the design will be a part of. Design handles, according to Lundequist, problems concerning the form, production and use of an artefact. Thus design encompasses both the object itself and the process by which the object is created. Further Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that
21
design also pertains to the individual designer’s skills and understanding as well as the overall organisational structure. What is good design in the field of IT-design? Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that good design of an artefact is dependent upon several factors. One factor, they suggest, is situational and means that artefacts have to be judged within a situation. The most important characteristics of an artefact, they point out, are always situation dependent. Another factor, they mean, is the stakeholders that are associated in different ways to the designing. These people such as designers, suppliers and users all have an opinion about what good design is. Löwgren and Stolterman also write that a skilful designer manages to work within this complex and multifaceted situation and finding solutions where problems arise. The designer has the role of judging what good design is in specific cases by taking all the possible factors into consideration.
4.1 Designing for the future When looking at design one can, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], see that it reflects the spirit of the time as well as the culture. The society and culture constitute the past as well as the conditions for designing. They mean that a designer should therefore have a curiosity for this phenomenon. In fact, a designer can become inspired when reflecting upon the past. To create a design, they mean, is also to create the future. Jones [26] writes in his book that when people free themselves from thoughts of today’s stability, it is in a social aspect possible to create and design. This work, he writes, does not take a stand point in what was possible in the past but instead what will be possible in the future. Development projects have always a focus on the future. According to Lundequist [29] this makes it hard to handle because humans do not know about the future. Artefacts are today, he means, developed to achieve a result later, a result the developer does not know much about. Development projects are therefore performed with insecurity. Jones [26] writes that to design means that the designer has to grasp the instability of the present. The present is instable because it is affected by the technological changes that have been created in the past and will continue arise in the future. If a designer, Jones writes, solely investigates the present needs it is not certain that these needs will exist when new technical possibilities come to pass.
There are no experienced designers on this planet, the problems are too new. We have to find ways of collaborating without knowing the
22
solution, without knowing how to split the problems up. We have to maintain creative uncertainty while admitting other minds.
- Jones [26] (p. l) The designer lives according to Jones [26] in a world where new needs rise and old needs slip away as a reaction to the changing patterns of facilities available. Jones draws the conclusion that designing should not be seen as a way of fulfilling existing needs, it is not to increase the stability of the man-made world that is the task for a designer. A designer’s job, Jones means, is to change the things that establish the development of the man-made world. The designer has to give a substance to new ideas while simultaneously getting rid of physical and organizational ground of the old ideas. According to Norman [37] we are not good at predicting the future, especially not when it concerns technology. The designing of artefacts, he means, can have a strong affect on the way humans look upon themselves, the society and also the world. Inventions of today’s everyday artefacts such as pencils, books, automobiles, telephones and televisions have drastically influenced and changed our society. Norman points out that these changes cannot be predicted. When the telephone was invented people criticised it existence. Would anyone really want a phone and how would anyone really want to communicate using this new and alien device? Today, however, the phone is an excepted part of the society. Therefore, he writes, one can concur that society transforms when introducing new concepts to it.
5. The design process According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] this design process is a framework in which all the decisions are made and it is here everything happens. They also point out that to be able to make the “right” decisions it is important to have an understanding of the process, what happens and how everything is linked together. According to Jones [26], the environment in which the designer works is unstable and imaginary. This means that it changes each time from project to project. Further Landqvist [27] means that design process is unique. This also implies, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], that design is totally unpredictable. Each new design process must itself be designed to fit the specific design situation and all its conditions.
23
Landqvist [27] points out that no matter how extensive a design project is there is always a need for a planned strategy for the design work. Someone must, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], form the design process and decide what is going to be done and how it is going to be done. Each design process must therefore, they mean, be structured and organised to be able to work within. According to Jones [26] the structure and characteristics of the design process are not predetermined or ruled by any specific standards. The design process, however, is affected and outlined by only human’s actions and considerations but also by traditions and ideals. Further Löwgren and Stolterman [31] point out that there is a risk that designers have a preconceived notion about how the design process should be performed. In a design process, Jones [26] means, a designer has to deal with both external as well as internal complexity of a product. In order to do this the designer has to search beyond the drawing board and his or her own mind and involve many people in the design process. The result of a design process is according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] affected by three main factors that are always unique:
• The people responsible that are doing the work • The resources such as time and other efforts • The existing situation and its circumstances
Further Löwgren and Stolterman [31] write that the outcome of a design process is not just one right solution. The design situation is in other words not limited to one specific solution. According to Rosell [42] it is in the end important to be able to motivate the decisions that have been taken during the design process and that in the end had led to the final design. If a designer wants to put his or her ideas into practice they have to give good reasons supporting why the idea is successful.
5.1 Different views of the design process Principally a design process initiates, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], when the first ideas, discussions and meetings are held about the intended design work. It ends when a thorough detailed specification is achieved that is strong enough
24
to stand as a base for a construction or production. They also point out that the detailed specification is sometimes the same as the final product. Typically, during a design process, Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean, repeatedly there is a shift between the detail level and the whole, but also between the concrete and the abstract. They write that this constant shifting of focus during the design process is necessary and must be seen as something natural. The design process is however not always rational and logical, which also must be accepted. Jones [26] means that many efforts have been made to try to describe and visualize the design process with different models. One of the most common approaches to designing, he writes, one upon which several writers support, contains the three crucial stages of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Each of these three phases can be described as splitting the design problem in different parts, bringing the parts together in a new constellation and trying to explore the conditions when taking the new constellation into practice. Rosell [42] points out that usually most theorists see this process as a cycle. Here follow two different descriptions of how the design process can be viewed. These two models focus on different aspects and levels of the design process, which can mean that they can work concurrently. The first model is made by Löwgren and Stolterman [31] and the other is created by Jones [26].
5.1.1 Vision, operative picture and specification Löwgren and Stolterman [31] have created a model that involves the whole design process. Focus in this model is on the earlier phases in the process. It is important to understand that this process is neither linear nor iterative. This design process is instead totally dynamic. This means, they write, that all parts in the process frequently affect one another. Therefore they see the design process as a very complex process that involves many dependencies. This proposal of a model involves the work from vision to specification. The model involves three different abstraction levels in the early design work, which are vision, operative picture and specification.
5.1.1.1 Vision When a designer faces up a design situation a vision is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], created in his or her mind. The vision is far from a complete design solution, but is the first attempt and is at the same time a support for organising and thinking of the design task. Further they mean that the vision can be about the function, structure or technical aspects of the artefact. At first the vision exists only in
25
the head of the designer and will follow the designer throughout his or her whole work. Both the strength and the disadvantage of the vision is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], that it is spread and unclear which sometimes make it ambiguous. This characteristic of the vision, they mean, makes it possible for the designer to work with complex design situations where several requirements want to be satisfied.
5.1.1.2 Operative picture According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] the second abstraction level is the operative picture which is the first attempt to make the vision more concrete. At first the operative picture is very weak and unclear and it can only be visualized into simple sketches and pictures. Later on, they write, this operative picture is developed into a more stable picture which is a good ground for the remaining work. The development of the work in the design process is at this time dependent on the interplay between the operative picture and the design situation but also the vision. Further they mean that the designer’s view of the design situation is changing at the same time as the vision and operative picture develop. When the design process starts to involve structured and methodological ways of working it is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], often at the operative picture stage. During this portion of the design process the operative picture is developing towards a more detailed and structured solution. They also mean that after a while this operative picture will become more like a concrete representation which is possible to use as a tool for communication within the design team.
5.1.1.3 Specification Löwgren and Stolterman [31] write that sooner or later during the design process the operative picture will be developed into a specification. Here everything starts to become clearer. This specification, they mean, is a description of the artefact that is sufficient to work as a support during the coming creation. In this phase a new process, for the construction, is initiated. During the construction process the specification is important because it describes what is needed and what should be done. Further they write that during the construction new problems will arise and these will also be possible to view in this three stage process described.
26
5.1.2 Divergence, transformation and convergence Jones [26] describes the design process as a three-stage process. The stages are divergence, transformation and convergence. This model of the design process is cyclic.
5.1.2.1 Divergence Divergence is, according to Jones [26], the first stage that the designer meets when he or she enters the process of designing. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] describe divergence as working broadly which means studying several ideas, possibilities and alternatives. Further Jones writes that the phase also concerns widening the boundaries of the design situation so that the room of possibilities is large enough to find solutions in. This has, he means, to do with the fact that the intentions and the problem boundary are unstable and uncertain. During this stage, Jones points out, the designer can use methods that help exploring the design situation as well as methods that help the designer in his or her search for ideas. Evaluation is not necessary at this stage, which implies that nothing is disregarded if it seems relevant to the problem. According to Jones [26] everything in this stage is quite vague. The purpose of the designers is to intentionally increase their uncertainty to get away with fixed solutions and to take in as much new information as possible. Jones means that the designer does not exactly know where he or she is heading. The designer should also investigate different important elements, such as sponsors and users, which he or she will have to handle with during the designing. By doing this, Jones writes, the designer can postpone decisions until the next stage in the process, where the design team should know enough about the background of the problem to be able to predict the possible consequences of organizing data in a specific way. Jones [26] means that it can be helpful to look upon the search in the divergent stage as a chance for testing the stability or the possible instability of the different conditions that are connected to the actual problem. He points out that the objective of the designer here should be to try to keep away from developing a rash pattern upon the collected data. In this stage it is, according to Jones [26], important to open up the design space and collect lots of information. The methods of the divergence stage therefore require less speculations and analysis and more quantity. One common problem in this stage, he writes, seems to be the fact that designers are too speculative and are taking critical decisions too early in the process and therefore miss important facts.
27
The aim of the divergent search can, according to Jones [26], shortly be said to be about making a change so that the ordinary thinking structure affects. By doing this the designers can, he means, use their new experiences to meet up with false hypothesis that they had from the beginning. In the divergence stage methods that contain both rational and intuitive actions can be suitable.
5.1.2.2 Transformation Transformation is by Jones [26] described as a pleasant as well as a critical stage where many mistakes can be done. The stage of transformation can occur at any time but should only be applied after sufficient divergence is performed. In this stage, he writes, designers are combining different values and technicalities when making choices so that the external realities, such as political and economical aspects, are taken into consideration. This results in the general character, or pattern, of the artefact that will be designed. Further Jones means that this pattern seems suitable at this stage but it is not possible for the designers to show that it is right. Jones [26] describes the purpose of this stage to be about finding a pattern that is sufficient as a ground for starting a convergence towards a single design. This pattern must take all conditions and circumstances of the reality into consideration. Pattern-making is, he means, about turning a complex problem into an uncomplicated one by forming its structure so it will be easier to handle. This also includes identifying the essential problems and which once to ignore. In the stage of transformation Jones [26] means that there are many fixed factors such as purposes, briefs and problem areas. Here the crucial variables and constrains are found as well as decisions that are made. Further he writes that this stage also consists of dividing the design problem into sub-problems. The method that deals with transformation searches for ideas as well as techniques for exploring problem structure.
5.1.2.3 Convergence Convergence which is the last of the three stages can, according to Jones [26], be seen as the largest part of designing, but which often is a stage that the designers look upon too lightly. This problem occurs when the work becomes too automated. Further he means that the designer’s purpose at this stage is to reduce the resulting uncertainties gradually until just one of many ideas of the design is left as the final design.
28
According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] convergence is about narrowing the design work to achieve one solution or a combination of many ideas. They mean that in general all design processes must end up in a convergence so it will be possible to finish the work. Jones [26] points out that the main goal is to, as soon as possible and with as low cost as possible, decrease the amount of uncertainties and ideas that are not valuable to investigate any further. The difficulty in this stage, he writes, is the unexpected sub-problems that can occur and can become a critical step in the process. The problem with this is when an earlier choice has to be changed - a recycling is needed - to work further towards a final solution.
6. The designer Design is, as all other creating activities, very dependent on who is actually creating the artefact. The heaviest responsibility lies, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], on the designer. Each design involves new situations and conditions that have to be taken into consideration. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] draw the conclusion that the designer has to be flexible and creative when approaching each new design situation. Further they mean that each new design is also going to fit in a context and therefore be a part of the whole existing reality. Thus, they write, that this requires an appropriate design. The development of an artefact must always take the reality into consideration. To be able to do this, the designer must know about the existing reality. Löwgren and Stolterman mean that designers are a kind of researcher because they have to explore the actual reality in which the design is going to be placed. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] our understanding of reality is important when it comes to design. Both the understanding of reality as well as the possibilities through which we understand it is essential. These two issues, they mean, together will mainly control what one will do in order to achieve this understanding of reality. For the designer it is important to understand parts of reality that will best help the design work. It is hard work deciding what aspects of the situation that must be explored more than others. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] point out that design ability is not primarily about finding the best procedure or methods either not the most valuable knowledge. It is neither possible to use any general rules because each design situation is unique.
29
Therefore they mean that the design ability is firstly about being prepared by being able to apply a general knowing onto a specific situation. A skilful designer is a person that is prepared to judge and handle a complex situation by using his or her ability. Designers must therefore trust their feelings when handling uniquely. The preparation in this case has to do with the fact that a designer must constantly be prepared by taking care of and developing his or her design abilities.
6.1 Design abilities Löwgren and Stolterman [31] have identified two main issues concerning design abilities that are important for the designers to think about during their design work. These are; what are the abilities of a designer and how to improve these abilities.
In the Human Factors world, objects, it seems, must be understood rather than interpreted.
-Dunne [14] (p. 32) There are according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] several different aspects of a designer’s ability. The following, they suggest to be some of the most important.
• To design requires creativity as well as analytic abilities • To establish requires an ability to critically apprise • To be able to work with other people requires an ability to communicate and
being sensible • Design of functional factors requires a knowing about the usage • Design of structural factors requires knowledge about technology • Design of ethical factors requires an understanding of values and ideals • Design of aesthetic factors asks for an ability to form and compose
Here follow some general human abilities that according to us can work as a ground for the design abilities of a designer.
6.1.1 Knowledge To be a good designer it is, Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean, necessary to have knowledge and skill within the specific profession. Further they write that knowledge is primarily about having insight, specifically, knowing within design. Skill is about having the necessary craftsman like of design. These traits alone are, according to them, not enough to have in order to be a good designer.
30
Knowledge is, according to Lundequist [29], something that requires a human carrier. Information, on the other hand, is the data that is meditated through a medium. Mediums such as books, he means, can therefore only supply information. Lundequist points out that it is first when a person interprets information that it becomes transformed into knowledge. He writes that the information a book supplies will be transformed into knowledge at the moment a person reads it. Knowledge therefore needs a human carrier and can be used to support a person’s actions and statements. According to Lundequist [28], an important aspect of knowledge in design and product development is the one that focus on action. A way for designers, Rolf [41] means, to develop their skills is to observe their own actions. Schön [43] writes in his book that actions often reveal much more knowing than people are able to tell verbally. Further he means that to describe everyday actions can sometimes be more difficult than it first seems. When a person tries to describe an action he or she often ends up in producing descriptions. Human knowledge is, he points out, most of the time tacit, also called implicit, and one can say that the knowing is in the human’s action. Within activities there are, according to Molander [32], always a few elements that are tacit. No one can tell about them, they just exist. This knowledge is however implicit and has to be expressed through a person’s skill. Schön [43] means that there are many theories about what tacit knowledge is. One theory is that tacit knowledge has arisen from experiences. Molander writes that tacit knowledge can be established in a person when he or she is having habits. When an activity becomes a habit it supports the tacit knowledge with the help of practice. Further Molander means that two examples of tacit knowledge is the ability to bicycling and to recognize a face. It is difficult to give a full explanation of how to perform these acts. Schön [43] means that practitioners use tacit knowing-in-action when performing their work tasks. Even if practitioners can recognise a phenomenon it is not for sure that they can give a fully description over it. When making decisions the practitioner uses his or her tacit recognition as well as practiced performances. Ehn in [34] writes that knowledge of the world has to be understood socially and in practice.
6.1.1.1 Reflection over action According to Ehn in [34] participatory design is associated with practice. It is through practice people produce the artefacts of the world. Further he means that practice generates the objects of the world as well as the knowledge of the world. Practice is
31
therefore both a matter of action and reflection. Ehn means that practice also has a social aspect since it is produced in cooperation with other people. When sharing practice we also share an understanding of the world with others. Designers are, he means, involved in restructuring practice by designing new things such as computer artefacts. The ability to explain is, according to Lundequist [29], for a designer important because it can in a design suggestion tell why an action can lead the way towards a required goal. To be able to explain something, he means, one must primarily understand how something is related to a consistency. Further he points out that if a researcher would explain the connection between cause and effect they have to understand the consistency of which the research object is a part. Lundequist means that an explanation reveals about how something is and also why something is the way it is. Before an explanation is made something has to be interpreted and understood. When people act they are according to Schön [43] often reflecting upon the procedure, they are reflecting-in-action. Humans have the capability to reflect upon their performances at the actual time the performance take place. Further Schön means that to be able to improve a performance it is important to reflect upon the action as well as to reflect in the action. He makes a comparison to musicians that are improvising while they are playing. When they improvise they have to listen to each other so they can capture and follow where the music is heading. During this occasion the musician uses his or her previous knowledge of how the music can be put together in the creation of something new. When the musicians are reflecting-in-action over the music, they improve their performance. Schön [43] points out that a person can only be able to reflect upon an action when he or she is actually performing the action. In the performance the thought as well as the implicit knowledge support the action. Further he means that the practitioner’s reflection over the knowing-in-action often happens together with a reflection over the action. The practitioner also reflects over the understanding that in the action is implicit. The practitioner can according to him use the understandings later on in his or her work. Practitioners can use reflection-in-action in situations that are instable and unique.
6.1.2 Communication Löwgren and Stolterman [31] write in their book that the designer should be equipped with the ability to cooperate because much of the work requires communication with
32
and understanding of other people. Consequently they look upon design work as a social activity. According to Nilsson and Waldermarson [35] the word communication comes from the Latin word “communicare” that means that something becomes common. Further they write that communication constitutes the ground for the relationship between humans. It means that we inform as well as share experiences to each other. These experiences can be in the form of thoughts, feelings, actions and valuations. They also mean that when we communicate we talk and act in relation to each other. It is, according to Nilsson and Waldermarson [35], possible to translate thoughts and feelings, both in a conscious and unconscious way, into body- and verbal language. Humans are confined in themselves. They mean that with help from the verbal language is it possible to open the door to this inner world. They point out that the body constitutes an obstacle to communicate directly, but through the interplay between people they can achieve a common ground in order to meet and understand each other. Nilsson and Waldermarson [35] consider communication as a tool for contact, transference, influence and development. The consequences of the tool depend on how a person uses it and how competent he or she is. Further they mean that the message of a communication has two levels; what it says and how it is said. Consequently a message is communicated both by a content level as well as a relation level. The relation level has, they mean, to do with the relationship humans have to each other when they are communicating. The communication during the design process is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], not only needed for the pure communication itself, there is also a need for the ability of being rational towards oneself as designer and the design team. They point out that if a designer is not able to explain his or her design no one will understand him or her. To describe one’s design in a rational way requires the ability of communicate. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] the process of transforming a design into an explicit image is necessary to communicate but also on the whole for pushing the design process further. It is, they mean, essential for the designer to communicate an idea or vision because the design is worth nothing if no one understands it. When making an idea explicit it is possible to criticise, develop and change. Further they
33
write that sometimes this process of making an idea explicit stands in conflict with the creative thoughts.
