Our show ‘n’ tell
Today we had presentation of our concept, and it went fine. I guess we were clear and covered all the main points regarding nuance, pixels, touch, and skilled learning.
And our prototype did not ‘misbehave’, which is always a plus, and we did not have to fake it.
We got positive feedback, and some of the “objections” were addressed spot on – someone asked why we did not use sound as feedback, and I replied: well because this module is about pixels, not sound…
We also got constructive criticism from our teacher, mainly concerning the concept’s depth concerning 1) nuance and 2)feedforward.
When it comes to number one, exploring nuance, i.e. enriching one’s experience through skilled learning, we should have given the user possibility to develop one’s skills even further – when the user is familiar with all the swipe combinations, there is nothing left to be improved. A suggestion for instance is to make more complicated combination of fingers. Our plan was to add different types of touch, but it did not work that well, so we were aware that it was something too simple to learn and then what?
Sorry if I sound tough, but the other presentations and designs were not very memorable, and some of them badly executed, using the principle “fake it ’til you make it”. EXCEPT for one…it was very well presented and executed. I am talking about Lara and Jonas’ design, with the squares with several behaviours and color changing. The presentation was clear and well-structured, and the design started as abstract and conceptual , gradually developing to something more concrete – it enables the user to manipulate pixels. And their own design development process made skilled learning possible. So in other words, not only the user gains skills in manipulating objects’ pixels. The designers gain gradually skills and understanding in how to create something that can be manipulated by someone else.
So their design felt somewhat “meta”…Kudos!
Overall, I am satisfied with our work, we explored well the use of pixels and feedback – each action delivers a different output, we used both colour, animations and images. When it comes to touch, it was a little bit harder.
There were some combinations of touch and swipes that we wanted to try out. But we could not get it to work in code. One of them was to swipe in a circle to get a random playlist.. we still think it would be a great way of use the random function.
Our knowledge, as it was mentioned previously, was in this case limited, and we coped by doing something simpler.
There were also things that we could not use and did not test, because we needed to work with touch, but shaking was something that we think that could be fun to test when it comes to music and playlist.
Furthermore, we have also applied the concept of skilled learning, by simplifying how we choose a playlist. Imagine a older person who has a hard time in using Spotify. we have simplified the process into swipes. And when people get used to the combinations it will be a faster way of changing playlist and songs without looking at the phone. Example: You have your phone on the arm when you running and you just swipe to change. It is similar to Dreyfus’ example about playing chess – in the beginning you have to learn how it works, and gradually it comes automatically, naturally for you. However, I admit we could have gone further by making it more complex and giving opportunity to practice and develop other motor skills. I supposed it works as that text about ways to enrich experience by evoking negative feelings. Our design was probably not challenging enough, so the user loses it interest – frustration and challenging tasks are great fuels for the user in trying harder to solve a problem, it gets the user’s interest.