Group B Blog Summerschool 2007

10. DAY SCHEDULE

- public presentation and exhibition

Bollnas, SWE, 06.07.2007.

9. DAY SCHEDULE

- design recommendations
- design reflections

Documentation of design recommendations

Based on the work carried out over the period of the atelier and the prototyping session that occurred in Big Five Centre, a list of design recommendations where formed by the group. The recommendations were derived from simple interactions that took place at the Centre with the prototypes that the group provided. The recommendations have been documented both specifically -referring to each prototype, and generally, referring to recommendations the group would make as a starting point for anyone interested in building an interactive installation for that space.

Design recommendations

Reflections

Before making a presentation for the Summer school, the group concluded the atelier work with a reflective conversation on the nature of the work that we as Interaction Designers carry out and more specifically the process that we implemented, the communication we had and the results of the task we set out to achieve during the two week period.

As a group we found it first interesting and second bounding to find that we had a common concern regarding the designers ethical stance. Although as practitioners of a user centered design process, we had a responsibility to represent our `users`. We had to create a design that fairly represented the local community and balanced this with personal design responsibility. We as `outsiders` felt we were fortunate to have a member of the local community as a member of our design team because as such she was both an expert designer and a representative for the community that we where designing for. Her inclusion insured that we were practicing user centered design.

At the outset of the atelier, the subject matter appeared to be quite straight forward. We had a “concrete” topic, the zoo. This concreteness did allow the group to focus quickly, however we discovered layers of information, of activity and inter-relationships existed at the place. It was illustrated to us once again that designing for complex spaces benefits from an interdisciplinary approach, because the skills required to understand and design in such a situation are diverse.

A short time scale allows limited work, however a full design cycle was achieved. This benefits those involved because we see all of the phases, from understanding the context and the people in that context, through to prototyping and evaluation offers an overview of at least one iteration of a design project. Questions arise from the iteration and time for reflection should be allowed in order to clarify the process.

During this atelier a toolkit of methods was presented at the beginning. While the methods were available, the atelier leaders found that a flexible approach to time management and implementation of the methods was of benefit when supporting the group.

8. DAY SCHEDULE

- evaluation in situ

On day eight the group visited the Big Five Centre for the fourth time. This three-hour user evaluation was first approved by Thomas, the head biologist at the centre. He also advised us and accommodated during the set-up. Later he provided an evaluation and feedback on the prototypes during prototypes testing with the visitors in the exhibition area. The prototyping session was documented using photographs and video.

At the end of the day immediately after the session, the group debriefed.

A list of the observations from the evaluation session are available.

Evaluation video (10MB)

7. DAY SCHEDULE

- prototyping

Five prototypes were proposed, each member of the group took responsibility for at least two, although everyone involved in the development of each one.

Be a bear
This involved the construction of simple costume elements which suggested a bear character - fake fur ears, paws and a tail. The ears were made of working headphones covered.

Coffee table quiz
A “spot the difference” game made from a set of images of wolves and dogs is already used by the centre during presentations. We took the same game and transferred it to the tables in the restaurant area. The images were placed on a table cloth, selections could be made by visitors, feedback on the correct selection was given via thermo sensitive and ultra violet sensitive textiles. This allowed existing artifacts in the space, such as a hot cup of coffee, to be used as a tool in the game.

Hit like a bear
A piezoelectric pressure sensor was buried in a soft cushion in the shape honey comb with a small bee on the surface. When the bee was hit with considerable force a electric light lit up for two seconds. This prototype aimed to provoke visitors to imagine the strength of the bear.

Feed the animals correctly
Three predator heads where constructed with open mouths. An egg, berries and a moose shaped objects were offered as suggested food for each species. The task was to match the correct food with predator. This `wizard of oz` prototype gave visitors sound feedback from the costume headphones when correct matches were made.

Stand still
A large projection which illustrated the sudden attack of a bear was prepared. In the centre people were invited to stand still in one location. If the visitor moves when the bear `attacks` a red light appears. This concept was derived from the advice given if a bear attacks, which is to stand still.

