Our design process began with us reflecting on the course material assigned to our first seminar. We all agreed that a project cannot be successful if the research meant to back it up falls short and that the groundwork of today determines the outcome of tomorrow. To gathered data by conducting a survey and to analyze this data and establish necessary requirements is in other words essential to the success of any project, ours included.
By determining that open-ended or unstructured interviews with emphasis on quantitative data gathering was the way to go to gather data concerning a traveler traveling the route of our choosing, we arranged a meeting to debate what route to choose. At first, we thought the bus might be a good option, since we had a couple good ideas on how to improve the system. Later on, though, during our first exercise, we began comparing the boat option to the subway one. Since we were unable to make a final decision we opted for a strawpoll. Most of us chose the subway system as our second option (we all made two choices) and so the subway it was and our main target group had therefor been established. This target group was made more specific by us only including travelers owning a smartphone and using a SL Access Card.
From there we began discussing different ideas on how to improve the subway system and we tailored our questions keeping these ideas in mind. With those questions as our cheat sheet we conducted audio-recorded interviews and transcribed them separately. Those interviews were analyzed later on. Whilst summarizing all raw data gathered from our interviews, we categorized the data and identified the recurring patterns.
Based on our interviews, the next step in our design process was to perform a state-of-the-art analysis and so we did. These analyses were also summarized later on. Once we'd reviewed all data gathered thus far, we discussed how our project should continue from there on out. Even though most of our interviewees were pretty happy with the system as it currently is, a few of them seemed open to our suggestions.
By writing our personas (Hanna, Johannes) and scenarios (scenario 1, scenario 2, scenario 3, scenario 4), our project became more tangible. We want to change the way you think about the actual payment system. Instead of paying beforehand, and having to predict the future, why not pay by direct debit? Why not use statistics as a way of predicting the future? After coming to that realization, we listed the pain points of our primary- and secondary persona.
Since then we've had a brainstorming session where we came up with a lot of new ideas and refined some old ones. The session resulted in two ideas (one we've been discussing previously and a new one) becoming one (this will be posted on the blog shortly).
We've also reflected on chapter 13 and 15 and summarized our thought on the matter in a blog post. In short we believe the DECIDE method to be a great method to use when designing an interactive prototype and we got all of our questions answered.As for now, our next task is to establish the necessary requirements and finalize the framework of our prototype.
When it comes to the distribution of our workload, we alternate writer when we summarize each meeting and exercise, and we always make an effort to do so on time.
No comments:
Post a Comment