6.1.3 Creativity Creativity has numerous of definitions. It is according to Reisberg [40] and de Bono [12] sometimes defined as a mysterious process in the human mind, but they mean that there are studies that indicate that it is more about a gathering of ordinary cognitive processes, such as memory, and emotionally as well as personality characteristics that together form the right conditions for creativity. A similar definition is, according to Candy and Edmonds [11], that creativity seems to involve a collection of activities that results in an outcome that can be a product, which is innovative when reviewed by external criterion. Buskist et al. [9] point out that all the different definitions of creativity seem however to have one common characteristic which is the fact that creativity results in some kind of end-product which can be more or less concrete. Further Reisberg [40] means that a creative discovery is generally defined as one that is novel and useful. According to de Bono [12] children are good at being creative. He means that the thoughts of a child are still not burdened or affected by social stain or the stress of adulthood. Therefore children do not feel finite and they also do not know what is possible to carry out. Further de Bono writes that this enables them with a freer mind state to come up with new ideas and proposals. Adults should try to understand why children are so creative and by that knowledge try to copy a child’s approach and behaviour. When a person is not creative, de Bono writes [12], he or she can only think in known ways. Creative thinking, on the other hand, is much about creating hypotheses. He means that a hypothesis gives a person something to investigate, to decide if to prove or reject. The more hypotheses created the greater possibility to come up with an interesting idea. According to Buskist et al. [9] the level of creativity seems to differ among different personalities. Further Candy and Edmonds [11] writes that the potential of an individual’s creativity can depend on different issues such as intellectual ability (intelligence and knowledge), cognitive approach (ways of thinking and acting), contextual conditions (the environment) and formative skill (family and education).
34
All humans can, according to de Bono [12], be creative. The level of creativity is not only about natural aptitude but also much about exercise. Thus creativity depends on motivation and willingness to achieve the right conditions for developing this ability. Further he writes that a human must realise that it is possible to create new valuable ideas and be serious in its course of action. To gain creativity primarily requires time, effort and an ability to focus one’s thoughts. It is possible, de Bono writes, to believe that there are ideas waiting inside people’s minds. To reach these ideas people have to liberate themselves from their fixed thinking patterns. According to de Bono [12] people can support and develop their creativity by using different kinds of methods. Further he means that these methods can focus on different aspects to stimulate the creativity. Methods can for example use provocations, alternatives and challenges. In the initial phases of a design process, de Bono [12] argues, when searching for new interesting ideas and new ways of thinking humans should work separately. Stimulating one’s creativity individually, he means, leads to the greatest possibility for producing creative ideas. Further he writes that a person working individually tends to take more responsibility for their thoughts, than when working in a group, which therefore is a better ground for creativity. Later on in the process group work can be considered for developing an idea that was earlier produced individually.
6.1.3.1 Design and creativity It is obvious that design requires information and logical thinking. But, according to de Bono [12], design also needs creative thinking to gain possible ideas and proposals. In all situations where it is not enough with standard solutions and routines creativity is necessary. He further draws the conclusion that the need for design thinking is closely connected to the need for creative thinking. Buskist et al. [9] consider detaching oneself from earlier knowledge and letting the ideas flow can lead to new ways of thinking and new thoughts can arise. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] designers are asked to have both a creative ability, but at the same time also an analytic ability. The first kind, they mean, is about being constructive by using one’s creative and innovative abilities. The analytic ability concerns a person’s intention of causing a change in the world. With analysis, de Bono [12] writes, people focus on the existing things, but with design the focus is on things that can exist. Design is, according to de Bono, not the same as analysis where it is about putting things together. Further he argues that no matter how deep a person analyzes, he or she will never find a new idea that does not
35
exist. People need to find new ideas and proposals when designing something. He means that in general, people are better in analytic thinking than in design thinking because designing seems to require much more efforts. In education there is often more attention paid to analysis than design, therefore people in general are not used to design thinking. Further de Bono [12] writes that in some projects designers choose to construct a framework of demands in the initial phases. They then fill this frame with something. This means that they from start have restricted their design work. This course of action, he means, is more about bringing existing ideas together than coming up with new. Another approach for developing creative ideas is, de Bono writes, to start by creating them by oneself without any restrictions. Later on it is possible to form these ideas so that they support the requirements that the designers have. This second approach is more risky but the probability to come up with new ideas is much greater.
6.1.4 Imagination Imagination creates, according to Stanislavskij [46], things that people know such as things that already exist and can happen. Fantasy on the other hand, creates things that do not exist and that people do not know about in reality. He means that the fantasy knows about everything and is capable to do anything and therefore it can create the things that never have been and will never happen. Consequently, he means, that people with help of fantasy can create things that are impossible in real life.
The underlying problem is that when rationality is in control imagination flies away.
- Jones [26] (p. li) With imagination it is, according to Hodgson and Richards [20], possible for people to go through most situations and circumstances that can occur. They also mean that when using the imagination it is possible to imagine and create things that usually do not exist as well as not seeing the usually existing conditions. Stanislavskij [46] writes that it is likely to renew things that already are created and worn out. Imagination is, according to Hodgson and Richards [20], important for humans in their everyday life when gaining insight into other people, understanding how relationships work and seeing the connection between people and things. Further they mean that imagination also can be a tool in the development process in industries and at people’s home.
36
There are, Hodgson and Richards [20] write, several techniques to use when developing the imagination to be able to use it in more beneficial ways in life. They mean that the most important factor to use to support one’s imagination is probably concentration.
6.1.5 Improvisation According to Hodgson and Richards [20] improvisation is as natural and common for humans in their lives as talking and moving. Improvisation can be about being as well as doing. Further they mean that in situations when people use their ability of improvisation they bring several resources together to come up with something. In these cases people are not able to fall back on others or use any instructions in the environment – they have to trust themselves and their potentials. A simple form of improvisation, Hodgson and Richards [20] write, is the one people use in every day life. It is impossible to foresee everything that will happen thus when something unexpected occur people have to adjust to it by using their improvisation skills. This common type of improvisation, they mean, can for example be as simple as when a person is responding to something in a discussion. The more unpredicted a situation is the more spontaneous a person has to be. Further they see another form of improvisation that is used in everyday life is when a person is acting in a way to achieve a standard that he or she self has set. During improvisation either thinking within a situation or thinking about a situation after it has been experienced is required. According to Hodgson and Richards [20] it can be good for people with different skills to realize the value, application and benefits that improvisation can have for experience and insights in many different levels in their lives. One dilemma in some kinds of improvisation, they write, is when people are faced with a problem and they come up with a second-best alternative instead of solving the actual problem that occurred.
6.2 Improving the design abilities One of the most important characteristics of a successful designer is probably, as earlier mentioned, the ability to constantly develop one’s design skill. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] each designer is unique in their skill and talent and therefore every one has to develop one’s own ability individually.
37
As earlier mentioned preparation is a central part of the design ability. The design abilities are according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] much about intuition. Humans’ intuition helps them to get an overview and look upon things with a sense of consistency. It is therefore possible to handle complex situations. Further they mean that to achieve this kind of intuition, which is related to improvisation, requires much work and experience from the designer. Rosell [42] points out that each new design process is an opportunity when the designer is learning something new. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] it is also necessary to develop a feeling for quality. They mean that there are many different ways to do this, but there are two possible main ways identified. The designer can deepen his or her feeling for quality either by focusing on the process or the product. When using a process oriented approach one can develop the feeling by going through several different design processes. The product focus means that the designer develops his or her feeling for quality by critically studying several artefacts. A designer can also, they write, develop his or her knowledge more generally by learning different concepts and ideas within design. By doing this it will probably be easier to take the quality of the design into consideration during the design process. The benefits of deepening the knowledge in this way include improving the repertoire, the design language and also the sensitivity within the design work. Further they write that it is also important that the designer develops his or her language within the field. A well developed language is necessary to be able to explain and communicate different design ideas, both to one self and others. This ability, Löwgren and Stolterman write, goes hand in hand with the feeling for quality. Another important issue for developing the design ability is according to Schön [43] to study and analyze one’s own actions in the design process. To do this a reflective thinking is required. This phenomenon, he writes in his book, helps the designer to constantly develop one’s design ability. The complex and unorganised design world needs to be approached in special ways. The designer must always reflect upon his or her decisions and actions and how appropriate they are in a specific situation. An additional way to develop one’s design ability is what Schön [43] calls retrospective reflection. This means that the designer explores IT-artefacts made by other designers. By doing this the designer can find and understand specific qualities of the product. Further Schön means that these qualities can work as tools for investigating which objectives, ideals and thoughts the designers had during the design process. Thinking backward is, however, a way for developing the design ability.
38
A further way to develop one’s design ability is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], to understand the design theory within the field. A theory is in general a tool for creating order and sense in this complex world. Further they mean that design theory can help designers to organize and categorize their world by this deeper understanding.
6.3 Three views of the designer There are, according to Jones [26], three different views of a designer. The views bring different aspects of designing in focus. The aspects concern the amount of creativity, rationality and control that a method offers the design process. The creativity aspect considers the designer as a black box that generates the creative process. The second aspect involves the thought of designing as a rational process and it views the designer as a glass box. The last aspect considers the designer as a self-organizing system that is capable to find paths towards a design solution.
6.3.1 The designers as black boxes Several design theorists consider that the most essential feature during the design process happens inside the head of the designer, which is not always under his or her conscious control. The black box view of a designer means, according to Jones [26], that a designer produces creative solutions but does not have the possibility to explain it. As an explanation to the fact that the human actions are not always conscious is that they instead are controlled by the nervous system. He considers that with this viewpoint, the designer can be seen as a kind of magician. Jones [26] points out that it is not only the current situation but also our experiences from the past that affect our actions. With this statement he draws the conclusion that to be a good designer you need to have appropriate experience.
6.3.2 The designers as glass boxes Most design methods involve more rational thinking than thoughts based on the black box phenomenon. A glass box designer can, according to Jones [26], be seen as a kind of computer where all information is processing in a systematical and rational way. He means that the designer arrives at the information in a systematic way. The information is then worked up in a systematic way by going through different phases such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Further he considers that these phases can be repeated iteratively.
39
Jones [26] describes that a design process is expected to be under total control where designers can motivate all their decisions but the reality is more complex than that. Therefore, he means, is there in practice no possibility to have complete insight during the whole design process.
6.3.3 The designers as self-organizing systems The designers as self-organizing systems have the ability to search for ideas and solutions and can partly value his or her process. The designer is according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] capable to act as well as reflect upon his or her actions. Further they mean in [30] that this designer has both reflective as well as constructive skills. Jones [26] consider that both the methods of the black box and the glass box open up the area that search for solutions to design problems. He argues that the designer creates so many different alternatives for the solutions that it in the end becomes very hard to handle. To evaluate each alternative can therefore be a difficult task but instead of just searching among the alternatives as a blind man the self-organizing system can, according to Jones, divide the design efforts into two parts. First the designer can see which alternatives that support the search for an appropriate design. Secondly the designer can look for the alternatives that help to control and evaluate the pattern of search (strategy control). When this is done it becomes easier for the designer to perform an intelligent search among the different alternatives. The search for good alternatives for a solution can, according to Jones [26], be based on both external criteria as well as the outcome from the partial search. He means that this can be done if the design effort that is needed for the strategy control supplies an exact model of the strategy and the external situation that the design shall be a part of. The aim, that Jones [26] describes, of the self plus situation model or in other words strategy plus objective is to make it possible for each member of the design team to see how much the search actions do or do not create a good balance between the new design, the situations that become influenced by the design and the cost of designing. To describe, he continuous, the relationship between the design situation and the strategy, a meta-language is created. Then an evaluation of a model can be done in the meta-language. He means that through this it becomes possible to predict results of different strategies yet to be undertaken so that the most promising strategy can be chosen. Further he points out, that methods that support the thinking of a designer as a self-organizing system have a strong element of meta-language and support the designer’s reflection over the working process as well as the strategy.
40
7. Design methods and techniques Design methodology as a general area has, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [30], long since developed within many different disciplines such as architecture, engineering design and industrial design.
Surely things can be better, it’s our methods that are wrong? - Jones [26] (p. xxxix)
In a design process designers use methods and techniques to be able to perform their work. A method is according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31] a description of a work or a sequence of work. Each method includes an aim and evaluations that guide the designer in his or her actions. Further they describe that techniques are used inside the framework of a method. If a design method can by itself solve a problem it is called a strategy. Jones [26] means that the design strategy includes a list of the actions performed by the designers with the aim of transforming an initial brief to a final design in the design process. Further he means that a design strategy is a list of the methods that the designers intend to use. When a design method is insufficient for that purpose it is by Jones regarded as design actions out of which complete strategies eventually can be composed. The designers choose themselves what the design actions will contain. An action can therefore be the use of a method. Design is not free from outer forces and must almost always be a part of a social context. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] consider this as an important reason for applying methods. If many persons are involved in a design project it is necessary to share a common language. They mean that methods can work as a tool for creating a common language between different stakeholders in the design process. Consequently the language can be regarded as a common way for expressing oneself and further also as a support to the organization and planning in the process. Landquist [27] describes that design often can be seen as a practical activity, but there is still a great need of methods and techniques for handling with different kinds of facts, knowledge and information. Löwgren and Stolterman [31] point out that design projects are complex and can be hard to handle. To deal with this complexity designers use methods. Within a method there are prescribed ways of how to organise and plan activities, which can work as a support for the designers.
41
Design is according to Lundequist [29] an activity that is both action- and future oriented. He points out that in research, which aims to create methods and tools for the practitioner, one important objective is to renew and improve the methods concerning the activity. Löwgren and Stolterman [30] argue that most research is done concerning methods in the later phases and therefore more attention should be paid to the early phases of the design process. Further they mean that the later phases which involve detailed design, implementation and evaluation, are the less problematic parts.
7.1 Using design methods When a designer uses a new method he or she often enters a new way of working which can be unfamiliar to earlier experiences. Löwgren and Stolterman [30] consider that it is here that the designer is asked to meet this new method by taking responsibility for using and accepting the conditions within the method. Consequently they mean that the designer is expected to relate earlier experiences to the conditions of the new method. This employment therefore requires to be performed with creativity as well as independency. Further Löwgren and Stolterman [31] point out that some designers consider the result from the use of a method to never be better than the designers that are using the method. Thus the ability of the designers plays an important role for the final outcome of a design process. There is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], a difference between an ordinary user and a skilled user of a method. A method can initially help designers to expand their language and tools for different situations. A skilled user of a method has, on the other hand, also the ability to go beyond the written descriptions of how a method should be used. Designers need to have an understanding of the limitations and the possibilities that the methods consist of so they can be free in the use of them. When this insight occurs the designer is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], capable to adjust the method to the existing situation. The designer also has a deeper understanding of the phases in a method and is competent enough to change a technique that the method prescribes into another and by this achieve an improved result. They argue that the effects of the use of a method are in such cases also known. They consider, having this kind of insight and understanding of a method is for the designer a valuable tool in the design process. Consequently, designers can feel free in their work and do not have to feel bound to the prescribed steps in a method.
42
Do the methods really work for everyone or do they collapse when their authors are not there.
- Jones [26] (p. xlv) A method can never control the unpredictable in a design process. To be able to handle this situation the designer needs, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], to use his or her design ability. This implies that it is not sufficient with a good method if the designers, with their abilities, are not able to use it. If designers frequently use methods they will, Löwgren and Stolterman [30] mean, develop their design ability which means that they deepen their knowledge and widen the repertoire of tools for managing different design situations. Therefore they suggest that methods can be seen as learning tools that can help designers to develop their skills and support their thoughts and actions.
7.2 Choosing design methods There are many existing methods that a designer can choose among when solving a design problem. Jones [26] considers it hard to know which method that best suites the situation. Design problems can, according to Landquist [27], in general be hard to define and also be hard to structure. This implies that it can be difficult to choose among rational methods when the actual design problem is more unclear and unstructured. There are, according to Jones [26], no general rules or principles for choosing and combining design methods. The choice of a method is therefore not possible to be generalised. He considers that the choice of methods, as well as the constructing of design strategies, is something that is up to the design team to decide upon.
What is there in the almost unbounded field you call design that is sensitive to all of the reality, to the wholeness of everyone’s thought and experience, and which does not exclude exclude exclude?
- Jones [26] (p. xl) When choosing a method Jones [26] regards it as important to take all the actual conditions and circumstances as well as the people involved, into consideration within the given situation. To be ale to choose among the many methods and say that one is appropriate for the situation, he means that it is necessary for a designer to first understand the method.
43
Here follows an overview of the need of methods during the three different phases; divergence, transformation and convergence.
7.2.1 Methods in the divergence phase Divergence is, according to Jones [26], the first phase that the designer meets when he or she enters the design process. Divergence is about widening the boundaries of the design situation so that the search room is large enough to find solutions in. He suggests that during this stage the designer can use methods as a help for discovering the design situation as well as searching for new ideas. In the beginning of the design process when a vision is formed or modified, Löwgren and Stolterman [31] consider it important for the designers to be open-minded about the complexity of a design situation. Jones [26] says that in this stage it is crucial to open up the design space and collect lots of information. Consequently the methods of the divergence stage require methods with less speculations and analysis and more quantity. To reach prior experiences and thoughts, Löwgren and Stolterman [31] suggest that, a designer can use methods that support the ability to associate. Other methods that, according to them, can be good to use in the beginning of the design process is the ones that can help the designers to reach a deeper understanding of the situation where the design shall be used. In early stages in the design process there is a common need of broadening the design possibilities. This can be done in several ways. Löwgren and Stolterman [30] suggest that when designers want to open up their design possibilities they can do this by directing their attention to areas where potential design concepts can be discovered. One method that Jones [26] describes for this purpose is called why-why-why. This technique involves a series of why questions which create several paths backwards from the starting point. He means that why-chains like these can also be applied to explore different design concepts. In this phase methods can, according to Jones [26], contain both rational and intuitive actions. Jones presents in his book several design methods that help the designer to stimulate the creativity and open up the design space. One of these methods is brainstorming.
