CLASS: people knowing
TERM: fall 09
GROUP PARTNERS: jiha hwang, yuin chien
This is a series of three projects that helped us better understand how to engage with people as a source to provoke, inspire and inform design. We utilized the ideas of intervening in spaces to try to make people interact with our projects.
1. Supplied with some tape, plastic arrows, bubble wrap, light bulb and an on/off remote system, we created our first intervention; a very low tech contraption. Our goal was to simply get people to pop the bubble wrap as they walked down the hallway. As they stepped upon the bubble wrap, we would remotely trigger the light to turn on. Everyone thought they had direct control over the light bulb.... (suckers!)
What we learned:
--The immediate cause and effect of the pop to the light often intrigued people even though it was such a simple trick.
--Often times people are more likely to stop at our intervention if they are traveling in groups.
--When people gather around the intervention, those passing by become intrigued and tend to at least give a look, if not try it out for themselves.
--After interacting with the object, people get an urge to figure out how it works.
--The location has a lot to do with things. Because it was in a hallway of an Art School, people often walked around the intervention, not wanting to mess up the project.
2. A further iteration of the bubble wrap project. We stuck with the idea of having something that people could walk across but added another layer. We sought out to see if people would be willing to answer a simple survey. Our survey consisted of white roll paper and some colored chalk. We set up at the entrance to a building, posing the question "How many hours of sleep did you get?" A few feet past that question banner, were three answers, "0-3 hrs, 3-6 hrs, 6+ hrs." Our intention was for people to walk through the chalk and across the paper to mark their answers. As more walked through, we began to see the sum of their answers quantified as a two dimensional visual form.
What we learned:
--We first set up our project sans-colored footprints. A lot of people did not get the connection between the posed question and the answers. After watching people miss this step, we printed out the foot prints in hopes that it would give more affordance to the piece. The results were positive.
--Location, yet again has a lot to do with things. Two location related problems arose with this intervention. One, the piece was in a space with traffic going in two directions. We only accounted for one. We quickly realized that the people coming out of the building were puzzled as to what the project was about, only to realize after they had already crossed it. Two, the project was set up on the wrong side of the path. In the United States, people generally stay to the right side of a pathway, similar to the driving laws. We were on the left. We believe that if we had set it up on the opposite side, we would have gotten better results.
--The people who knew what was going on before they crossed the paper, were usually happy to give their answer. We designed it in a way that it was a quick and easy thing for them to do, which took little time away from their busy schedule.
3. The third and final execution built upon our knowledge of the previous two interventions. For one thing, we made sure to cover our location issues. This time, the intervention was accessible from both sides, and spread across the whole hallway. This really gave them no choice but to venture through. We began adding a little more advanced/higher technology into the mix, while still maintaining a relatively low tech piece. We kept with the idea of asking a basic question, but this time the answers would change after 10 minutes. We also added a tally system, so that when people walked through, they would be able to see the numbers change in real time. This would be likened to the visual quantification of the hours slept by use of chalk and paper. On top of that, we also had a audio motion sensor lined up with the threshold for feedback to the user, telling them that they had done something by crossing that point. Similar to how the bubble wrap pops.
(please note: our original intentions were to project the numbers on the walls to the left of the images, but due to technical difficulties with the projector, we had to resort to using a laptop monitor.)
What we learned:
--This further enforces the fact that people enjoy seeing instant feedback from something that they did.
--Groups! People in groups of two or more are more likely to interact with an object than those rolling solo.
--With that said, those venturing alone will still often pause if someone else around them does as well. It's human nature to "rubber-neck."
--Audio acknowledgment helps feed the curiosity of the user.
TERM: fall 09
GROUP PARTNERS: jiha hwang, yuin chien
This is a series of three projects that helped us better understand how to engage with people as a source to provoke, inspire and inform design. We utilized the ideas of intervening in spaces to try to make people interact with our projects.
1. Supplied with some tape, plastic arrows, bubble wrap, light bulb and an on/off remote system, we created our first intervention; a very low tech contraption. Our goal was to simply get people to pop the bubble wrap as they walked down the hallway. As they stepped upon the bubble wrap, we would remotely trigger the light to turn on. Everyone thought they had direct control over the light bulb.... (suckers!)
What we learned:
--The immediate cause and effect of the pop to the light often intrigued people even though it was such a simple trick.
--Often times people are more likely to stop at our intervention if they are traveling in groups.
--When people gather around the intervention, those passing by become intrigued and tend to at least give a look, if not try it out for themselves.
--After interacting with the object, people get an urge to figure out how it works.
--The location has a lot to do with things. Because it was in a hallway of an Art School, people often walked around the intervention, not wanting to mess up the project.
2. A further iteration of the bubble wrap project. We stuck with the idea of having something that people could walk across but added another layer. We sought out to see if people would be willing to answer a simple survey. Our survey consisted of white roll paper and some colored chalk. We set up at the entrance to a building, posing the question "How many hours of sleep did you get?" A few feet past that question banner, were three answers, "0-3 hrs, 3-6 hrs, 6+ hrs." Our intention was for people to walk through the chalk and across the paper to mark their answers. As more walked through, we began to see the sum of their answers quantified as a two dimensional visual form.
What we learned:
--We first set up our project sans-colored footprints. A lot of people did not get the connection between the posed question and the answers. After watching people miss this step, we printed out the foot prints in hopes that it would give more affordance to the piece. The results were positive.
--Location, yet again has a lot to do with things. Two location related problems arose with this intervention. One, the piece was in a space with traffic going in two directions. We only accounted for one. We quickly realized that the people coming out of the building were puzzled as to what the project was about, only to realize after they had already crossed it. Two, the project was set up on the wrong side of the path. In the United States, people generally stay to the right side of a pathway, similar to the driving laws. We were on the left. We believe that if we had set it up on the opposite side, we would have gotten better results.
--The people who knew what was going on before they crossed the paper, were usually happy to give their answer. We designed it in a way that it was a quick and easy thing for them to do, which took little time away from their busy schedule.
3. The third and final execution built upon our knowledge of the previous two interventions. For one thing, we made sure to cover our location issues. This time, the intervention was accessible from both sides, and spread across the whole hallway. This really gave them no choice but to venture through. We began adding a little more advanced/higher technology into the mix, while still maintaining a relatively low tech piece. We kept with the idea of asking a basic question, but this time the answers would change after 10 minutes. We also added a tally system, so that when people walked through, they would be able to see the numbers change in real time. This would be likened to the visual quantification of the hours slept by use of chalk and paper. On top of that, we also had a audio motion sensor lined up with the threshold for feedback to the user, telling them that they had done something by crossing that point. Similar to how the bubble wrap pops.
(please note: our original intentions were to project the numbers on the walls to the left of the images, but due to technical difficulties with the projector, we had to resort to using a laptop monitor.)
What we learned:
--This further enforces the fact that people enjoy seeing instant feedback from something that they did.
--Groups! People in groups of two or more are more likely to interact with an object than those rolling solo.
--With that said, those venturing alone will still often pause if someone else around them does as well. It's human nature to "rubber-neck."
--Audio acknowledgment helps feed the curiosity of the user.