Week 8: Rapid Ideation Session 2 - prototyping and presenting
- danielclarke1981
- Apr 2, 2022
- 14 min read
This post continues from week 7's rapid ideation session.
Midpoint Webinar
It was nice to see that my cohorts had teamed up, especially cross-discipline. However, I couldn't help but feel like this was a missed opportunity, especially as I had previously suggested it! Claire and Rupert in particular looked like they had generated lots of ideas and developed a good rapport. I think my lack of motivation at the start of last week contributed to me not feeling very participatory, which is unlike me. It was also another indication that I need to be more active on Discord and be part of the general discussion, as this is where they arranged to collaborate. It looked like they were using Miro effectively as a collaboration tool something I have to admit pen and paper aren't able to compete with. I'll ensure that a future SMART Goal will to become better acquainted with Miro (and perhaps explore FIGJAM) and its more advanced features.
I also went into the webinar concerned about my concept in light of the research content we were asked to look at this week. The ethical considerations regarding children, particularly those in vulnerable states set me into a momentary panic. Would I have to submit an ethics review form to the Research Integrity and Ethics Sub-Committee for their approval? The subject matter seemed aligned with the high-risk research category as it touches upon treatment for mental health and the potential for the participants to discuss abuse. However, Giavani was able to calm my fears as this would only be relevant if user participation and research were involved, not for the ideation stage. I did however make me consider the implications of my concepts and the potential harms and possible ways to mitigate them. I'm finding it increasingly fascinating how each week's subjects force me to reevaluate my approach to my work, which definitely makes me feel like I have a lot to learn, which is great!
After the webinar, I returned to my concept. The App I was proposing, would be used by both children and social workers so would need both front and admin sections that would have significantly different requirements, tone, user experience, and goals. However, I had little knowledge of social work, apart from the packs I had used as a basis for my Crazy 8's in part one of this session and discussions I had with my wife - who is an Advanced Practitioner Social Worker - from time to time. I was well aware that to be able to provide any value to the user and a meaningful artifact, I would have to recruit my wife as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) to help inform my design decisions.
SMEs are necessary in complex or specialized domains. If you are designing for a technical domain such as medical, scientific, or financial services, you will likely need some guidance from SMEs, unless you are one yourself. Use SMEs to gather information on industry best practices and complex regulations. SME knowledge of user roles and characteristics is critical for planning user research in complex domains.
(Cooper, Cronin and Reiman, 2014)
We discussed the possibilities of using each of the tools used for the Crazy 8's ideation, as the basis for each section of a "Life Story Work App". The SME reinforced the fact that there was a tacit gap in my knowledge on how practitioners use the tools and that engagement was key and the tactile nature of the tools was important. We began to struggle to see each other points of view and communication started to break down. I was concerned that I was now a week down (having already started late), and would now have no real concepts to move forward with. I became defensive of my proposed solutions and approached it from a pure technologist point of view -a solutionist point of view (but more on that later). For their part, the SME was staunchly committed to her craft and a passionate advocate for the tools. Backed up with research and experience, she was vocal about her reservations about the proposed ideas.
This led to a mid-project crisis that not only made me reflect on this specific part of the process but everything that led me to it. I became very introspective and questioned a lot of the decisions I had made. I felt that the process I had undertaken was flawed at several stages and this hit me hard. They ranged from the way I approached ideation and problem-solving, my practice and expectations, and my interaction with others. Across the board, there was room for improvement. I will touch on all these points at the end of this post, but they had a significant effect on my approach to the latter half of the session.
We eventually discussed each idea calmly and came to a consensus that one of the tools in the pack could potentially benefit from the addition of technology. The tool - The monster inside you - is a technique where the social worker talks to the child about how they feel sometimes and asks the child to draw a monster to help articulate these feelings. The monster helps the child externalise these feelings and process them, helping them understand that negative behaviours are a defense mechanism that they have built to protect them from harm - The monster actually keeps them safe. I had already developed a rough concept based on this idea during my crazy 8's when I was trying to develop the larger app. I decided to couple this with the wheel of emotion idea and drop the rest.
Further inspiration for the monster drawing concept came from a demo I had seen earlier on in the week from Meta AI Research (Animated Drawings, 2022), this uses Detectron2(2021), AlphaPose(2022), and Mixamo(2022) to track and animate a hand-drawn character. What I was proposing was a simplified version of this, rather than animating body movement I would simply infer transitions between one emotion and another when the child clicked on the wheel.
I began to lay out my user flow for the concept, using simple rough drawings. After this, I began to work on paper prototypes for the main screens, including a monster drawing section and using the wheel of emotion literally in the design. It was about this time I began to realise I was going to need to learn more about designing digital experiences for children and read Designing Digital Products for Kids: Deliver User Experiences That Delight Kids, Parents, and Teachers (2020)
I quickly discovered that the wheel was a terrible UI element, especially for children. Reading more about motor skills development and the appropriateness of gestures for applications in particular age ranges, I noted that fine motor skills for ages 3 - 8 (which was probably the target user) were limited and that clicking was preferable to swiping (Cantuni., 2020). The wheel not only requires swiping but in a curved, nonlinear way that requires significant precision. Coupled with this fact was that for most of my prototypes the buttons closer to the center of the wheel were too small to use, and the research I found also pointed to a touch area minimum of 126dp for children (Cantuni., 2020). I found it tough to ditch the wheel as I like the elegant synergy of Plutchik's work and the concept I was developing. However, in context, it did not work and even from an aesthetic standpoint, it looked jarring on the screen. Further iterations moved towards a grid or a simpler sliding mechanic with large hit areas.