6. DAY SCHEDULE

- concepts
- discussion
- integration of concepts
- creation of evaluation questions

The group met after the weekend, and proposed five concepts each derived from the design brief. The concepts were loose written descriptions. Each person read their concepts in turn to the others and a list was created. The concepts were then discussed by the whole group. The group selected and integrated the concepts, finding two major themes, Experimental Gameplay and Role Play. The group discussed how these two themes could be accommodated and decided that integrating the two was a workable option.

Main Concept

Role Play

Visitors take a predator character and wear a costume as identification. The character then explores interactive installations in the exhibition space which are tailored to the chosen character.

Experimental Gameplay

We discussed how to achieve feedback from the evaluations of our prototype and on the centre in general. Using a mobile communication technology that was demonstrated during the summer school we proposed an online cultural probe. Visitors could use SMS/MMS to send immediate feedback on the centre to a weblog. This concept allowed for ongoing dialogue between the centre and its visitors.

Finally a set of questions were written which would help to focus the groups evaluation of the prototypes.

Evaluation questions

5. DAY SCHEDULE

- informal presentation of progress
- create a working design brief

Today we had a limited amount of time for our atelier work, therefore we chose to focus our attention on the design brief and to rearrange the timetable next week to accommodate the changes.

Design brief

Abstract level

- How to attract people.
- How to prepare people.
- How to get people to remember.

Keywords

- How to make goal visible (raise discussion, science vs myths)
- How to engage people.
- Diverse target audience (on your own).
- Explore what people like to engage them? How far they will go? (psychicaly / discussion)

Weekend tasks

- Write short descriptions of different design concept for different audiences.
- Use design brief and key observation.
- Do as many as like, but pick five to present to the group

4. DAY SCHEDULE

- creating worksheets
- generation of key observations

Generation of key observations

All the materials gathered over the first three days from the Zoo and Centre were posted to three walls of the room. This included notes from our contextual study, photographs, artifacts found in the space, and so forth.

This provides the group with a shared view of the material while developing a list of key observations. Since we have concentrated on making ourselves as familiar as possible with the space over the past three days, a large number of observations emerged in the this afternoons design session.

Concurrently Dimitri developed a themed list, from the material and visits to the site, based on balance, contrast, and conflict. These were themes that emerged during the context inquiry.

The List

All listed observations were prioritized and amalgamated. This resulted with a short list of key observations which will be used to develop a design brief.

The full list of observations will be printed in a document that the team intends to leave for the Centre to aid them in their future design initiatives.

Key Observations

3. DAY SCHEDULE

- contextual inquiry
- sharing/gathering/organizing materials

Informal contextual inquiry

Today we conducted context inquiry at The Big Five centre. Groups covered two aspects the social and the spatial elements of the place.

Social group collect information on different social interactions that occurred through the exhibition and between the visitors. Briefly, observations were made through shadowing people, informal conversations, noticing groupings and communication within groups, gestures made, activities carried out over time by visitors, how people informed themselves about what was available to them in the space.

The second group made a survey of the architecture of the space, the materials therein, the movement patterns of people in the space, the objects and artifacts that are installed in the space and that are brought into the space by visitors.

2. DAY SCHEDULE

- Jarvso again - talk with Glenn a biologist and educator at the big five
- contextual inquiry
- informal participatory design session with Glenn

The Big Five

Today we went to Jarvso village to the Big Five Centre to meet Glenn an educator and biologist employed at the centre. This meeting was prearranged by Sigrid. Glenn gave the group a presentation on the aims and objectives of the Centre.

It is built adjacent to a wildlife park Jarvzoo, they are separately operated but share almost all of the same visitors. The Zoo and Centre are the most popular tourist attraction in the region and is the only one open all year round.

The centre has 70,000 visitors per annum, 1,000 schoolchildren visit per annum and the centre website has 4,000 hits per day.

The Centre is in this location because all four of the big carnivores are present in this place. This location is important because the government in Stockholm have specified the quota of animals which is necessary to sustain each of the four species in the country, this is sometimes in conflict with the concerns of the people who live everyday with the animals. The Centre here tries to address all of the concerns of the different interested parties.