44
Jones [26] describes brainstorming as a black box method and that it can be seen as an associative method. The brainstorming session is, according to him, about generating as many ideas as possible without any space for criticism in the beginning. Both Reisberg [40] and de Bono [12] describe that studies indicate that brainstorming increases only the quantity, not the quality, of ideas. Further Jones means that a brainstorming session can be held at any part of the design process.
7.2.2 Methods in the transformation phase The objective of this stage is, according to Jones [26], to find a pattern that is sufficient to be a ground for starting a convergence towards a single design. Here all conditions and circumstances of the reality must be taken into consideration. He means that this phase is about transforming a complex problem into an uncomplicated one. It also includes the work of identifying the essential problems and which once to ignore. There is, according to Jones [26], also a need for the designers early in the process to be able to externalize and give form to their internal ideas so that stakeholders can give them the feedback that is necessary. To develop the vision into an operative picture means that the designer is starting to solidify and specify the ideas. To be able to give form to the operative picture, Löwgren and Stolterman [31] mean that designers need to apply different techniques. The aim is to be able to explore the operative picture and communicate it to other. Further they point out that an operative picture includes parts of the solution and functions, which is much harder to understand in the vision. There are several techniques that can be used for giving form to the operative picture. Some examples of these techniques that Löwgren and Stolterman [31] describe are: scenarios, sketches, storyboards and different kinds of dynamic prototypes. The method that, according to Jones [26], handles with transformation are the once of searching for ideas as well as methods, such as removing mental blocks that aims to help the designer to find new patterns and relations in the not finished design solution, for exploring problem structure.
7.2.3 Methods in the convergence phase Jones [26] considers the main objective of the designer at the convergence phase is to as soon as possible gradually reduce the resulting uncertainties until just one of many ideas of the design is left as the final solution.
45
This critical stage in the design process is, according to Löwgren and Stolterman [30], when the unclear and unfinished design concepts are going to be developed into concrete representations. Jones [26] describes a method for moving the work outside the usually fixed boundaries of the problem. This method, called innovation by boundary shifting, helps the designer to see knowledge from other fields and perspectives and thus bring it to the design problem. Two of the methods that, according to Jones [26], can be used to handle with convergence are for example systematic search and ranking and weighting. He describes that the systematic search with logical certainty aims to solve design problems. Further he describes the ranking and weighting method and how it with help from a scale of measurement aims to compare different set of designs. Both of these methods are rational or what he calls glass box methods that in one way or another can be automated.
7.3 General design methods Here follows a presentation of some general methods that can be applied within participatory design.
7.3.1 Ethnography For long time ethnography has been a part of the anthropology practice. Preece et al. [39] describe that the aim for an ethnography researcher is to gain a deeper understanding of a situation and a context by becoming a part of them. An ethnographer however strives, according to Preece et al. [38], to understand the happenings within a context. Blomberg et al. in [34] describe that the ethnographer focuses on human behaviour and how it affects the everyday life. They consider that the designer on the other hand primarily focuses on designing things that support the activities in that context. Further they mean that when designers are trying to learn from the field of ethnography they will by all probability gain a deeper understanding of the prospective users in their actual context. Blomberg et al. in [34] describe how ethnography has its ground in field work. This means that the ethnographer needs to study the activities of humans in their everyday lives. This implies that the ethnographer has to perform his or her research in the right settings of the context instead of in a laboratory environment. Further they mean that
46
the work of an ethnographer requires a motivation and acceptance of being in situations that is out of one’s control, but also to give up the strict scientific approach. This can, according to Blomberg et al. be supported by the fact that if a person wants to learn about a world he or she first has to come in personal contact with it. This is because behaviours can only be understood in the specific environment where they take place. Blomberg et al. in [34] consider the outcome of an ethnographer’s research to be mostly a kind of descriptive understanding of the circumstances of a specific context that has been studied. The description is, according to them, about how people actually behave, not how they ought to behave. Preece et al. [39] describe that the findings can be in the form of videotapes, notes or artefacts from situations that have been observed. With the help of observations, interviews and collected artefacts, information with focus on details can be found. The information that has been generated can, according to Preece et al. [38], then become reconstructed into detailed descriptions. The descriptions use quotes, pictures and anecdotes as tools for communicating the explorations to others. Further they argue that because of the fact that designers are able to tell experienced and convincing stories they achieve a strength and quality of analyzing descriptive data. They mean that this is a result of the designers themselves submersing themselves in the right context so that they have been able to collect powerful examples from the right situations. Brandt and Grunnet [6] used field studies that were inspired from ethnographic methods in order to explore the domestic life of future users. In these studies observations as well as questions were conducted so that the design team could get closer to the users and their domestic environments.
7.3.2 Scenario-based design Storytelling is a common tool for humans when describing what they are doing or how they are accomplishing something. Scenarios can, according to Preece et al. [38], be seen as a kind of storytelling, but often with more conscious intentions. Further Precee et al. mean in [39] that a scenario can be defined as a personalized and imagined story which contains characters, actions, products and contexts. Scenarios are applied in many different fields such as in the drama sphere and in different kinds of design areas. In the design process scenarios can, according to
47
Iacucci and Kuutti [25], be created from different perspectives. They consider two main focuses that are identified within scenarios; context or prospective users. Scenario-based design is often used as a way to let stakeholders understand a textual story of user situations. There are also, according to Howard et al. [22], other ways of using scenarios in the design process that have been developed from this fundamental usage. One example is when applying scenarios in combination with drama in order to better act out the scenario. In other words, it is possible to act out a user scenario during the design work. Preece et al. [38] mean that most of the time scenarios are used as a tool for opening up ideas surrounding the user’s needs within the design. By using scenarios designers can, according to them, foresee possible users of an artefact as well as capture existing behaviours. When using scenarios in the design process the users and their goals are, according to Preece et al. [38], the main focus in the story. For the designers it is therefore important to be aware of why users do the things they do and how they reflect upon it. Further they consider that in a scenario it is not necessary to explain all technological aspects in detail. It is therefore possible for the designers to focus more on the human actions instead of what happens in the interaction between users and technology. Further they argue that if designers understand the actions of users they can easier get familiar with constraints, context and irritations which all are factors affecting the usage. The aim of a scenario is according to Preece et al. [39] to investigate and understand what will happen in a concrete situation. If a designer wants to regard different design situations it can be helpful to develop and apply scenarios in the design process.
7.3.3 Game-based methodology Within the game-based methodology, Jacobs and Mazé [24] mean, designers use the framework of a game to create a fictional world to invite the users to.
7.3.3.1 Games The fundamental characteristics of playing are, according to Huizinga [23], that it is a voluntary and free activity. Further Caillos [10] means that a person only plays if and when he or she wants to. Therefore play can be looked upon as a free activity. Play is an activity that according to Caillos contains the following elements:
48
• Free: playing is nothing that someone is forced to do. • Separate: playing happens within time and space constraints that are
identified and set in advance. • Uncertain: before playing no one knows about the outcome or the way
towards it. • Unproductive: the results from playing will not change the situation that
existed before the game started. • Governed by rules: playing happens within the framework of conventions that
leads to laws that apply only in a specific context. • Make-believe: playing happens in a second reality that the person playing has
to adapt to. Play can, according to Jacobs and Mazé [24], extend the imagination in time and space and is not bound to worldly restrictions and therefore it can exist as a pure activity without past or future. They consider that a game gives play a format, separating it from everyday life both materially as well as ideologically. A game takes, according to Caillois [10], place within determined boundaries. It begins and ends at given signals and its duration is often decided about in advance. To leave a game a person usually should have a reason. Consequently the sphere of a game is both controlled and closed. The rules of the real world are within the game replaced with precise and essential rules that must be followed by the players. In other words, it is like the game creates a new world with its own conditions and rules to for people to accept. When playing a game the player is given a role with which he or she enters the world of fantasy. In this world, Jacobs and Mazé [24] consider, the player is not bound to his and her everyday life or identity. Inside this fictional sphere, Andersen et al. [2] regard, the possibility to stimulate one’s genuine emotional response is much greater. As long as a person is inside the framework of the game, they are by Spolin [45] regarded to be free to do as they choose. Inside this framework a person will not, according to Burns et al. [8], act as self-consciously as he or she would usually do. On the other hand, Spolin argues, games provide a personal freedom that is required for the ability to experience. This ability develops, according to her, during the game much because of the fact that a person is having fun and is generally excited. Further
49
she means that when focusing on the objectives of the game a person is also stimulated to be spontaneous in order to achieve the goals.
7.3.3.2 Games in the design process Jacobs and Mazé [24] regard the use of game-based methodology as one way of letting users participate in the design process. Game methods can, according to them, be used by designers to deepen their understanding and to increase the design possibilities. Within this framework it is, according to Burns et al. [8], very easy for the user to get rid of a fixed view of the reality and also to imagine things that do not exist. Jacobs and Mazé [24] consider that the fact that games also stimulate a person’s creativity implies that they are very beneficial for designers to use in their work. Further they mean that the engagement of users intellectually, physically and emotionally is also important for designers when involving users in the design. One of the most essential aspects of game-based methodology is, according to Jacobs and Mazé [24], the phenomenon usually called suspension of disbelief. They describe how this asks for the ability of the player to lose themselves into the world of make-believe. The player has to buy the concept of the game and let go of the boundaries of the real world. When the player is able to manipulate objects and tools he or she will achieve suspension of disbelief. The result, they write, will then be that the player will be more spontaneous and reflect and learn more from their experience. Social activities, in a group, such as competition and cooperation increase the emotional involvement in the game. When working against or together with other people feelings of excitement can occur. Jacobs and Mazé [24] consider this to be a good tool to use when working as a designer. A game structure can be a tool for creating pleasure and fun for the users in a design process. In the Faraway project by Andersen et al. [2] there was a need of creating a context as a framework where the emotional experiences and the communication could take place. A game was therefore created.
8. The dramaturgical framework Participatory design can take inspiration from the drama sphere. To be able to do this, to unify the two worlds of drama and design, it is important to first have an
50
understanding of the framework and all its conditions. Here follows a presentation of the dramaturgical framework and its components.
8.1 Theatre
Theatre is a form of knowledge; it should and can also be a means of transforming society. Theatre can help us build our future, instead of just waiting for it.
– Boal [4] (p. 16) What does the word theatre mean? There is no simple answer to this because the word involves several aspects. Boal [4] means that theatre can be the building where a theatrical performance is played and then it involves elements such as costumes, actors and lights that together form a theatrical production. Theatre can also, according to Boal, be the location for a comic or tragic event that is being observed by spectators at a distance. Boal [4] continues his discussion and says that, in addition theatre can be the common acts in a person’s everyday life. Daily activities such as having breakfast, going to work or meeting friends can be subjects of a performance. In everyday life people repeat dialogues as well as movements just as an actor does on stage when performing a play evening after evening. The performance of an actor on stage could also be performed by people in their everyday life. People talk, express their feelings and fall in love in real life. All these things also happen on stage within the roles of the actors. This supports the view of the theatrical language as a fundamental human language. Finally Boal [4] considers that theatre is in its most fundamental sense the ability that humans have to observe themselves in action. Further he says that humans have the control of seeing themselves at one place as well as imagine being somewhere else. Consequently humans are not only able to recognise but also to identify themselves as well as others.
8.2 Entering the stage The Greek word drama means act. [15] A drama can be viewed both as a literal text and a theatrical way of expression. The framework of a drama supports an experience in controlled form. The drama is the only form in which a human is fully used in the exploration of herself in a living situation. [20] Aristotle defined drama as an
51
imitation of an action through the acting of persons. A drama is set in the meeting between people. [51] Dyferman [15] writes that the characters that are involved in a drama have to go out in deep water to leave their everyday behaviour and person. In order for them to do so, he continues, things that break up the conventional skin around them needs to happen and then it becomes possible for the audience to look inside the character.
8.2.1 Acting It may be crazy to face the fact that most people play several roles in their everyday life. When a person meets different people he or she uses different roles. This can, according to Hodgson and Richards [20], be seen as if he or she becomes another person. When a person escapes from his or her own situation to view the world from different angles and distances it can, according to Hodgson and Richards [20], lead to a greater sense of understanding and insight when returning again. They also point out that a tool for doing this is the use of drama. Further they mean that it is possible to reach a greater degree of truth and understanding when acting out a situation than it is possible by explaining it in a conversation. Another similar fact, they mean, is that deep knowledge is achieved only by living through a situation rather than just using the brain to understand it. Stanislavskij [46] considers all everyday actions, even the most elementary, such as sitting down and moving around, can be more complicated to perform when being on stage in front of an audience. It is a difference between talking on stage and talking in everyday life. It is the same for all other actions too. Therefore, he means, an actor must learn how to move around as well as listen, hear and see on stage. In the beginning, Hodgson and Richards [20] write, when a person is unfamiliar with the situation he or she can feel shy when acting out in an imaginative world. Drama is, according to them, much about being concentrated and absorbed in a character. When maintaining concentration and a lively imagination it is more likely to sustain a role more easily and come inside the imaginative situation. Further they consider that acting can be seen as an interpretation and impersonation of aspects of human life. It can involve playing the role of another character or it can be about the imagined response of oneself to different situations and emotions. Lecoq [28] argues that if a character in a play becomes identical to the personality of the actor, there is no play. He means that there are differences between those actors
52
that have only the capability to express their own lives and the ones that can go into and become another character. According to both Hodgson and Richards [20] and Lecoq, an actor should never play him- or herself but instead use his or her experiences when acting. Hodgson and Richards look upon the actor as the instrument itself while the musician has an instrument. Thus the actor must trust his or her inner potential to create something. Stanislavskij [46] points out that when an actor is fully captured by the performance he or she has the best possibilities for creating empathy. Empathy can, according to him, help an actor to give life to the spirit of the role and take this to the stage and there express it in an artistic way. At moments of empathy the actor unconsciously is living the life of the character without taking notice of how he or she feels or does. To move an actor from everyday life to the world of fantasy requires, according to Stanislavskij [46], the magic if. The play and its characters are the fantasy creations of an author and it contains a series of magic ifs and given conditions. Further he means that on stage there is no real world. Consequently an actor has to transform the fantasy creation of the author into a theatrical reality. In this process the ability for imagination plays an important role. Questions that can help start the imagination are according to him, who, when, where, why and for what reason. When these questions are asked a better founded picture of the imagined life is created. Improvisation can be seen as an essential activity in acting. Hodgson and Richards [20] regard improvised drama as a help for people to be aware of the movement of the body in relation to everything else around. They mean that through improvisation a person often gains greater freedom of body movements.
8.2.2 Role-playing Dyferman [15] points out that all roles have begun as shadows of its forthcoming self. He considers that a role is created together with other roles as well as different happenings and ideas. A role can therefore not be isolated in itself. An actor has to describe, according to Stanislavskij [46], not only the character in its outer shape but also the character’s and the play’s inner life. In order to do this an actor has to feel the things he or she portrays. To be able to reproduce the feelings the actor has to have similar experiences as the role. Further Stanislavskij means that it is impossible to imitate a feeling; an actor can therefore only imitate the expression a feeling takes.
53
Augusto Boal [4] created theatre of the oppressed. In the theatre of the oppressed the reality is shown not only how it is but also how it can be. Here are also all humans actors and spect-actors. One of Boal’s [5] main objectives is to turn the audience from passive observers into active participants who can change the drama. Boal means that the audience must invade the stage. They must do this in order to transform the images that are shown there. When the audience begin to take the role of the actor and invade the character on stage he or she becomes spect-actors. Boal means that the stage is fiction in its illustration of the real world. The spect-actors are not fiction; they exist in real life outside the stage. When taking control over the stage the spect-actor will not only act in a fictional world but also in the social reality and when doing so the spect-actor transforms fiction into himself.
8.2.3 Props When analysing a drama there has, according to Sofer [44], since Aristotle’s time been a focus on the subject of the drama and less interest on the objects being used in the drama. Further he writes that Aristotle himself regarded what he called spectacle, which included element such as props and settings, as an unimportant element of the drama. As drama developed, props achieved a stronger role in the performances. Sofer [44] describes that Shakespeare used props as important elements in his plays. What would Hamlet be without the skull? Should the skull be regarded as something necessary for the play or as a fitting or maybe just as a decoration? Consequently he means that a prop does not have a life in itself but when an actor is using it together with the dialogue and when the audience imagines, something happens with the prop. The prop starts to live. An interesting object has, according to Stanislavskij [46], a strong power over the actor’s attention. He means that when a person is attentive to an object a natural enthusiasm of doing something with it develops. Consequently the attention creates a strong connection between the story of the drama and the object.
9. Drama and design When the world of drama becomes integrated with the world of design new possibilities occur. This meeting seems to generate several benefits and can, according to Howard et al. [22], result in new approaches such as scenario-based design, participatory design and theatrical performance.
54
9.1 Applying drama in the design process Drama can in design be used as a technique for staging meetings with the aim of bringing designers and users together. Drama has in different design projects been used as a tool in different stages of the design process. Brandt and Grunnet [6] describe that it has been used both at early stages for generating ideas and also later on in the process for evaluating design concepts or prototypes. They see drama as a tool for generating ideas in the beginning and evaluating design concepts or prototypes later in the design process. Iacucci and Kuutti [25] mean that in projects where design and drama meet it is of importance that the designers have the ability to be sensible and thoughtful so that they can support the participant’s performance. Further they point out that it is important that the designer have social and dramaturgical abilities. A problem in this meeting can, according to them, be that the presence of the designer affects the participants in an otherwise normal situation. There are good conditions for participatory design to find inspiration and knowledge from the drama sphere. Drama can, according to Brandt and Grunnet [6], be a tool for the designers to get a deeper understanding of the user and the context. They consider the drama technique to be easy to use when the context is known. Further they mean that working in an unknown context is a bigger effort to deal with. When the designers themselves are acting out they can be helped to find problems and also stimulate the generation of design ideas. Using drama in the design process can facilitate bodily understanding for the designer. Brandt and Grunnet [6] consider that the communication with bodily expression is more significant than verbal communication. Further they mean that when using a bodily approach the tacit knowledge can be explicit.
9.1.1 Acting and design Acting techniques that can, according to Buchanau and Suri [7], help the designer to expand his awareness are role-playing, bodystorming and improvisation. Burns et al. [8] argue that when letting people, such as designers, become actors and role-play as users they start to communicate important facts about the design. Consequently acting techniques can work as a beneficial tool within the design field. Iacucci and Kuutti [25] mean that it is when the performances are created that they become relevant and therefore this is an important moment. Performances can,
55
according to Burns et al. [8], be a complement to techniques such as storyboarding. They consider that a performance can support the designer in several ways. It can stimulate the imagination and creativity of the designer. It can also make the designer empathise better with the users of their design. Another aspect of the benefits of performance is, according to them, that it can support the communication between the designer and his fellow designers, clients and users. When playing a game Burns et al. mean that role-playing and improvisation techniques are naturally involved. Iacucci and Kuutti [25] asked, in their project SPES, both designers and users to act out user scenarios. The physical world and the everyday life of the user were used as a stage where the performances took place. When new interesting opportunities and incidents occurred both parties started to act out. The designers and users were concurrently both actors and spectators. This condition is what Boal [5] calls spect-actors. SPES [25] therefore provided a way for the designers and users to investigate the everyday life and all its conditions. In another project called Smart tool project Brandt and Grunnet [6] also let their participants, the users, be spect-actors. First the users were passive audience when watching the designers act out scenarios. Then they were asked to become active spectators by taking the role of a director. By this they could use the users’ skills to make the performance more complete. Howard et al. [22] mean that scenario-based design can be applied in a project to strengthen the sense of immersion for stakeholders. Scenarios that remind of stage directions in theatrical performance, was in one project acted out by actors and/or potential users instead of just being reviewed. In these scenarios the focus was more on the context in use than the potential user’s activities and aims. Further they describe that artefacts can be explored in a given situation by using a theatrical performance. They consider that if a design team would observe a performance they can also introduced design ideas during the performance. The design team can, according to Howard et al., use skilled actors in improvisation techniques and a theatre director for guiding the process forward. In the Dynabook project Brandt and Grunnet [6] staged scenarios by using traditional theatrical scenes that they had created. On the stage the design team acted as users. As users, the designers acted out scenarios that were based on the earlier experiences that the users had created in their home environment. If the designers take the role of real users in a real context they can let real users evaluate their work. To do this Brandt and Grunnet [6] suggest that the design team can use the Forum theatre concept with the aim to generate a creative setting for discussion and collaboration. The design team then construct a dramatized scenario
56
that includes procedures and conflicts that the designers consider can occur during a day in the user’s work. The scenario is built up as a story with a beginning, middle and end. The audience of the drama will be the actual users that after the performance will be asked to comment and discuss it. In social situations people tend, according to Iacucci and Kuutti [25], to be more secure and comfortable when they do not have to expose themselves. In the design process, they argue, when letting a participant (user) perform there is a risk that he or she takes an extra role such as the role of being studied by a designer.
9.1.2 Role-playing and design Drama can in the design process be used as a way to get to know a character that portrays the future user. The designers can, according to Brandt and Grunnet [6], take the role of a character and try to act the way he or she would do. They mean that drama can be used as a way to get a richer empathy for a character. If designers want to take the personality of a character into consideration, Brandt and Grunnet suggest, that they can base their work on both field studies as well as character work. By choosing several different personalities in the drama they could cover a larger range of design issues. With help from the knowledge of how actors create their characters designers can, according to Brandt and Grunnet [6], create their user characters and enter their world with all senses. Thus the knowledge of the users will deepen. Further they mean that during performance designers or users can easier see if an idea is strong enough. When searching for ideas throughout the design process it is often a good idea to open up the design space. If the focus in the design process is on the interaction between the user and the product Djajadiningrat et al. [13] consider extreme characters as a suitable technique. Usually products are designed for a specific group of people. Therefore the designers often choose to think of the most typical user of their design and maybe create a scenario about this character. Djajadiningrat et al. [13] mean that the problem with this is that the design will just work for this identified character and probably will not fit people that differ from this typical user. Consequently it is difficult to find one person that can represent all users for which the design is aimed. Extreme characters focuses on the socio cultural aspects of the design. The aim of this technique is, according to Djajadiningrat et al., not to find solutions that are easy to use, but instead it is about discovering the interaction between users and the aesthetics of the design.
57
Extreme characters can, according to Djajadiningrat et al. [13], be a tool for taking social and cultural aspects of humans into consideration. This is valuable when designers want their design to work for many people. The users can be fictional or real persons with strong and exaggerated feelings and lives. When working with imaginative characters the designer can make them as extreme as they want. Without limits of what is real and possible, the designer can try to find new solutions and possibilities within the design. The designers can find hidden emotions and thoughts about the design by using extreme characters. When the designers involve extreme characters they have to open up their minds and are more or less forced to think of the design in a wider spectrum. Djajadiningrat et al. [13] regard this as a good tool for reaching outside the normal framework of thoughts which can enrich the design in many ways. When using role-playing in design there are many possibilities to understand the prospective users. In The smart tool project Brandt and Grunnet [6] let the designers act as users. In another project by Howard et al. [21] they used real actors to role-play as users. In the SPES project [25] Iacucci and Kuutti asked the users to act out and improvise as themselves. Norman [36] considers that designers cannot be seen as typical users. A risk is that the designers become one with the device that they are developing. When the designer tries to be a user this unity becomes a problem because it makes it impossible for he or she to have an objective relation with the task of the device. By this he means that a designer cannot have an objective view even though they can be a potential user to their own design. The source of this problem has to do with the fact that people tend to rationalize their conscious thoughts which affect their behaviour and explanations. With this rationalisation the designers can affect their actions and beliefs of others so that they see themselves as users. He also means that the designers are expert of the designed device and users are expert of the task that the device supports.
9.1.3 Props and design One way to involve the users in participatory design is, according to Brandt and Grunnet [6], to use drama together with different props. In this kind of user involvement the designer can investigate different design situations together with the users. Howard et al. [21] consider that applying drama in participatory design props
58
can be used to open up design possibilities. The role and appearance of a prop can differ between projects and stages in the design process. In a method for supporting a creative process different tools such as concrete objects are, according to Candy and Edmonds [11], helpful for stimulating a person’s creativity. In role-playing, props can, Storm [47] writes, be used to stimulate the fantasy of the actors and even help them feel better. Further he means that in such situations props can also strengthen the relationship between different people. A prop can during role-playing also be used to help the person (the designer) to easier become the character he or she is going to play. A project that explores this is the Dynabook project by Brandt and Grunnet [6]. A teddy bear can for example be used as a prop to support a person when getting into the right mood of being a child. Howard et al. [21] used props as an important part in their project because they helped the design team as well as all other stakeholders to focus their attention on essential design aspects. This meant that they tried to place an emerging artefact, which they called endowed prop, in a situation by using theatrical performance to explore the circumstances. While the design team observed the performance they also introduced design ideas. Both the design team and the actors had the possibility to choose a prop out of several. These props were from start simple and had no details. When acting out with the prop both the actors themselves and the design team enriched the prop with details that also affected the situation with different restrictions. These details concerned issues such as functions, weight and size of the prop. Howard et al. [21] regarded the props as necessary in the acting-out to avoid the performance to become science fiction. For the actors, props were tools for interacting with the context. For all involved, props were an important link between action and context. Further they describe how the broad environment, where the performance took place, was seen as an extended prop by both the designers and the actors. They mean that the props also stimulated the creativity of all the people involved. The presence and use of a prop can, according to Storm [47], help a person to dare to express and communicate emotions both with their body language and verbally. Iacucci and Kuutti [25] can see a problem with the use of props because a person can feel uncomfortable and embarrassed when performing in social situations.
59
In the project Faraway Andersen et al. [2] let the players use several symbolic objects which were representations for different feelings and characters to be able to support presence and feelings. The players were during the game asked to interact and take care of these props in different ways. The emotional participation was generally strong during the games of the project.
10. Underdogs & Superheroes Underdogs & Superheroes is a research project which explores the designing for public places. The project was initiated by Ramia Mazé and Margot Jacobs [24]. Instead of starting with a concept the project team uses an approach which involves interested people and the public from the start. The project investigates methods that can support participatory as well as public involvement from new players living in the design space. Methods for participation in Underdogs & Superheroes [24] involve a game-based methodology that took the form as a series of games that aimed to engage people experientially, creatively and personally during the design process. The motivation of doing this game-based project is that games can help to engage user and make their imagination and creativity grow. The project consists of six different games. The purpose of the games is to evolve technological interventions for personal and community presence in local public spaces. The outcome of the project will be various installed prototypes and an applied methodology evaluated from different perspectives. In the following text we present a summary of the five games [24].
10.1 Game 1: Superhero survey The first game had the purpose of involving players in both an emotionally and imaginatively way. The game had eleven players that were asked to create their own superhero identity as well as scenarios that revealed their secret capacity and hope for personal, societal and urban changes. A “superhero survey” was developed for the players so that they during the day when the game was performed could document their superhero identity. The “superhero survey” was designed with inspiration from fiction and the techniques of storyboard. The survey also used comic book graphics and language to capture the player into suspension of disbelief. The players were asked to document all their experiences in the empty boxes in the survey. This could be everything from the change of an ordinary person to a
60
superhero and how they with their extraordinary powers could save the world. The players were also asked to collect physical proofs to strengthen their superhero personality. This was a way to ensure that the players used material from the real world in the creation of their superhero. The players had no problems with understanding the “superhero survey” format and they used the boxes and storyline in a creative way. Game 1 created a context and sat the mood as well as the fictional space for the following games. Results from the first game were about personal goals, transforming situations, and possible resources for changes in public space. An example of a created superhero was “Superbowl”. This was a football with the mission to rescue fellow balls from evil and free the balls that were wrongly accused.
10.2 Game 2: Automatic mapping Game 2 was about the unknown changes and emotions of a city that a person who never been there before experienced. This was performed by one person at a time and can be seen as a design exercise happen inside a human mind. In the game the players walked around in the city and reacted immediately to different places they passed. Game 2 was created with inspiration from the previous game and was a way for the designers to dive into the fictional space without leaving the real world. The second game can also be viewed as a way for brainstorming with help of a poetic mechanism to reach personal feelings. Quotes from the second game were “playgrounds: spinning, stairwells: leading, passages: inventing, squares: tracing, bridges: winding, revolving doors: singing, benches: dreaming…”
10.3 Game 3: Public mapping Game 3 involved “participatory mapping” of different places in Gothenburg. The subjects that were mapped to different places in the city were “transformation, action, respite and social engagement”. The game was arranged in public. Both people who lived in the city and those who visited the city participated. The participation was anonymous and untraced. There where five printed questions, each coded with a colour, to be answered in a personal way. The coloured answers were placed on a city map to detect patterns and other useful material.
61
Game 3, which was a combination of the two previous games, involved the participants playfully when engaging them into a fictional story. This approach ended up in a reasonable result. The game can be seen as an opportunity for sharing individual experiences. The yellow cards asked what the participants would like to change in a place, which for example indicated that they wanted more possibilities to get social interaction in the city. The pink cards indicated for instance that there was a general distinction between good and evil in a high school. Conclusions from the green cards are that words in some languages can be interpreted in a wrong way and therefore cause more or less problems. There were two different types of outcomes of Game 3. First, it was a visual feedback of patterns generated by the colour codes on the map. Second, there was a more personal and imaginative level of information from the individual stories collected.
10.4 Game 4: Story of the object Game 4 was about exploring the deeper meaning and the emotional strength of objects and trying to see the use of them as a way for changing places and situations. The game initiated with an investigation of the content of people’s personal belongings, such as pockets and purses. This was a way to find the power of everyday things. The tools for collecting these data were role-playing and telling stories and scenarios. The workshop took place in Dublin and engaged 11 people. The outcome from the workshop was collected stories with great powers. A pencil case was for instance a symbol for self-confidence. Later on in the workshop different attributions were combined to get a new wider power of an object. The arrangement from game 1 was a ground for the expanded performance of the scenarios and involvement of objects from the real world. The workshop started on a personal creation level, then moving to a phase of sharing the individual items with another person and finally working in a whole group. The groups were finally performing scenarios with many characters and creating “super-objects” within dramatic situations. This arrangement involved many different aspects such as individual creativity, personal reflection, group work and a structure for supporting competition and cooperation as a motivation.
62
10.5 Game 5: Superpower prototypes Game 5 suggested a collection of props with different purposes for interaction in public spaces. Several objects worked as tools for introducing players in a made up world about how different conditions could work to affect social aspects, personal and community expression in public spaces. Game 5 was performed by seven people exploring the potential of the city of Gothenburg. In the initial phase each participant got his or her own prop. The seven props had different shapes and sizes and by this they supported different aspects of use. For example one prop involved the aspects of sound through its special shape. Other props involved natural aspects as magnetism and sound absorption. The players first got the role of a “prototype inspector” so that they easier could achieve suspension of disbelief within the game. During a workshop the players tested and performed tasks to explore the specific prototype and its potentials. The second part of this game was a collaboration task where the participants together found solutions to different problems by combining their props in the city. At this time all props were thorough investigated thus the group together could come up with interesting ideas of how to use and combine the props. The outcome of this project was new behaviours, individual stories and functions.
63
III The experiment In this chapter the experiment for solving the research problem is described. Because of the fact that an important part of the experiment is the work of designing the method we first present our work, thoughts and ideas concerning this. It is important to have in mind that the structure and content of the method will affect the performance and also the final result. After the presentation of the process of designing the method we describe the application of it. This end up in a presentation of the impressions from this performance and finally the outcome of the experiment is described.
11. Game 6 – becoming a superhero This part will take us back to the beginning when we first entered the project. To be able to understand our train of thought it can be helpful to have an insight from the moment when we first joined the project. We entered the project of Underdogs & Superheroes, see section 10, when it was time to begin with game 6. Before we joined the project team it consisted of Margot Jacobs (project leader) and Ramia Mazé. During our work both of them gave us valuable feedback and Margot Jacobs also helped us with the layout and to keep the predetermined project language. When we entered the project the original team had performed five games, see section 10.1-10.5, out of which a lot of information was generated. Our main task in this project therefore was to create the sixth game and then also to perform it. This work however consisted of bringing the developed knowledge from the earlier five games forward towards a final design concept. The task was going to be performed within the frames of game 6, which later received the name becoming a superhero.
11.1 The framework of Underdogs & Superheroes Before it was possible to start designing the game it was important to understand the structure and purpose of the project, as well as the earlier performed work of the design process. Consequently, before we could bring the project any further we had to explore and get to know the actual context of the project, and its conditions, when we received the task. The exploration of the project consisted of reading and discussing all the information that was available about Underdogs & Superheroes.
64
The following includes a summary of the main issues that we concerned were important to be aware of when working inside the project of Underdogs & Superheroes. The project Underdogs & Superheroes focuses on the early phases of the design process and initiates without any proper thoughts or ideas about a design concept. In this project it is crucial to involve people in the design process to gain a better understanding of them, the city and its different conditions. Underdogs & Superheroes is driven by a game-based methodology, see section 7.3.3, throughout the entire project. The project develops and performs several games with different purposes for involving people in the design process. This means that all happenings for generating information occur inside the framework of the games to stimulate the creativity and imagination of the people who participate in the games of the design process. Each new game takes the outcome of the previous games into consideration, which constantly drives the project forward. The game-based approach to the design process is meant to be utilized through all the games in the project. All previous games have the same kind of style and language to form a homogenous project. The theme of the project is, as the name reveals, about underdogs and superheroes. This theme runs through all the games in the project.
11.2 The outcome from the previous games When we received the task of designing game 6 there were already five games performed within the project. All the games had resulted in different outcomes. To be able to start working within the project we first had to understand the performed games and the outcomes from each of them as well as the he project structure and aim. Each of the five games had generated valuable information. When we entered the project we were able to access this material which was presented in both texts and pictures, see appendix 1. The materials consisted of different qualities, physical properties, needs and specific areas of the city were also identified. These four elements were mainly presented by written words. One visual reference we did have was a map of the city where the different areas were marked. We also received several painted illustrations and different notes. There were also predetermined relationships between some of the elements that had been generated during the games of the design process. These relationships were important
65
for us to take into consideration when getting to know the material. We tried to collect some of the material in textual lists in order to get an overview of it. Here follows the list: The qualities included:
• Fame • Time Escape • Body and Sense Immersion • Revolutionary Catalyst • Folkloric Power • Omnipotent Healing Hand • Psychic Medium
Physical Properties included:
• Bridge • Clear Visibility • Place for Demonstration • Domestic Context
The identified needs included:
• Protecting • Spectacle Identity • Escape and Respite • Attention, Attraction and Self expression
Places with surroundings in the city of Gothenburg included:
• Kungsten • Majorna • Vasastan • Fiskebäck • Påvelund • Kyrkbyn
This information constituted the base for the continuing work process of game 6. We found it important to investigate this material and to understand its meaning in order to take it further in the process and to design game 6. We quickly realized that the first item on our agenda was to achieve a thorough understanding of this material and therefore to find an appropriate way to manage to do so.
66
11.2.1 Understanding of the elements Before it was possible to start designing the game we had to understand the conclusions and materials from the previous five games. We realized that this work was important and necessary for us to be able to make conscious decisions within the design process. It was also essential for us to gain a great understanding of the outcome of the previous games because this would in one way or another become a part of game 6. The question at this point however was how we could achieve this deeper understanding of the material. It was not obvious for us how to approach the material. Initially there were just many questions that needed to be answered. For example, what does “Escape and Respite” mean? What do all the terms involve? How are they related to each other? Much of the work in this phase of the design process consisted of reading, discussing and trying to understand all the information. We also arranged a smaller session or workshop to thoroughly investigate and go over the material. The session involved efforts for understanding the needs, to get closer to their meanings we associated around them. This session was really just a try to get to know the elements better and start thinking around them. This association was performed as follows. We created small pieces of paper in different colours and shapes, one colour and one shape for each need. We started with one need at a time. For each of the needs we made free association which meant that everything that came to our minds was written down on the pieces of paper, see picture 1.
67
During theach othe After eacsmall disexamined When thmaterial had achiethe facts the existalready rassociatetwo of thwere howthe relatio This knofurther inprevious
Picture 1. The outcome of the free association session.
is process we did not talk to each other because we did not want to affect r’s thoughts and risk disturbing each other’s ways of thinking.
h session we shared the things that we had written with each other and had cussions around them. These sessions were performed until we had properly the needs.
e association session was finished we felt that our understanding of the was truly deeper. We felt a closer relationship with the project and now we ved a greater understanding of its elements. It is not possible to describe all and knowledge we gained during this process. It is however relevant to note ing relationships between the elements. For example, the elements were elated to each other before we were able to analyse them. Each place was d with two of the identified needs. Each of these needs was further related to e qualities. Further the physical properties were related to the needs. There ever small unimportant deviations that we will not discuss here, but mainly nships were as described above.
wledge and understanding helped us to open up the design space brought us the process. Due to the fact that game 6 mainly would be based on the games made this work essential to perform.