The Centre balances several stakeholders conflicting concerns. These stakeholders include:
- The local residence of the county
- Hunting Organizations
- Government Ministries
- Environmental Agencies
- The reindeer herding indigenous people

Sweden has a deeply rooted hunting culture especially in the north of the country. Certain animals are now legal and illegal to hunt based on the numbers that exist in the country. Because the Bear and Moose numbers are above the recommended number of animals needed to sustain the species they are legal to hunt - with a license. Wolves, Lynx, and Wolverine are illegal to hunt, however this does not stop some hunters from hunting illegally.

The educational content presented in the exhibition space, the lectures and during educational programs is intended to create a balanced debate on the complex issues around the coexistence of all of the species. The Centre website for example has a lively comment board illustrating diverse points of view.

Locally, an epic fear is associated with the Wolves in particular, fuelled by stories and myths - while in actual fact nobody has been attacked by a wolf in Sweden for more than 150 years. We have more to fear from bears but this does not seem to engage people as well as a fear of wolves. Although in the Centre the wolves are the biggest stars of the show and appear to cause the most conflict generally (The Centre motif features a wolf and there is a large window for viewing the wolves).

The Centre tries to present information based on scientific facts rather than myth. There work and information is explicitly science based, which is evident in the way that they run the educational activities on site for both teachers and pupils. The Centre is an educational facility and is not commercial.

Communication

The Centre has three means of communication, these are a website, the exhibition space and a lecture series. The website for example has a lively comment board illustrating diverse points of view. In the exhibition space the upper level is intended to raise questions and the lower level to help visitors to form their own conclusions.

One of their intended goals is to attract people to the space and to engage them to the extent that they remember the experience later. It is important that the exhibition is a living exhibition which addresses current issues, “this is not a museum”.

There is not a specific target group, there is something of interest for children, families, hunters, teachers etc.

1. DAY SCHEDULE

- introduction to the atelier
- presentation of leaders and participants
- people-centred interaction design overview
- Convivio summer schools tradition
- presentation of different methods (toolkit for the atelier)
- introduction to the notion of Zoo (what is it? different approaches? examples from over the world and some local samples)
- discussion on the notion of designing for the Zoo (generally)

Some thoughts from our discussions

One approach is that zoo are for the conservation of species with education and research as secondary concerns.

While critics (PETA) saw that these animals are not conserved but instead are breed in captivity as business - the research concern is how to breed animals in captivity.

Dimitri pointed out that the Zoo format is false because in observing the animals you change the natural conditions, so therefore one does not actually experience an animal in its natural state. How is this a valuable education, when the perspective is so skewed?

The zoo is a metaphor of ownership of the world (a throwback from the colonial fascination for collecting during the English Victorian era)

This format encourages a short term view of the animals existence - as visitors we only get a snapshot of the living life of a species. For instance people like to see “baby” animals, they are less threatening, they look like cartoon characters -but they are less interested in the creature as it grows older or inhabits over longer duration.

Another observations is that people may tend to project human qualities onto the animals - for instance the zoo will give an animal human names.

The issue of a power struggle between animals and people - there is a association between bars and punishment. It is interesting to contrast this with a Safari situation were man is in the caged bus, protected from the predator.

This concept shows the human domination of the animals - should we educate kids to dominate?

Sigrid pointed out that the animals in the Zoo still procreate which might indicate that they are not stressed in their conditions and for animals which are born in captivity it is their ‘normal’ environment.

But on the other hand does this type of captive breeding lead to another type of animal somewhere between domestic and wild?

One argument was that this is the only opportunity some people have to see animals of this kind - particularly if you are raised in the city.

From our personal experience a zoo was more interesting when we were young children because it was a family excursion, but not as we grew older because we weren’t engaged by the experience.

Reflections on the Discussion

Sensitivity in our criticism because zoos are established institutions which employ local people, a community it means something or has significance for the local community.

On the other hand the Designers may have ethical conflict, because this is a highly ethically sensitive topic.

As outsider it’s important to be sensitive to the local pride in the zoo, it is too easy to be objective and critical when we, as yet, have nothing invested in the community. We should respect the emotions that ownership and the achievement of having built and supported the zoo provokes in people.

We should explore more the notion of an exhibition as a space were design can contribute a more ethical and provocative experience which provokes discussion and reflection on the nature our living space with other animals.

We should look further at the relationships that are generated by these three elements - zoo, tourists, local community.

These group discussions are very useful to help us to position our design work.