68
11.3 Identification of our task At this point, when we knew the material relatively well, it was easier to understand our actual task that we had in the project. It was now possible to see which things that was most important to bring further in the design process when designing game 6. We could at this point begin looking forward because now we had all the knowledge that was needed. Our task was however to make use of the different materials, such as qualities, needs, physical properties and places from the earlier games and to bring them together in one way or another. This was to help the team come closer to a whole in the form of one or several design concepts. In this phase of the design process we realized that we were not interested in collecting any new material or information from users. This work was already made in the previous phases of the project where the different games had all more or less focused on generating new data in different ways. Game 6 had on the other hand a special purpose and mission. This game was meant to be the last step before it was time to come up with concepts, thus we realized that it had to be designed both consciously and carefully to achieve the expected objective. We therefore looked upon game 6 as a tool for bringing the different pieces together, to aid in creating strong concepts informed by all the previous conditions of the project. Due to the fact that this game was the last one before the concept generation, this was a critical phase in the design process.
11.4 The problem viewed from a meta-level We tried to look at game 6 on a higher level, which we called meta-level, to achieve a better understanding of the actual problem that we were faced with. We consider that this view of the problem could help us in generating appropriate ideas in this phase of the process. When doing this we also wanted to find and discuss all of the elements that we were going to use and how they were related to each other. Our hope was to clarify the most essential elements of the process and take them into consideration. This was also a way to see the underlying structure of the problem and know more about where we were heading. When we viewed the actual problem from the meta-level we started to think in new ways. We tried to identify what we had and what we wanted to achieve. We realized that we had the different elements and with these we wanted to design a game built
69
around these elements. We became conscious about that the coming work in the process would work as a kind of link between the outcomes of the previous games and the final concept. The next step in the design process was however going to bring the four different elements together and then transform this whole into a concept.
A gap esolution, or a bridgmethod finfluenceor the res When it elements process bdifficult, problem form a w
Picture 2. The gap between the elements and the concept.
xisted, see picture 2, between several identified elements and the final or concepts. We quickly understood that game 6 must be designed as a tool, e, for bridging the identified gap. Game 6 could therefore work as a kind of or solving the existing problem. This bridging of the gap had a strong in the design of game 6 because it was in this phase that the final concepts, ult of the whole project, were going to be shaped.
was time to work at closing this gap, it was important that all the different were taken into consideration. In other words, this was a critical phase in the ecause it was essential that no crucial elements were lost. This was the but also the necessary part, to be solved. Here we also identified another involving how to bring the different elements together so that they could hole.
70
The elements could be seen as parts of an advanced puzzle that would be brought together into one completed piece. The parts had to be transformed to work together. Together we had to find a way to shape them to fit each other.
11.5 Our objectives of the method At this point in the design process we understood the context of the project, all the previous games and our specific task. We could therefore start focusing on the objectives that we wanted to achieve during our work. We wanted to view game 6 as a method for bringing the different elements together into final concepts. In other words game 6 was for us the bridge that we were going to design for bridging the gap. We had therefore found an important objective that we wanted to achieve by designing the sixth game in the project. We were aware of that the work of designing the game would play an important role for the final result of the process. The structure and content of the method were however central parts that we had to design. All different aspects of the designing of the game were essential to take into consideration. It was also important that we really took the different elements into consideration that were generated during the performances of the previous games. Each game was built upon the outcomes of the earlier games, thus we had to design game 6 so that it covered all previous material, or at least we had to find and apply the most important parts of it. The game-based methodology provided a framework for people to come inside and more easily leave their own everyday life. It was essential that game 6 stimulated the participants’ creativity and imagination during the performance. If they got stimulated in this way they would probably generate information more easily that involved quantity as well as quality. Since game 6 played a decisive role it is important to note, no matter who was going to perform the game, the persons had to be motivated so that we could receive good feedback from them. Motivation was therefore a crucial ability of the performance of the game, but this already had to be taken into consideration when designing the game. In this task we also realized that it was important to be consistent and keep the same approach that was used in the previous games of the project. It was also important for us to be consistent in the use of the predetermined style, language and form of the project when designing the method. Therefore we were going to apply the game-
71
based methodology in one way or another. This was a challenge for us because we could not choose to circumvent this methodology.
12. The Creation of Game 6 We came to a stage when it was time to begin designing the game. We realized that this was a complex task because we had to take many factors into consideration to be able to cover all valuable information from the previous games. We looked upon this information as foundation for building game 6.
12.1 The Framework of Game 6 We had already dived deeply into the information from the earlier games so at this stage we were familiar with material from the previous games. Earlier we established that the identified gap had to be bridged. This was our mission and we were going to use game 6 as a method for achieving this objective. Now we needed to figure out how to design the game. Earlier we had set up some objectives that were important when designing game 6. The two most important of these were that the elements were going to be linked together and that we had to perform the work inside the concept walls of the project of Underdogs & Superheroes. The choice of approach had to be performed consciously because it was important to create a tool that would take all the elements into consideration. This work was demanding because we had to sit for many long hours discussing how to solve this complex task of bringing the elements together. During this time many different ideas of how to work with the information was generated. Finally we decided to apply a method or technique that would involve role-playing. We thought that this technique could be an appropriate tool for coming closer to the real life of the elements and therefore bridging the gap. Role-playing could also give us the opportunity to see how the different information interacted together as well as within context. We also looked upon role-playing as a way to get physically closer to the information. We were drawn by the inherent possibility of role-playing which consists of providing a framework to create and experience a make-believe world. In this world we believed it could open possibilities and our eyes in order so as not to miss the different elements and events that happen in the meeting between them. The framework had now been identified and the next step was to create a structure within the framework.
72
12.1.1 The theatrical framework The choice of applying role-playing techniques in game 6 helped us to see further into the process. We now wanted to explore the theatrical framework and the conditions that it provides. We had to form and adjust the information to the actual circumstances. We could see that a role-playing requires roles, something to role-play about and it also requires a setting. The information from previous games therefore had to be adjusted to fit these conditions. We also had to select material to bring forward that we thought were the strongest and most valuable parts of the project. The information that was the outcome from previous games had to be brought together in some way. An important question was how we were going to do this in order to gain a good result. The different groups of information that we had were qualities, physical properties, needs and places. These elements had to be transformed before it was possible to place them inside the framework of game 6. Besides the elements there was another factor that the structure of the game was strongly affected by. It was the technique of role-playing that we had earlier decided to make use of in one way or another in the game. The information had to be adjusted to work together with this technique as well. We considered role-playing to work as a good tool to fulfil our objectives. We also thought that this technique could be a fine way to stimulate a person’s creativity and imagination. The challenge was at this point how the role-playing could bring all the separate information together and result in a meaningful whole. The decision of applying role-playing helped us see new possibilities in the design of the game. We think that the phenomenon of role-playing needs different settings to be able to work. In a sense role-playing is as a theatrical performance. We identified three requirements for the theatrical framework: character, subject and context. These three settings created a good ground for us when structuring and organizing the game. We wanted to map the elements from previous games to these different settings that this specific role-playing asked for. At this point we made an active choice when not taking all the elements with us. We felt that the element of physical properties were not important for the development of the game therefore we chose to leave this element out. The rest of the elements were mapped to the settings. The qualities were mapped to the characters to be acted. We mapped the needs to the subject and purpose of the acting. The places from earlier games were mapped to the contexts where the role-playing would take place. The development of the mapping will be discussed later in this chapter. These are the mappings that we made:
73
• qualities : characters to be acted • needs : subject and purpose of the acting • places : the actual contexts to act in
12.1.2 Designers as active participants Each of the earlier games in Underdogs & Superheroes engaged potential users. Also the technique of role-playing called for participants. When we looked at this situation we had two different alternatives to choose between. We could use outsiders or we could be the participants ourselves. We chose the latter alternative. Instead of involving users in the game we as designers chose to have an active role and perform the game ourselves. The reason for this choice is not that we wanted or thought that we as designers could replace the users. We thought that if we as designers can get closer to the material we might be to understand it in a greater sense. In this case the elements could be more than an abstraction and maybe be discovered and understood in their true nature. It is important to have in mind, as earlier mentioned, that we did not do this with the intention of replacing the user. We never looked upon ourselves as users and neither did we try to do so. Instead we wanted to enrich the design process with a method that we thought can be helpful in the specific phase of the design process that game 6 was. In the process we were at a stage where we wanted to bring the material from the previous games, that users had been a part of, forward and understand it better to be able to develop a design concept. Our main intention was to bridge the gap. An additional reason why we as designers made the choice of performing the game ourselves was that it can be difficult for an external person to understand the game. A game-based method requires a large amount of imagination and fantasy. We knew that people have different abilities to fantasize and therefore it is possible to think that not anyone is suitable for game-playing or role-playing. We also thought that it could be hard to find people that would be willing and interested in acting out these roles we established and were now required by game 6. The person performing the game had truly submerse themselves inside the game which meant that one had to buy the concept of the game and be willing to loose one self inside this formulated world and believe in what they see. If a person would not open their doors to the world of make-believe we were afraid that the purpose of the game would not be achieved.
74
We are motivated as designers and this is an important key to drive the project forward. We saw a risk in letting other people that lacked this motivation play the game. We think that these people may pay less attention, effort and time to a performance that they do not benefit personally from. Another reason why we chose to perform the game ourselves was based on our thoughts about how the communication of the experiences from the game could work. It is hard to collect and capture the abstract feelings and experiences that may be kept inside the users´ mind. We recognized that important information could get lost in the communication between users and designers if we let external users perform the game. If we permitted external people to perform the game it would probably have required extra work and efforts to identify ways that allowed users to communicate their experiences. In fact, we are not sure that it is possible at all to capture all their feelings and experiences during this game. At times, external participants find it hard to share thoughts and feelings with a design team. Even though the users would leave concrete material with the design team, the participants would probably take a lot of inner thoughts and emotions away with them. These experiences would be lost forever to the design team. It would probably be much harder to capture the same range and depth of information from the users than from us if we allowed them to do the performance. Feelings are sometimes stronger than words and it is not definite that all feelings can even be described. If we would perform the game ourselves there is a greater possibility of retrieving emotions and thoughts that are stored implicitly in our memory. Even though we knew that we were going to perform the game ourselves we thought that it was important to keep a distance from this fact during the designing of the game. By keeping this distance we were able to avoid falling prey to early involvement in the game. We designed the game as if it was meant to be performed by anyone. We did not speculate or analyze about the coming performance, instead we focused on designing the game. Our approach during this phase was driven by the notion that anyone could perform the game that we designed. The following sections will therefore be written in that way.
12.2 Giving life to the game Now we had reached the stage in the process when we were going to structure game 6 and in some sense give life to the game. We had already transformed the three elements to work in the theatrical framework that we had chosen. We wanted the elements to be related to each other to form a good platform for generating the right
75
conditions for bridging the gap. This was an important stage in the process because it would affect the whole structure of the game. We knew that we during the performance of the game wanted to get to know the characters that were going to be acted out as much as possible. After deep discussions about different possibilities on how to represent the information and bring the settings together we found a source of inspiration. The short life of a dragonfly inspired us in how we could get to know each character. When looking at this source of inspiration we liked the idea of the limited life of a dragonfly, which came to affect the time aspect of our game. We decided to try to work through each character’s life during this opportunity. The performance of game 6, which would take place during one day, would represent the entire life of the character. The life of a dragonfly was then used as a metaphor for representing the lifetime of a person or in this case an underdog or superhero. With this metaphor one day symbolized an entire lifetime. Throughout the course of human life, we strive to fulfil several different needs. All people have different needs that are more or less necessary. Striving to fulfil our needs happens together with our characteristics and the context we are in. The outcome depends on who we are and our goals in life. When we had worked to this point, we set the dragonfly metaphor aside and worked to further the process with the new ideas. It can be quite difficult to generalize the needs that we try to fulfil during our lifetime because they can differ from one person to another. We therefore chose to apply an existing definition of the human basic needs that a person can have during one’s life. We applied the seven human basic needs that Maslow defines in his hierarchy of needs [17]. The needs are as follow:
• physiological (a person need food, water, respiration and energy) • safety (a person need security, comfort and need to be able to have a freedom
from fear) • attachment (a person need to love and to be loved and acquires also friends) • self-esteem (a person need to feel that he or she is competent and recognized) • cognition (a person need to be curios, make explorations and by this try to
understand the world) • aesthetic (a person need harmony, order and beauty)
76
• self-actualization (a person need to be able to achieve one’s full potential) By using these needs we could visit stages that a person goes through in one’s life. With the metaphor we had transformed one human life into one day and we directed this lifetime using these seven needs. Through this, we made it possible to investigate all the needs of each character inside a single time frame. These needs became a tool for us to get closer to the characters. It was important for us to understand each character’s inner life and their needs and how they interact with the context they are in. With this we could find out what was important for the characters and how they used their powers and the context in striving to fulfil their needs.
12.3 The transformation of the elements It was now time for further developing the mapped elements by transforming them and giving them a deeper meaning. This was an important preparation to make the role-playing work in practice.
12.3.1 Transforming qualities to characters During the previously performed mapping, we decided that the qualities would be the characters to be acted out within the theatrical framework. We chose to transform the qualities to the characters that were going to be role-played. There were eight different characters identified from the qualities that were outcomes from the previous games. We wanted each of these characters to be a living physical symbol for a specific quality. The characters received names that were associated to their specific quality. Each character (quality) had a description concerning their personality from earlier games so that the characters were quite developed and personal when we gave them their names. The following are the names of characters that we developed as a result of the information gained by the earlier games:
• psychic • healer • time escaper • sensitivo • revolutionary • folklorical • lookie • here i am
77
As mentioned earlier, the theme through the whole project was, as the project name reveals, Underdogs & Superheroes. In this game we wanted to remain true to the theme by issuing the eight characters as either an underdog or a superhero. From the beginning, however, we would not know if the character was an underdog or a superhero. We wanted each player to role-play as the character and then as the performance unfolded, it would reveal whether the character was an underdog or a superhero. In practice this meant that role-playing as an underdog, or a superhero, could open up the mind of the player especially because superheroes are able to do things that are not possible for humans to do. For instance time escaper could use the power to fulfil desires by doing something unnatural to escape from time. We hoped that the possibility to be able to do things that normally are impossible for humans would trigger the motivation and creativity of the player. This however opened the door to the fictional world and therefore also to new possibilities.
12.3.2 Transforming needs to missions The mapping of the theatrical settings to the elements from previous games had given us the subject, or the theme, that the game would be about. This stage was however about transforming the needs to missions. The needs were identified in previous games. These elements were transformed to be the subject and purpose of the acting. We therefore let these four kinds of needs be seen as different missions during the acting-out. The four missions were:
• protection • escape and respite • spectacle and identity • attention, attraction and self expression
Each character was then associated with one specific mission. This mission would strongly affect the character during their actions throughout the performance. Each mission was connected to two of the eight characters, which in practice meant that there were two characters with the same mission. Therefore the character was influenced both by its personality and the mission during the performance of the game. The mission was going to be accomplished individually by each character during the performance.
78
12.3.3 Transforming many places to few During the earlier mapping we decided that the places from the earlier games in the project would be the context where the theatrical performance would later take place. In the previous games eight places had been defined in the city of Gothenburg. These places were already connected to the needs. We felt that there were some places that were more valuable than others. We chose to work with the four places that were most significant for the project. The choice did not depend on the specific place but instead it was based on the needs that were linked together with the place. This was however a kind of transformation from eight places to four. The places and their surroundings were the following:
• Kungsten • Majorna • Fiskebäck • Vasastan
These areas are spread out in the city of Gothenburg and have no natural connection to each other. Because of the fact that we had transformed the needs into missions, we now let the areas be connected to the missions instead. Therefore we indirectly connected the characters to the areas as well. Kungsten was connected to the mission of protection. The second place, Majorna, was linked to the mission of attention, attraction and self-expression. The mission of escape and respite was located in the area of Fiskebäck. The last area was Vasastan in which the mission of spectacle and identity were located. In these four areas of the city the game was going to be performed.
12.3.4 Bringing the elements together We thought that applying role-playing in game 6 could bring all of the three elements together in an appropriate way. Role-playing was our metaphorical roof that was held up by the elements as pillars. Each of the eight characters would be acted out by a player in one circumstance of game 6. The performance would take place in the region that was connected to that character. During the performance of the game the character would be asked to satisfy all the seven basic needs, one at a time. We thought that this was a way for the player to gradually get to know and come closer to his or her character. We as designers would perform the game as the characters in the associated public space. During the role-playing the player will have to take both the personality of the character and the specific mission into consideration. In other
79
words, the player would be asked to see the world through the eyes of the specific character. By moving around in the context and improvising, the player would give life to the character. The player is would be required to act out this character until all the needs will be satisfied.
12.4 Creating props for game 6 Since we had a great deal of information, we came to that stage where we made limitations and selections among the previous information. Now we had four places, eight characters and four missions. These elements were now the playground for game 6. Missing parts of the game where now the props and the rules as well as the final structure of the performance. In this chapter we will tell about how the other pieces were created. In other words, how a day of performing game 6 would look like. Finally we describe how the documentation would be performed.
12.4.1 The accessories We wanted to create something, an object perhaps, which could support the player during the performance of the game. This “object” could hopefully stimulate the player’s fantasy and imagination, which was an important objective for us. We first thought of creating a kind of prop that the player could wear on his or her wrist during the performance of the game. This wearable prop could constantly remind the player of the character to act. Later we had another idea of allowing the player carry a kind of investigation kit during the game. This kit would, as a wearable prop, remind the player of who he or she was acting as. By giving the players this kit we also hoped that their motivation was triggered so that they would get a feeling of having a mission to accomplish and that they then would look upon the game more seriously. When we decided to use a kind of investigation kit in the performance of the game we started to speculate what functions this kit should have. We found two main functions. First, the prop would work as a tool for stimulating the player’s imagination and fantasy, so that the role-playing would be easier to perform. The player would be reminded of which character he or she was acting as, as well as the specific mission to perform. This can be seen as a function for psychological support during the role-playing. Another function of the kit, which is of more physical nature, is the fact that it could work as a container for supplementary things. These things could support the performance as well as the documentation.
80
We wanted the player to collect as much material in any form as possible during the performance of the game. We also wanted the player to feel free to express oneself in a way that felt suitable for him or her, which is a strong motivation for giving the player several alternative ways to document with. We thought that the investigation kit could be a good way for encouraging and stimulating this collection. The following includes a detailed description of the final design of the investigation kit and its different accessories.
12.4.1.1 The investigation kit There are eights different investigation kits, see picture 3, designed. We wanted to use a consistent layout throughout the whole project and in game 6 we therefore tried to colour the accessories in the same way and use the same superhero language in all texts.
Each kit outside otext is anfunction necessary
Picture 3. Investigation kit.
consisted of a large envelope with several important accessories inside. The f the envelope is white and has an orange paper with a text on the front. This introduction text about the specific character and mission. The text has the of supporting the player during the game by providing him or her with the information about the character and the task. Each of the envelops has a
81
unique introduction text. Here follows one example of how the introduction text looks like for the character called Healer:
Participation: Today you are HEALER! Walk around your assigned area in search of lives to save, secret hide-out & battles between the forces of good and evil. As HEALER you are able to identify hidden properties, restore & rejuvenate life, extend your hand for protection purposes & overlay new on top of the old! Be sure & use this diary to document your experiences throughout the day… Feel free to take pictures with your hyper powered ray camera or collect items in your super safe and sealed specimen container. The evaluation of these & the diary itself will generate a thorough cross-indexed system of future potentialities for underdogs & superheroes everywhere, parsed with an unfailingly objective scale of personal and patented criteria. Remember you are contributing to the good of society & a brighter future for our children!
The kit consists of a diary, a digital camera, tags, an evaluation paper and a pencil. The purposes of these accessories are different, but they will all in some way support the player during his or her performance and documentation of game 6. The envelope also has some extra space left if the player wants to collect some objects from the environment during the game. This envelope is also a convenient solution to help the player to carry and have control of all the accessories of the game.
12.4.1.2 The superhero diary The most important accessory of the investigation kit is the diary called the superhero diary, see picture 4.
82
This is a enough sexpressindiary the The supeperforminand the ta The first player is tool for mthe perfo The secoof the entheir misperformaplayers in
Picture 4. A superhero diary.
small book that is unique for each character. The size of the book is small o it is easy to carry it around but large enough so that there is space for g oneself. The cover of the diary is orange coloured. On the front side of the name of the character and their mission is written.
rhero diary provides the player with the information that is necessary for g the game. It introduces the player to the places, the character, the mission sk of satisfying all the predefined basic needs.
page in the book consists of a map of the actual area in the city that the going to perform. This map was support for knowing where to go but also a arking specific places that may mean something special to the player during
rmance.
nd page contains an introduction text which can also be found on the outside velope. This text is, as mentioned earlier, a description of the character and sion. The text also asks the player to be creative and spontaneous during the nce by stimulating the imagination. This text is an attempt to place the the right mood.
83
The following pages after the introduction text present the basic needs, one at a time. Each need is allotted two pages in the diary, one page for answering the four questions concerning the satisfaction of the specific need by writing and the other page is meant to be a free space for expressing the answers and feelings by painting or drawing. The four questions are when, where, how and why the need can be satisfied. By asking these questions we will be able to capture the experiences of the player during the satisfaction of the basic needs. Beside each need lies text describing the need a bit further which can work as support for the player when answering the questions. The last page in the book gives the player an opportunity to express his or her overall impressions by writing or drawing.
12.4.1.3 The tags The investigation kit also contains ten tags, see picture 5, that the user can apply to label the objects that he or she collects during the performance of the game.
The tags sides of t
Picture 5. The tags.
are small quadratic pieces of paper with a tie. It is possible to write on both hese tags in order to describe or label the collected object.
84
We think that these tags could inspire the player to collect physical materials that he or she finds in the context during the role-playing.
12.4.1.4 The camera The investigation kit also includes a digital camera. This camera is meant to work as a documentation tool during the performance of the game. The player is free to take as many photos as he or she wants to. It is up to the player to use the camera when it feels right, because the superhero diary does not specify when to take pictures.
12.4.1.5 The evaluation paper The evaluation paper, see appendix 2, consists of an A4 size document with two text squares on the bottom of the front page. The text is meant to engage the player to act as a mad scientist. The scientist will be asked to investigate the life of the character to see if he or she is an underdog or superhero. This investigation is meant to be written down on this evaluation paper. The text is written in the “superhero language”. This was done because we wanted to stay consequent during the whole project. The smaller square has the following text:
MISSION Our aim is to eliminate outdated standards & forge a new era of progress towards a forward looking brand of product.
The larger square contains this text:
DEAR MAD SCIENTIST, As an expert in both Underdogs & Superheroes memorabilia, history & current super counters, we ask that you analyze this diary as well as images from the hyper powered ray cam & items in the super safe specimen container. Our goal is to understand more about Underdogs & Superheroes in the area & in this case we would like to know after your serious investigation and analysis of these materials, whether or not you believe this being to be an Underdog or a Superhero. We would also like to gain knowledge about how these super powers could be realized in our city with mere human abilities. Can we achieve this? How could we do so?
The evaluation papers are, as the other accessories of the game, a way to collect information to come closer to the final design concepts. This paper is however also a tool and the first attempt at analyzing the new material from game 6.
85
12.4.1.6 The initial envelopes Another kind of accessory of the game is the four small initial envelops, see picture 6,, that will be used in the initial phases of the game.
We do notime. Theof two caenvelope
12.4.2The docuable to cobe able alternativthe docum Having mfreedom expressindescribinmotivatio
Picture 6. Initial envelope with two character cards.
t want the player to choose or know which character to role-play before it is refore we will use this small envelope, one for each mission, which consists rds with the names of two characters that have the same mission. From these s each player will be asked to draw the character they will perform.
Documentation mentation is an important part of the performance of the game. We must be llect as much of the experiences and feelings of the player as possible. To
to do this we believe that it is good to give the player many different es to describe his or her experiences with during the performance. We want entation tools to act as a support for instead of a hindrance to the player.
ultiple tools for capturing a specific experience allows the player to feel to express his or her self. It is essential that the player feel comfortable when g his or her inner feelings and thoughts. Combining two different tools to g a feeling or an experience can also prove beneficial. These are strong ns for providing the player with several different documentation tools.
86
The documentation part of the game is going to be done with the help of four different tools. The fact that there were several ways to document was, as earlier mentioned, a conscious choice. Three of the documentation tools for the player are the diary, digital camera and tags. The players will also investigate each other and this will be documented on the evaluation paper, which is the fourth tool, also a part of the investigation kit. The superhero diary that the player is going to bring with him or her during the performance has, besides providing the player with the task, the purpose of being a tool for documentation. The documentation in the book can be both written texts and painted pictures and illustration. The second tool for documenting the game is collecting objects in the environment during the performance. The objects can be whatever the player wants to describe his or her feeling with. The player will be asked to label each collected item with a small etiquette, or tag, which is possible to write upon. The players are supposed to write a description on the tags of what the object is and what it means to them. The digital camera is the third tool for documenting the performance of the game. We want the player to take photos of their surroundings illustrating his or her experiences and feelings. The evaluation paper can also be seen as a form of documentation in the game. This means that each player will finish his or her performance by acting as a “mad scientist” discovering whether the other player has acted as a superhero or an underdog. We want to use the player’s ability to evaluate another player’s character. The thoughts and ideas of this evaluation will be documented on the evaluation paper. When summarizing this we can see that the documentation will consist of texts, pictures, collected objects and photographs that all will describe the players’ experiences and feelings during the performance of the game.
12.5 Designing a day of a performance The main purpose during the performance is to capture and investigate the life and character of the superheroes and underdogs. Based on the earlier games we have developed the characters and missions. With the help and support from the investigation kit, see picture 3, the life of the character will be documented. Before the game can start we had to design a specific structure of the game to make it work
87
in practice. This will work as a kind of scenario. This final structure will guide and control the happenings during the performances of game 6.
12.5.1 Before the performance Before the actual performance could take place there was preparation that needed to be done. The game would be performed during four days. The game would be spread out over this time because we consider it difficult to perform the game any faster than that. Each performance will require a large amount of energy in form of engagement, imagination, improvisation and fantasy. If we used less days we considered that would be a risk of creating a stress and that it would be hard to become one with the character. Probably the player would also be confused if he or she is going to play more than one character a day. We placed a lot of emphasis on creating a game that put the player in the right mood. We believe that the results of the game would be based on how well the player succeeded in becoming one with the character. Each of the four places in the city has a mission, see the excerpt in section 12.4.1.1, connected to them. Each mission has further two different characters connected to them. Therefore there would be two players performing the game everyday day. Each day a specific mission would be performed by two different characters. Every new day the player will perform a new character. The area or region of the city that the performance will take place in will be randomly chosen. Before game 6 begins we list the randomly chosen order of when the missions would be performed. Then we would know in advance which day we would go to a specific area. The players will not know in advance which character they are to perform. This will be revealed just before the performance take place. Then the players will receive information about the actual character they are playing as well as their mission. The players will pick a card from an envelope, see picture 6, that reveals which of the two characters, which have the same mission and place, to role-play. Due to this the players can not prepare so much before the game starts. This choice of not letting the player know in advance which character to play was not an obvious choice. We saw both advantages and disadvantages with both alternatives. We decided however to give the player the character on the actual day of the performance because we thought that maybe we could keep some additional spontaneity and intuition abilities of the players. We cannot know what would have occurred if the players would have been able to prepare for the character they were to perform in advance.
88
12.5.2 During the performance On the day when the performance will take place the two players will be asked to draw a card with the name of the character to role-play. Each of the four missions is, as previously mentioned, connected to a specific place in the city where the performances will take place. In each place two characters will be role-played. We want each character to be randomly chosen between the two players before each performance takes place. Then the player will receive the investigation kit, see picture 3, that belongs to the specific character that he or she draws from the envelope. After that the players will have the rest of the time by themselves. The first thing that the player will encounter is the introduction text, from the outside of the envelope of the kit. This text will introduce the character and its mission. The player is supposed to become one with the character. They should act, think and feel as the character they will role-play. The players will also be asked to feel the needs of the character and hopefully they will see the world through the eyes of the character. How will the needs be expressed when acting as the character? During this performance the player will be asked to leave his or her own life and focus on the character and the actual circumstances to play. The player will find great support from the introduction text outside the envelope, as well as inside the diary. With this text they will hopefully be in the right mind state to perform each character and understand how to fulfil the mission. Whenever the player feels ready, the game will start and he or she can begin to act out. The player will perform the game in the actual context that the specific place offers. The diary will work as a help to guide the players, step by step, through the life of the character. The objective is to walk around in the area presented in the map in the diary fulfilling the outlined needs. Each need is presented in the diary. During the performance the players will be asked to document and express their experiences and feelings in the diaries. To stimulate the creativity of the player we will ask them to write, draw, take pictures and to collect objects when performing the game. We will also give them the opportunity to choose the tool that is most suitable for them in that specific moment to express the experience. This can probably differ from time to time depending on the personality as well as the type of feeling experienced.
89
The performance will continue as long as the players feel that there is more to accomplish with fulfilling the needs and the diary. When all the needs are fulfilled this part of the game will finally be over. A performance will take approximately three hours.
12.5.3 After the performance At the end of each day the two players evaluated each other’s investigation kit to find out if the other character seemed to be an underdog or a superhero. The players will switch investigation kits and they will then be able to investigate each other’s diaries, collected objects, and photos. The player will turn from being a superhero or an underdog to playing the role of a mad scientist. This will however still be a role-playing process because the player acts as someone. To help the scientist to document his or her thoughts an evaluation paper has been developed where the scientist can write down thoughts or evaluations he or she finds interesting. At the end of each evaluation the scientists are asked to write down if they consider the character to be an underdog or a superhero. This is a way of summarizing and bringing the most interesting issues forward. Here valuable experiences and thoughts can be identified. How has the character used his or her superpower and how have they managed to fulfil their missions? How have they used the context to satisfy their needs? These are some questions that could be answered through use of the evaluation papers. This will be a way for us to evaluate each other’s experiences and a try to locate the strongest emotions and the most interesting thoughts. Another reason to why we include an evaluation at the end of each day is that it is interesting to see whether the other participant is playing the role of an underdog or a superhero. This will also help us push the project further.
13. Performing the experiment After the structuring of the game we went out and performed it. Here follows a presentation of our impressions and the result from the experiment.
13.1 Impressions from the performance When performing the game many thoughts arose concerning the structure, the role-playing as well as the use of props. Thoughts about how it felt to perform a game of this kind also came to our minds. The following includes a review of our impressions during the three different phases of the game.
90
13.1.1 Before the performance It required great efforts in the previous work of the game concerning the investigation kit as well as all other preparation. We put a lot of effort in creating the right atmosphere and conditions to help the player enter the game seamlessly. The preparations were an important part of the work because what developed during these preparations would affect the final result. We thought that if the investigation kits were not designed seriously and carefully it would later affect us negatively when performing the game. By being rigorous throughout all the preparations of the game we were able to view the game itself more seriously. Consequently, this carried out into the actual performance of the game. During the first day of the game it took a while before we could enter the right mood, see picture 7, because it required a lot of effort to really understand how to relate and bring all the elements such as character, needs, mission and the questions together.
By just rstate of thone just hlonger timimportan
Picture 7. The player reading the diary.
eading the text on the envelope and the diary we wanted to enter the mind e character. This work took longer than we first expected. We thought that ad to read the text once or twice and then start to improvise, but it took a e frame than that. We realized however that this inner process was very
t for the actual performance and that it had to take some time.
91
13.1.2 During the performance When performing the game it required not only a lot of thinking but also a lot of bodywork. The player had to seek outside his or her mind, leaving everything behind and step out in the world with new eyes. Eventually, as we started to perform the game we entered more and more into the world of make believe. We found our self being deeply involved in the psychology of our characters and had no thoughts of our personal lives. Our eyes saw new things, our motions were different and our thoughts were suddenly new, see picture 8 (eight pictures from the performance will be presented in the following pages with an excerpt from the superhero diary).
We becaworld. Dsome tim We realizfantasy weverythinyou have All the eplaces, m
Picture 8. “Windows that reflect things remind me of another world and also that the future will come.”
me the Underdogs & Superheroes. We had drifted far away from the real uring the performances this was a very positive thing but afterward it took e to let go of all, often very strong, feelings that we had experienced.
ed that our inner abilities such as improvisation, imagination, creativity and ere needed and necessary during the role-playing. You have to leave
g you have for the moment. The four abilities mentioned must be used and to be playful. There is no space for being afraid or shy.
lements had an important role in the game and in our performances. The issions and characters were however essential for us when playing the game.
92
The characters were the ground and the missions were their tool and desire in how to interact with the context. It would have been hard not having these variables to ground the performances. These elements provided in one sense the structure of the game. The outcome would depend on the combination of the place, mission and character.
Picture 9. “When making sound in the environment helps me to remember how it has been here before.”
We walked around in the defined area and used our senses to explore and understand our character, the objects and the actual place we were in, see picture 9. During the performances we did not speak to each other at all and even if we were in the same area we did not pay any attention to each other.
93
Picture
During the performdeveloped were aldrew pictures in tinfluenced us, see
10. A collected object with a tag.
ance the questions in the book were answered and the feelings that so documented by the different documentation tools. We wrote and he diaries, see appendix 4. We also collected objects that strongly picture 10.
94
Picture 11. “When creating a border in the sand I want to escape from everyday life and not be disturbed by the time. Let the rhythm of the nature (waves and wind) be the pulse in my life.”
We took many pictures to show what we thought could describe a specific feeling or experience, see picture 11 and 12.
95
The gampictures, connectedquite wel
Picture 12. “I leave my stories everywhere I go so that I will be remembered and noticed forever.”
e resulted in many interesting experiences and ideas expressed by stories, photos and objects. These four ways of expressing the feelings were often to each other and therefore they could together describe an experience
l, see picture 13.
96
After peaffected picture 14
Picture 13. “By looking through things (a fence) allow me to know more about the world.”
rforming the game we realized that the different contexts had strongly the feelings and experiences that we had throughout the role-playing, see .
97
One of thdiary thamuch mocamera hfeelings ftool in th
Picture 14. “How does the ground feel under my feet?
It feels bad to walk on the pavement because it is hard,
but it is nice to walk on the grass because it feels so soft.”
e most valuable materials that we received included the written stories in the t at the same time were connected to photographs. Together these illustrated re than each of them separately. The photos that were taken with the digital ad a strong impact on us. The photographs helped us to recall memories and rom situations, see picture 15. Therefore they turned out to be a powerful e forthcoming job when identifying the concepts.
98
The tags fun to usthem.
13.1.3 At the einvestigaother chaalso an ohad durin In the eevaluatiowe had swith the c
13.1.4 It was haknow howbe like. W
Picture 15. “I like things that reflect me, as mirrors and windows.”
were an inspiration when collecting the objects, see picture 10. They were e and the objects were given a deeper meaning when we could put tags on
After the performance nd of each performance there was an evaluation. The players switched tion kits with each other and then they evaluated each other to find out if the racter was an underdog or a superhero, see appendix 3. This evaluation was pportunity to find qualities and interesting thoughts that the characters have g the performance.
ight evaluation papers, there were a lot of interesting ideas. When the ns were performed we talked about our experiences. After the performances trong emotions inside. With the help of our imagination we had become one haracters and we saw the world with new eyes.
Summarizing the impressions rd to know in advance how it would feel to act as the characters. We did not
deeply involved we would be and what the world of the character would hat would happen if we did not reach into the life of the character? It is
99
impossible to know in advance how the performance of the game will be like. The only thing one can do is to prepare and create the best conditions that are possible. The inner experiences were very strong so it was important to ventilate the experiences by talking about and sharing them with each other. Through the eyes of a character, objects and surroundings got another life and new meanings and functions, see picture 16. It was as if everything started to live, like a new universe that we entered. In this universe everything was different depending on the eyes and the missions of the character. With the help of our imagination we became a part of this new universe. Objects were discovered to be tools in the characters’ search for fulfilling their needs and missions. Afterwards it could feel strange because one could have had feelings that were very far from one’s own life.
Picture 16. “I make sounds to get people come together and pay attention.”
100
The first thoughts of how the character was, felt and behaved could change very fast and we had feelings and thoughts that we never thought that the character would have. After completing the performance, a strange feeling of emptiness could arise inside us. It was strange to realize that you had walked around with thoughts you usually never have. Maybe the only way to truly understand something is to become one with it. To live the life of it and by this share emotions and thoughts in the interaction with the context and objects is one way to be a part of something that usually is hidden. In our everyday life we do not often reflect upon the meaning an object can have for another person.
13.2 Working with the material When game 6 was performed it was time to work with the collected material, the documentation, from the performances. The received material had many different forms, which made it harder to put together. We realized however that this work was much easier to do, than if outsiders would have performed the game, because we were so familiar with the material. In other words, we had an access to the material that we would never have had if someone else had performed the game. The positive thing was therefore that we already knew that there were many potential parts of the material that could lead to final design concepts. This was a strong motivation when initiating this phase in the design process. We looked upon this work as a process which would be worked through in several stages. We realized that it could make sense to get to know the superhero diaries first, because they contained a lot of information. Therefore we investigated this material by reading it and highlighting the most interesting parts with the help of post-it notes, see picture 17.
101
Then we and feelicollected Later on black-boawhich armaterial evaluatedwith titleprocess, s Then we was on tabout thethe perfoto the phoothers. We couldthem our
Picture 17. Superhero diary with post-it notes.
studied the evaluation papers in the same way. We found a lot of qualities ngs in both the diaries and the evaluation papers. Of course, even the objects gave us inspiration during this phase of the design process.
we brought these interesting parts together by categorizing them onto a rd. This gave us a good overview of the material. It was also possible to see
eas that was most common. This work allowed us to become closer to the and we now knew what was inside the diaries and how each character was in the evaluation paper. We documented the categories on a paper in a list s and subtitles in order to make use of it in the coming phases of the design ee appendix 5.
shared the documented material with the rest of the design team. Now focus he photos and their related texts from the diaries. When we started to talk pictures we recalled the experiences and feelings that we have had during rmances of the game. Because of the fact that we had experiences connected tos we became very involved when talking about and showing the photos to
share our stories and tell them from our hearts because we had experienced selves. Every photo that we watched immediately recalled the feeling of
102
being the character in that specific situation. Each photo therefore represented a whole story. This happened because we as designers had performed the game ourselves. In this moment we realized how valuable these pictures actually were. The experiences and feelings keep on living inside us and we can always go back to them again. When studying the photos and listening to their associated stories we knew that the photos were a good ground for several different design concepts. Consequently, it was already possible to imagine and discern some potential design concepts. It was a natural choice for us to choose to bring these materials further.
In order tBy doingpicture 18
Picture 18. An overview of the wall.
o overview the most interesting material we used a wall where we put it up. this we could constantly see and take inspiration from the material, see and 19.
103
The nextfurther insmaller te
Picture 19. A close up on the diaries.
step was to choose some photos and their small or great stories to bring the process. This resulted in seventeen pairs consisting of a picture and a xt, see picture 20.
Picture 20. Pictures together with texts and objects.
104
Our inner stories were still valuable and we could whenever we wanted recall them again. We later explored these photos and picked six that were the strongest. These worked as the ground for the coming design concepts.
13.3 The concepts After the previous work we tried together with the project leader Margot Jacobs to concretize the concepts into more specified ideas. The three of us developed these ideas by making storyboards concerning each of them, see appendix 6. This was a good technique for illustrating the different design concepts that we had. Each storyboard, which uses the Underdogs & Superheroes theme, consists of a sheet with photographs and texts that illustrate a scenario concerning the design concept. The concepts are relatively open and therefore the storyboards suggest a possible area of use. Game 6 has now led us from the separate groups of elements to several different design concepts. It is in this phase of the design process that we are when we are writing this thesis.
105
IV Analysis of the experiment In this chapter we interpret and value our result and relate it to the theory described in the background chapter. We also describe our thoughts and reflections concerning the research question in relation to the background as well as to the result. [3]
14. Questioning the experiment The main objective of this thesis is to answer the research question involving the problem of bridging the gap between several different previous identified elements and a final design concept. Some of the questions that we try to answer are the following. Can we with our result answer the research question of this thesis? What would have happened if we had constructed the bridge in another way? Did game 6 manage to support the interaction within the research field? We will start with a reflection over game 6 and how it worked as a bridge.
14.1 Game 6 as a bridge? The road for finding an answer to the research question has been long. As a tool for coming closer to an answer we created game 6. This game takes transformed elements from earlier games, see section 10, into consideration. We look upon game 6 as the tool, the bridge, with which we could overpass the identified gap, see section 11.4. So, did game 6 manage to work as a bridge between elements and concepts? The answer must be yes. As known, the game resulted in several concepts, see section 13.3. This is still not enough. The research question is not just about creating a bridge, it is also about creating one that is capable to lead us to something valuable and that supports the purposes of finding one or several strong design concepts. Did game 6 transform the elements into strong arguments for the design concepts? The game could have been designed in thousands of different ways. We must analyze and view the experiment of the design problem from different levels. The questions that need to be asked are; which are and what do the specific characteristics of game 6 offer us as designers?
106
14.2 Localisation of the design problem To be able to solve design problems it is necessary to understand where in the design process that the problem occurs. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], see section 5, it is necessary to achieve an insight concerning the design process and its conditions. In our case we had to identify the different phases of the design process in the project Underdogs & Superheroes. We applied Jones’ [26], see section 5.1.2, model of the design process in order to understand the problem. By doing this the actual task in this phase of the design process appeared. We identified this task as a gap that needed to be bridged. Here follows a description of the design process and its phases. When we entered the design process the divergence phase [26], see section 5.1.2.1, was already performed. This phase characterises of working broadly which means studying several ideas, possibilities and alternatives. We consider some of the previous games to happen inside the divergence phase because they had the function of open up the design space. The rest of the previous games had more been of structured and organised type and therefore they seem to have taken place within the next phase, the one of transformation [26], see section 5.1.2.2. According to Jones [26] the objective of this stage is to find a pattern that is sufficient as grounds for starting a convergence [26], see section 5.1.2.3, towards a single design. For that reason we consider us to have entered the design process at the end of the transformation stage, some steps before it was possible to begin a convergence. The convergence phase is about reducing the resulting uncertainties gradually until just one of many ideas of the design is left as the final design. By viewing the design process through Jones’ model we can locate our design problem. We can also draw the conclusion that the method of game 6 covers both the closing part of the transformation and almost the entire convergence phase.
14.3 The entrance into the design process When entering the design process we had to make some important decisions that we knew were critical for the entire project. Here follows a discussion concerning two of them. As mentioned earlier we entered the project when parts of the design process already were performed. The vision, see section 5.1.1.1, that had arisen during the work from the initial phases to the stage when we entered was never transferred to us. This was
107
an active choice and we never allowed ourselves to speculate about the design concept. Because of the fact that we did not have a vision helped us to work with the material with no restrictions. We saw the material in a broader way that would not be possible if we already would have a vision. This made us regard this phase in the design process as a separate problem. It can be both good and bad to not being part of the design project from the initial phase. The less good aspect is that we did not have the possibility to deduce the material to its origin. The positive aspect is that we entered the project with no expectations and preconceived notions and therefore we were able to look upon the material more objectively. We could then view the actual design problem clearer when deciding how to approach it. It was beneficial in our case that we did not have any connection to the material that we received. We focused on the outcomes of the previous games and not so much on the performances of them. As a consequence to the fact that we not joined the project from the beginning was that we had to thoroughly explore the actual circumstances. An essential question to ask is why we did not involve prospective users in the creation and performing of game 6, further see section 11.3. According to us it is important to engage users when the objective is to understand their situation and all its conditions, as in participatory design, see section 3.5. In the phase when we entered the design process the purpose was different. The work of collecting information generated from future users by engaging them was already performed. We were going to take the users’ situations into consideration by using the elements generated from previous games. These elements consisted of information concerning the users’ situation. The separate elements were together going to form the design concept and were central in the development of game 6. This specific phase of the design process requires a careful and conscious work. It is important to know the objective to be able to reach it. Therefore we consider it good that the designers themselves perform this work, even though it is within a game-based methodology.
14.4 Analysis of the game-based methodology As earlier mentioned game-based methodology was a framework of the project which implies that all the games would apply this approach. Due to this it is important to discover and take care of the qualities of this methodology. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], see section 6.1, it is important that the designer is flexible and creative when approaching new design situations. One problem concerning the creative ability of adults is, de Bono [12] means in section
108
6.1.3, that they feel finite and more burdened compared with a child’s thoughts, which implies that adults should take inspiration from children. When entering a game framework it is more allowed to be playful. This implies that the designer in general would enjoy the moment more than if he or she instead would use more traditional ways to approach a design problem. According to Ehn in [34] the methods in the design process should be less boring and more playful for both designers and users within participatory design. Ehn means that game and role-playing are suitable tools for this purpose. We consider that this opinion make sense because the work should be better if a person enjoyed to perform it. We therefore wanted to use game-based methodology as a tool for supporting the players to adopt a child’s creative thinking. When applying a game-based methodology the participants are invited into a framework where it is allowed to leave the everyday life and instead enter the world of make believe. According to Caillois [10], see section 7.3.3.1, this world is a kind of second reality. From this point of view one can question the difference between the second reality and our everyday reality and how to make use of the findings from the second reality in our reality. If there are other conditions in the second reality it is possible to assume that needs are different there from ours. If it would be like this we would be in a dilemma. We wanted the participants to enter the second reality and then take their findings from that experience back to our world. During the performance of game 6 we did not want the participants to escape completely from the reality and enter a totally new world. We still wanted to keep the existing environment and all its conditions such as events, people and objects. These issues were essential for the bridging of the gap to be able to take the actual interaction and the prospective users’ situation into consideration. Therefore we primarily consider the game-based methodology in game 6 as a way to help the participants to leave their everyday life – not the concrete reality. In other words, leaving the personal view of the reality as well as the everyday life was the essential objective. We combined the game-based methodology with role-playing to achieve the right conditions. When doing this the player was able to leave the everyday life and at the same time view the world with the eyes of another character. The fact that the different places in the city constituted the stage for the performances made it possible to keep the concrete reality.
109
14.5 Analysis of the working context Interaction design is, as earlier mentioned, about the interaction between people and information technology and therefore we consider it important to support the actual interaction as much as possible. In game 6 it was important to take care and not loose any of the important previous generated elements that involved the city, its people and objects. This work was going to result in the final design concept. Consequently it was important to work close to the city and its conditions. We could have worked with the material in a laboratory environment. If we would have done that the elements would have been placed in an unnatural context and much of the work had probably been harder and more uncertain. We could also simply have collected all data on a table and there tried to bring the elements together directly. This could have involved that we discussed about the material and tried to come up with a design solution. We could also have brainstormed around the elements. Probably we would have reached a design concept sooner or later. When deciding how to work and approaching a design problem it is important to reflect upon the chosen strategy. When we chose our strategy we had to ask ourselves if it would be possible to take all the elements into consideration. The elements and the relations between them are complex. Consequently it is difficult to bring all aspects together, without loosing any essential facts. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], see section 6, the understanding of reality as well as the means for achieving it is important when it comes to design. We consider the best place in which to bring the elements together is in the context where they usually exist, which is the reality. We got inspiration from the ethnography studies, see section 7.3.1, and how they achieve an understanding of the actual context. It is in this context where the final design concept will be placed and exist. We therefore decided to bring back the different elements to their real context. If we brought them back at the same time they could start to interact and relate to each other in a natural way. It is like putting different things together in a mess and then letting role-play form and structure this into a functioning whole. We did not want to affect the elements more than necessary when forming them into a whole. If we did that, we could risk loosing some of the essential materials. We realized that the context that one is performing in plays a decisive role. When improvising you search for support in the environment and therefore many ideas that we came up with were in some way associated to the specific context. From this we
110
became conscious that it was valuable to take the elements back to their context because it is here that the design concept is finally going to be.
14.6 Analysis of the dramaturgical framework The world of drama is complex and it takes many years of training and studying to be able to handle drama and all its possibilities. For a designer it is not important to have the ability of a great director or actor. Depending on the reasons for using drama one does not have to use every aspect of it. We regard theatre as the common acts of people’s everyday life, see section 8.1. In game 6 the interesting issues are the interaction and the related acts and how they appear and work together with the context. The characters of game 6 have actions, a way to move and a way to regard the world. How these acts turn out depends on how the context is and also which objects the characters interact with. When we applied drama we adjust the dramaturgical issues to the actual conditions within the project. We consider the field of drama having many interesting benefits in its characteristics, which can work as a support for interaction design. When thinking about drama one associates it to a stage, different roles and often also different predetermined acts and events. In game 6 the inspiration is taken from the roles, but neither creating an unreal stage nor having predetermined course of events were not of current for us. The game is created so that different characters improvise in the existing context. In some sense we provoke situations to generate new ideas and solutions so that the interaction between the elements would work. Improvisation is a very powerful tool in the game. When improvising we used both the environment and the imagined character that we acted as support. Taking both the actual environment and the specific character into consideration was exactly what we wanted, therefore improvisation technique was appropriate.
14.6.1 The characteristics of role-playing Game 6 provided us, as earlier mentioned, with a game-based framework. We chose to enrich this framework with role-playing. To be able to take another role one must use his or her imagination and fantasy, see section 6.1.4. Inside this role one can view the world with new eyes and consequently the door to the creative ability opens and then it is possible to find new ideas. It is important to become one with the character in order to fully benefit from the acting, see section 8.2.1.
111
Somehow it is the people that make the places around us alive. They interact with the environment, objects and with each other. Therefore we found it natural to let people in some way be the tool for bringing the elements together in the context. People could participate in the game in many different ways. We chose to take inspiration from the dramaturgical techniques, see section 8, when involving people in the game. This seems to be a suitable tool for understanding the interaction between different subjects. Within the drama sphere people take roles and therefore leave themselves to become other characters for a while, see section 8.2.1. The useful thing from this is that people become other characters and see the world with other eyes. When looking at things with new eyes open up the possibilities, one can see and think new things. In the world of fantasy objects and context can be given new meanings. According to Stanislavskij [46], see section 6.1.4, drama provides us with the possibility to experience things in the context that normally is not there. This is an important aspect and objective in game 6. In our everyday life we have a relation to things around us. If we would be in this world but as another character we would maybe be affected by our relationship with the objects. People can with help of their imagination and fantasy create new imaginary worlds in their minds, see sections 6.1.4 and 8.2.1. If we would not have our imagination or fantasy it would have been hard to perform the game. In the imaginary world people can find new interesting ideas and possibilities. They can also solve problems in new ways. When returning from a fictional world, people can bring their ideas and experiences into the reality. Role-playing therefore can be the key to new ideas. Consequently it is important that the person who is going to role-play is able to imagine and fantasize. In game 6 we had to believe in what we felt and what we experienced and therefore suspension of disbelief, see Jacobs and Mazé [24] in section 7.3.3.2, was necessary. The distinction between fantasy and imagination is important during the performance of the game. The participants were asked to fantasize concerning the character’s personality and ability, but they were going to imagine and see the concrete reality with its conditions. It was important that the actual environment were a part of the performance even though other things were created by fantasy. In our case we wanted the participants to act as some kind of extreme characters, see section 9.1.2. These characters, either an underdog or a superhero, had superpowers
112
that they could use in their lives. A superpower is something that humans do not have. When acting as an extraordinary character with superpowers one is able to see the world with new eyes and therefore new possibilities can arise. By having this tool, the superpower, for experiencing the world, opened up the space for even more new ideas and experiences. It is important to take on the role and believe in the performance. In the moment of the performance it should be the only thing that is for real and that counts. Nothing else shall matters. Stanislavskij [46], see section 8.2.1, writes about the importance of becoming one with the performance if wanting to create empathy. We share this view. We have to leave our everyday life behind. This must be done. If not, there will be no empathy. This empathy can help the designer to find the inner life of the character and then understand it. In our case this empathy was achieved. When we entered the game we had the motivation of becoming the characters. This motivation played an important role for the performance as well as the final result. Everyone can role-play, see section 8.2.2. Consequently designers also can role-play. We believe that when designers role-play during the design process they can achieve a greater understanding concerning the interaction. Sometimes designers are acting as users [6], another time real actors are role-playing as users [21]. It also happens that users are acting out and improvising as themselves [25]. All these examples focus on the understanding of users and their needs and contexts. We are not sure that designers or actors can role-play as users and that this will tell about the reality. According to Norman [36], see 9.2, the designer can never replace the user. We consider the users to be best at showing who they are and what they need. In game 6, however, we applied role-playing as a tool for understanding the actual interaction and acts that occurred.
14.7 The active designer During the work of bridging the gap we had to regard the role of the designer. We had three different roles in the working process of game 6. We started out as designers when creating the sixth game. When the game was structured and all it components were finished we took another role, the one of characters in the game. We were players, performers, in the game. When the performances were completed we stepped out from our roles as participants and took the role of a mad scientist. In this role we investigated the documentation from the performance. When the documentation had been regarded we stepped into our originally roles as designers. As designers we could now work with the outcomes from the documentations together with the experiences we had inside ourselves.
113
All the different roles we took in game 6 contributed to the final outcome. To have the ability to work with and relate to a material in different ways was in this part of the design process a strong capability. In the role of an active participant we were given an opportunity for insight that in the next role gave us an understanding and finally in the role of designers we could formulate strong arguments for why some things were stronger than others. These roles could be related to Jones [26], see section 6.3, and his different views of the designer. The role of a character can be related to a black box view, see section 6.3.1, because this phase supported the creativity. The role of a mad scientist could be connected to the glass box view, see section 6.3.2, of a designer. In the role of a designer the designer can be seen as a self organizing system, see section 6.3.3. When having several different roles the designer is given different views and responsibilities during the design process. It is interesting to ask if it is possible for a designer to have so many roles. Why would a designer have only one role? Would it not be good if the designer could have several roles? Which are the benefits and which are the disadvantages for a designer to have more than the role of only designer in a project? These roles are also a question of creativity. According to de Bono [12], see section 6.1.3, the best way to make use of the creative ability of humans is for them to first work individually and then together in a group. The first two roles in game 6 are performed individually. The third role, as designer, is done together with others. From our experiences in game 6 we can draw the conclusion that we manage to capture the individual ability and then use this as a strong ground in the group work. It is important to remember that we always have several roles in our everyday lives, see section 8.2.1. The role of a daughter, a husband, a friend, a citizens and the list can go on forever. In the part of the process where we identified the gap of transforming information from the users into a concept we consider it to be beneficial if a designer can take on several roles. From our experiences and the result from game 6 we believe that it could be a strong tool for a designer to have the possibility to take on several roles and then be able to focus on different aspects of the design problem. Maybe it is important and valuable to give a designer the opportunity to become these different aspects of what a designer can be. If the designer is given the possibility to
114
use many of their abilities the understanding and the outcome will be stronger. Just as the design space opens up maybe the designer would be opened up.
14.8 The importance of documentation A central part of game 6 was the documentation because we had to capture the experiences and ideas that were generated during the performance. In this material we were going to find one or several design concepts. Game 6 is about deepening the understanding of the interaction between different elements which means that all thoughts and ideas that arise during this work are important to capture. According to Hodgson and Richards [20], see section 8.2.1, one must live through and act out a situation in order to fully understand the reality. To be able to benefit from this we had to create tools that could the memory of the experiences during the performance. Here the diary played an important role. The diary worked both as a documentary tool as well as a support for the participants in the performance. The prop were multi functional. The questions that were asked in the diary was suppose to work as a support for the participant we experienced that these questions helped us to use our imagination and to develop and explain our feelings and experiences. One can draw parallels to Stanislavskij’s [46] four questions, see section 8.2.1, for supporting the imagination. The questions made us think and reflect upon our experiences. We believe that when involving outsiders in the design process it can be a problem to collect all abstract feelings and experiences that happened inside the head of the participants. This information is often implicit. We wanted the understanding and the knowledge of how the elements worked together. If we not become one with the imaginary world we can never work with it. We cannot explain it. The understanding happens together with the act. When we act, we can reflect, see section 6.1.1.1. We can experience the motivations for a design suggestion. In game 6 it was valuable that there was a possibility for the players to feel free to choose between several tools for documenting the experiences and feelings. We did not know before the performances that the players were going to combine the different tools when describing an experience. During the performance and afterwards we realized that it became easier for the players to being able to have this possibility. We as designers also become conscious that this possibility to combine several tools constituted a powerful material for us when working with the documented material. Probably people feel more comfortable to describe a feeling
115
with different tools. This can have to do with the fact that a person is used to communicate an emotion by several different modalities. In the end it was actually the combined material that was most convincing and therefore it was that we chose to bring forward when creating the final design concepts. The material from the performances is documented with four different tools. An additional, and important, tool for documentation is our stored experiences. Consequently, we as designers are a tool for the documentation. When watching a photograph from the documentation we could recall and access the experiences and feeling from the moment the photo was taken. Because of the fact that we as designers performed the game we could afterwards feel and understand the situation and also recall the experience whenever we needed. Iacucci and Kuutti [25] mean that it is when the performance happens that it is significant. We must therefore understand the importance of the documentation as a way for later return to the happening again. It was possible to recall the strong experiences with all the senses. When we later shared our experience we could tell about them in a convincing way. If we instead would have involved prospective users we could only access the experiences through them. Thus we would never understand the strength of the experiences.
14.9 The characteristics of the method We consider our procedure of the experiment to be a method. According to Jones [26], see section 7, a design method is a strategy if it by itself can solve a problem. The problem of bridging the gap was identified as the specific design problem that we were going to solve, which we also did. Thus it is possible to say that our method also is a design strategy. The design actions within the method led to design concepts, which was the objective. In order to understand the reality we have to be prepared, see Löwgren and Stolterman [31] in sections 6 and 6.2, to meet it. In game 6 we put much effort in understanding the situation by constructing the game carefully and taking all conditions into consideration. This involves everything from the phase in the design process, understanding the design theory to the specific material that we received. According to Löwgren and Stolterman [31], see section 7, each method consists of an aim and evaluation. In our case the main purpose is to bridge the gap by taking the elements into consideration. The evaluation work begins when the role of the mad scientist is taken until the design concepts are defined.
116
Because of the fact that the ability of a designer is important to support, see Löwgren and Stolterman [31] in section 6.1, we had the objective of creating method that could support this. Therefore we created the framework of a game-based methodology and role-playing techniques that could stimulate the abilities such as creativity, imagination and communication. These abilities can also help to control the unpredictable events, section 7.1, that can occur. To be able to deal with the complex design situation that we had to solve we realized that we had to find support in a method or technique. We found it almost impossible to perform this phase of the design process without any tool for support. The use of an existing method could be an alternative. The problem, however, was that this was a new framework to work within and it had its own characteristics. It was essential that the method could cover all important aspects, therefore the choice was to design an appropriate method that supported all the objectives. Löwgren and Stolterman [31], see section 5, concern the design process not always to be a rational and logical process. Consequently, we consider, the methods can either not be rational in all cases. When first, before the performance, regarding our method it can bee seen as irrational because it is different from existing methods. Our method requires lots of active work from the designers and it also involves a field distant from the one we are used to. Because of the fact that drama is used in a new way it can be difficult to really know what will happen. At first our work was only an experiment, which means that the outcome is unsafe. Afterwards when regarding the outcome the experiment can be seen as a rational way of working. The experiment confirmed that the method worked as a tool for achieving our objective. Before the performance we only had a weak and distant vision in the design process. During the performance when we were mad scientists the vision started to become clearer. It was not until now we had brought the material together in a consistency and therefore this could happen. The game took us rapidly from only having a weak vision to having a relatively clear operative picture, see section 5.1.1.2.
14.10 The conclusions of the experiment Finally we want to bring this analysis to an end by emphasising the most essential parts that can answer the questions asked in the beginning of this chapter. On the basis of our result we can answer the research question. We managed to bridge the gap and from this we can draw the conclusion that we generated a method.
117
The game resulted in a transformation of different elements into several design concepts. These will in the future be taken further and result in installations. The outcome of the game helped us to see and understand the strong characteristics of the experiment. These characteristics created the structure and ground for our method. Our method is based upon theory studies from many disciplines. The method has its ground in interaction design. We consider our method to be a good support for discovering and taking the interaction aspects of designing into consideration. This was important in our method because it is a method that is created for an interaction design projects. We wanted game 6 to have a focus on the human needs and therefore we took inspiration from fields that take this into consideration. We chose to work with role-playing so that we could have a focus on the interaction between human needs, places and qualities. Due to this we received an understanding for how the interaction worked and emerged. We believe that the fields of drama and design can be unified and together create good conditions during the design process. We hope and believe that the dramaturgical field can be used more in methods in the design process to better support and understand the interaction between humans and computer artefacts. If we would have chosen another construction of game 6 this could have affected the outcome. This construction may have worked as a bridge but this does not necessarily mean that it would be stronger and better. The work during the designing of the game gave us important insights in how the world of design and drama can be unified. When creating a method it is important that one dare to try and open up the design space. Even if it may fell strange at the start to take inspiration from other disciplines one shall not be afraid of doing so. This can open the door for new possibilities and ways of work. This must be done in order to stretch the boundaries. By being active participants in the role-playing performances we became well aware of the conditions of the information we discovered. By being one with the experiences we had strong arguments to why we believed in something. Together with the documentation tools we could recall strong feelings and thoughts from the performances. Our tacit knowledge from the performances worked together with the visual documentation, such as the photographs, objects and diaries, and created strong arguments for different design concepts.
118
V Seeing the future In this chapter we discuss the possibilities to generalise the method. Further we bring forward some aspects of the method that in the future can be developed.
15. Generalising the method One should remember that game 6 was created for an interaction design project that uses a participatory design approach with a game-based methodology. The project was also driven by the objective of finding a design concept. Our method for bridging the gap can therefore not be generalized to other design projects with completely different approaches and characteristics. The interesting question to ask then is if it is possible to generalize the method so that it can be used in similar design processes. It is interesting to speculate about the possibilities of generalizing the method. At the same time one must also try to see the risks and the difficulties of this generalization. We have constructed and performed this method in an experimental way. The conclusion we can draw is that the method worked for us in this project, both as persons and in the specific situation. We have designed and performed the game ourselves. Maybe it is because of the fact that we ourselves have constructed the method that it worked for us to perform. Maybe it would not work for other designers, even though we tried to keep an objective approach during the construction of the method. It is also possible that our contexts and the circumstances were suitable for this purpose, but that there are other contexts that one cannot perform this method within. The problem that the method solves is the bridging of the gap between separate kinds of materials to final design concepts. Consequently one must have this objective in order to make use of this specific method. The problem of transforming several different elements into a single whole should be generally common in many design processes. The problem usually occurs between the transformation and convergence phase. We consider our method to have the potential to be generalised and applied in similar design process where the problem of bridging the gap occurs. The important objective is to take the interaction into consideration because the design concept must support this interplay. The three main groups of material that we worked with were places, needs and qualities. All of them are basic and in general important when
119
designing and which one can assume that design teams often identify and work with. These materials were transformed into settings, such as places, subjects and characters, which constituted the actual performance. If it was possible to generate equal elements in other projects one could then transform them into the settings and use them in the method. We consider the theme of the method to be something that can vary. It can, however, be preferable to choose a theme that is far from our everyday life. This implies that the performance will open the view and increase the possibilities to see new things. The choice of a theme does not necessarily have to cover the whole design process. Consequently this entire method can be separate if the circumstances require that. The crucial part is the input in form of the elements from previous work in the design process. One important aspect concerning the generalisation of the method is that it requires that the designers performing the method take it serious. One cannot enter this method and expect to generate valuable material without allowing oneself to be playful and at the same time focused. The most important outcome of this method seems to be the things that are stored inside the designer and that can be recalled by external means. Therefore this method requires an active and responsible designer.
16. Future work The method has only been applied once and therefore it is impossible to draw any general conclusions. To be able to evaluate and identify further application areas the method must be applied and performed in other projects. When trying out the method it is important to involve further people to see if they can benefit from it. It is also necessary to apply the method in other design situations and contexts to be able to discern certain patterns. We are also interested in the input of the method. We want to explore if it is possible to use other types of data and also if one can use less or more at a time. This is therefore the next step in the development of this method. We consider the work of designers to be taken outside to the specific context where the future artefacts shall be a part of. The designers must take a more active role during the design process. It is not only the users that can be active participants during the design process, even the designers can benefit from doing this. As well as structuring the user involvement for achieving playfulness and motivation, one should not be distant for doing this for the designers as well.
120
Designers should continue working with the unification of the disciplines drama and design. We have during our work found that drama has much to offer the design field, such as interaction design. This cooperation does not only involve the purpose of understanding prospective users by acting as them. We consider the drama sphere to be used in other ways with other purposes. We have explored one way of using drama, but there can be more in the future.
121
VI References [1] Abowd, G., Beale, R., Dix, A. & Finlay, J. (1998). Human-Computer
Interaction (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
[2] Andersen, K., Jacobs, M. & Polazzi, L. (2003). Playing Games in the Emotional Space. To be published in Funology.
[3] Backman, J. (1998). Rapporter och Uppsatser. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[4] Boal, A. (2002). Games for Actors and Non-actors (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
[5] Boal, A. (2000). Theater of the Oppressed (C. A. and M-O. Leal McBridge., E Fryer, Trans.)(2nd ed.). London: Pluto Press.
[6] Brandt, E. & Grunnet, C. (2000). Evoking the Future: Drama and Props in
User Centered Design. Proceedings for Participatory Design Conference, PDC00, Nov. 00. New York.
[7] Buchenau, M. & Suri, J. (2000). Experience Prototyping. Proceedings of
DIS 2000: Designing Interactive Systems, ACM Press.
[8] Burns, C., Dishman, E., Verplank, B. & Lassiter, B. (1994). Actors, Hairdos and Videotape: Informance Design. Proceedings of CHI 94, ACM Press.
[9] Buskist, W., Carlson, N. R. & Martin, G. N. (2000). Psychology: The
Science of Behaviour (2nd ed.). Harlow: Person Education Limited.
[10] Caillois, R. (1961). Man, Play and Games (M. Barash, Trans.). Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
[11] Candy, L. & Edmonds, E. (1999). Introducing Creativity to Cognition.
Proceedings of the third conference on Creativity & Cognition., October 1999.
[12] de Bono, E. (1994). Verklig Kreativitet (I. Bodahl.). Jönköping: Brain
Books.
122
[13] Djajadiningrat, J. P., Gaver, W. & Fres, J. W. (2000). Interaction Relabelling
and Extreme Characters: Methods for Exploring Aesthetic Interactions. Proceedings on Designing Interactive System (DIS) 2000, ACM Press.
[14] Dunne, A. (1999). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic
Experience and Critical Design. London: RCA CRD Research publications.
[15] Dyferman, H. (1962). Dramats Teknik: Vägledning för Författaren, Teatermannen och Publiken (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
[16] Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Falköping:
Gummessons.
[17] Friedman, H. S. & Schustack, M. W. (1999). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
[18] Hallnäs, L. & Redström, J. (2002). Abstract Information Appliances:
Methodological Exercises in Conceptual Design of Computational Things. Proceedings of DIS2002: Designing Interactive Systems, London, June 2002. ACM Press.
[19] Hallnäs, L. & Redström, J. (2002). From Use to Presence: On the
Expression and Aesthetics of Everyday Computational Things. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction (ToCHI), Special Issue on the New Usability. ACM Press.
[20] Hodgson, J. & Richards, E. (1966). Improvisation: Discovery and Creativity
in Drama. Whitstable: Latimer Trend & Co.
[21] Howard, S., Carroll, J., Murphy, J. & Peck, J. (2002). Using “Endowed Props” in Scenario-Based Design. NordiCHI 10/02, Århus.
[22] Howard, S., Carroll, J., Murphy, J., Peck, J. & Vetere, F. (2002). Provoking
Innovation: Acting out in Contextual Scenarios. Working paper 01-IDG-2002, Interaction Design Group, Department of Information Systems, The University of Melbourne.
123
[23] Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-element in Culture. Boston: The Beacon Press.
[24] Jacobs, M. & Mazé, R. (2002). Underdogs & Superheroes: Designing for
New Players in Public Space. Göteborg: PLAY.
[25] Iacucci, G. & Kuutti, K. (2002). Everyday Life as a Stage in Creating and Performing Scenarios for Wireless Devices. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Volume 6 Issue 4, January 2002.
[26] Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
[27] Landqvist, J. (1994). Vilda Idéer och Djupodlande Analys: Om Designmetodikens Grunder. Lund: Carlssons.
[28] Lecoq, J. (2001). The Moving Body: Teaching Creative Theatre (D. Bradby,
Trans.). New York: Routledge.
[29] Lundequist, J. (1995). Design och Produktutveckling: Metoder och Begrepp. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[30] Löwgren, J. & Stolterman, E. (1999). Design Methodology and Design
Practice. Communications of the ACM, Interactions, January and February 1999.
[31] Löwgren, J. & Stolterman, E. (1998). Design av Informationsteknik-
Materialet utan Egenskaper. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[32] Molander, B. (1993). Kunskap i Handling. Göteborg: Daidos.
[33] Muller, M. J., White, D. M. & Wildman, E. A. (1993). Taxonomy of PD Practicies: A brief Practioner’s guide. Communications of the ACM, vol 36, no. 4, June 1993.
[34] Namioka, A. & Schuler, D. (Eds.) (1993). Participatory design: Principles
and Practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
124
[35] Nilsson, B. & Waldermarson, A-K. (1994). Kommunikation: Samspel mellan Människor. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[36] Norman, D. A. (1998). The Design of Everyday Things. London: The MIT
Press.
[37] Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
[38] Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond
Human Computer Interaction. New York: Wiley.
[39] Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. & Carey, T. (1994). Human-Computer Interaction. Workingham: Addison- Wesley.
[40] Reisberg, D. (2001). Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind (2nd ed.).
New York: Norton & Company.
[41] Rolf, B. (1991). Profession, Tradition och Tyst Kunskap: En Studie i Michael Polanyis Teori om den Professionella Kunskapens Tysta Dimension. Nora: Nya Doxa.
[42] Rosell, G. (1990). Anteckningar om Designprocessen. Stockholm: Kungliga
Tekniska Högskolan.
[43] Schön, D. A. (1995). The Reflective Practioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Arena.
[44] Sofer, A. (2003). The Stage Life of Props. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
[45] Spolin, V. (1972). Improvising for the Theater: A handbook of Teaching and Directing Techniques (7th ed.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
[46] Stanislavskij, K. (1976). En Skådespelares Arbete med Sig Själv: I
Inlevelsens Skapande Process (M. Benkow, Trans.). Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.
125
[47] Storm, G. (2001). Mobile Devices as Props in Daily Role Playing. In Proceedings of Mobile HCI 2001.
[48] Winograd, T. (1997). From Computing Machinery to Interaction Design
[[online]. Available from: http://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/acm97.html (retrieved 2004-01-10)
[49] Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding Computers and Cognition:
A New Foundation for Design. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
[50] Woodham, J. M. (1997). Twentieth-Century Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[51] Nationalencyclopedin: www.ne.se
126
Appendix 1
127
128
129
130
131
132
Appendix 2
133
Appendix 3
134
Appendix 4
135
Appendix 5 UNDERSTANDING
how can people with different languages, backgrounds, I interests and history understand each other
tools for people to understand each other (which) how to create/find the objects people come together with (what objects
makes people get closer)? create/help to bring forward understanding
FEELINGS
how can we calm/in a good mood (for example: listening to the waves and wind)
create a time for rest and peace from the outside escape time with help from sounds recall a specific weather bringing things back where they belong decorating in a nice way a feeling under your feet (for example: grass) the importance of privacy
HAPPINESS
the happiness of closeness how to support the need of being close to the one you love spread it remember it
ATTENTINON OBJECT/PERSON
open eyes with help of disorder the lack of attention lead -> we miss the beauty of objects the need of attention do we need changes to get attention? we can get attention with the help of loud sounds protect people from loud sounds (loud sound make us think bad) replace bad sounds with good sounds
MAKING PEOPLE VISIBLE
getting big through an object making people get time for each other making people taller the importance of noticing and reflecting people with help of objects
136
tell people that they are important leaving traces interesting follow a person’s path the importance of being yourself how to support people for standing up for their rights
IMAGINATION
the power of imagination create amazing things not true/true
OBJECTS
How can people be more aware of everyday things TRANSFORMATION
understanding transformations transformations of material (a natural transformation -> a greater
understanding) MEANING OF OBJECTS
objects that have an extra meaning (for example: reflect a person, make a person bigger)
can tell you something extra to give objects in our environment extra meaning, tell us something things that are different from the context can get more attention to give objects a special meaning in life (for example: trees) the role and importance of the things around us adding another object to yourself – increase your power as a human (for
example: windows can show another world (support your imagination)) messages in everyday environment hidden messages can enrich our lives
LANGUAGES OF OBJECTS
every object has a language understanding the language of the nature shapes in the environment can work for other things
ENVIRONMENT
the energy of the environment using the environment as a playground the dynamic environment
ENERGY OF OBJECTS
power of warmth, light and positivism
137
finding energy and qualities of objects reaching the inner energy how can objects carry things for us? bringing lights to things – make them visible bringing the weather with you
NATURE
the beauty of nature – should surround us more living close to the nature – important power of nature dressing houses with leaves
FUTURE
understanding of the past -> understanding of the future to watch through something -> to know something about the future
MEETING PLACES
creating meeting places dynamic meeting places (can fit all) how to design meeting places
TOGETHERNESS
a feeling of safety how to use this collected power when people come together? reward them when they come together the more – the better search for brothers making life better for lonely people collecting photos of them and then send happiness “power wall”
STORIES
to share keep stories alive the history of places how can we save and share memories? saving memories in a box sounds (of objects) helps us to remember how can we return to places?
BORDERS
the need of borders making borders less important
138
PLACES TO SHARE open places how? creating paths to follow -> people come together go by bus together, don’t take the bike alone sharing and give gifts to each other (at special hide-outs)
139
Appendix 6
140
141
142
143
144