I also learned from reading Designing Digital Products for Kids: Deliver User Experiences That Delight Kids, Parents, and Teachers that many successful children's apps have a character or mascot that plays an integral role in the UX of the application. This initially seemed like a frivolous addition and a distraction to the app's core mechanics. However, on further reading Cantuni makes a compelling case for the addition of characters in an application:
To create a strong emotional bond between the user and the product
To provide feedback, guiding the child through the experience
To communicate in a clear and more efficient way
To make the experience more fun
To create a strong brand and open it up to the possibility of bringing it outside the digital world (or app series
(Cantuni., 2020)
I began to see the wisdom and decided to incorporate a monster character into the app as a guide. Ironically, the creature could "Humanise" the process and I began to approach the interaction in this way. It was about this time I also decided the app would incorporate spoken word instructions to help with children who weren't able to read.
I also researched other children's applications for colour schemes and design aesthetics
I picked the most approachable, friendly, and appealing monster concept after showing the designs to my own kids and getting their feedback. Using the research as a guide I came up with a few colour variations in Adobe Illustrator. The style and colours I eventually went for ultimately influenced other aspects regarding the look of the app and in part were inspired by the distinctive Hanna Barbera look, which was not fully intended but gave me a useful, informal style guide.
Again it looked like I wasn't going to get the app to a completed state. I had decided to focus my efforts on a demo-worthy prototype that would show the core mechanics of the app. To sell the concept I needed to show how the image was manipulated on-screen via the AI. I made a simple drawing of a monster and using Adobe PhotoShop I created a series of different emotion examples and then created an example flow using Figma's prototyping tool. Previously I said I wanted to explore using Adobe XD or Invision but I was familiar with the features and limitations of Figma and felt comfortable producing a prototype under the time constraints.
For the video presentation I used iMovie instead of the screen recorder of Slack as I felt this time I needed to explain my ideation and iteration processes. I hadn't used the application before and I found it fairly intuitive to pick up.
I was please with the end result of the application I was about to present. Surprisingly considering the bumpy process I had endured, the end result was something I could take pride in. I was happy with the concept and the visuals. The character added a whimsical nature to the application that I hoped would help the child engage with the process (which would no doubt be stressful) a little more.
Final Presentation
During this week's webinar, I was impressed again with the concepts and quality on display by my peers. Many of them had done the COP-out theme and there were some really poignant artifacts, especially Joe Casey's and Nathan Flannery's UntitledCOPGame PlayThrough (Casey and Flannery, 2022) where you had to collect tons of rubbish that floated in a lagoon, with zero chance of success. I felt this put the point across about working together to solve environmental problems really well.
For my own part, I was surprised again that I was chosen to present, and welcomed the feedback I received. I described the problems I had, especially highlighting my experiences with an SME and my tendency this time toward solutionism. I tried to be as frank about my failings but also celebrate my accomplishments as I was proud of what I produced.
Discussing my concerns about straying off-topic with ideations, Giovanni pointed out the unique situation we find ourselves in when ideating as a student and that this may not always translate well to a commercial environment, something I had already identified.
Reflections
Approach to ideation
I was adamant that during this second session I would be using the SCAMPER method for my rapid ideation. I made no secret of this and pretty much stated it every opportunity I had, on webinars and the spark forum. In my defense this came from a good place -I wanted to try the main tool I hadn't and in doing so round out my exposure as a practitioner. However, this clouded my entire approach to this session, I let the ideation tool decide the theme, rather than choosing the theme and letting that inform the tools. I almost instantly dismissed theme 1 -COP-out as it would not allow me the opportunity to use SCAMPER. This was a mistake, the subject matter was rich in potential that I could have initially explored, even if I didn't move forward with it. I genuinely feel that the lack of motivation I experienced at the start of the session could have been mitigated by this, there was cognitive dissonance with what I wanted to use and how I could move forward with each theme.
I also use the ideation process (and this is not restricted to this session), more like divination or water dowsing than intelligently using the tools. Unlike my peers, who appeared to stay fairly on theme with their last session, I felt I drastically drifted off-topic, to the point of it being hard to see how I go to the proposed idea. Of course, I have it all documented on how I got to ideas so I'm not concerned regarding questions of the integrity of my process, but questions should be raised about my mindset when approaching it. In week 4, during the last ideation session, I mentioned I needed to trust in the process and I now believe this was a mistake and a clear warning sign I was letting the ideation lead me rather than using critical judgment when using the tools.
Takeaways
Moving forward I need to approach rapid ideation differently, I need to look at the brief first and understand the appropriateness of the tools for the task. I did actually do this in week 5 during the last ideation so I know I can do it, but this time around I was just being stubborn, having predecided the use of SCAMPER by hook or by crook. The second point has far more wide-reaching implications, I need to use the tools more discerningly and not expect them to provide the answers without filtering them through a lens of critical judgment. Often, they only provide jumping-off points or a new direction in solving a problem, not the solutions themselves. It's critically important to ensure that I stay on point, particularly when I start on commercial briefs.
My practice and expectations
Perfectionism is not a perfect word. I hate using it because it can be easily misconstrued. It's a cliche of the job interview when someone asks the application what are their weaknesses. It conjures up images of a fastidious individual who is always able to produce the perfect end product and meticulously plans their process. This is not me, however, I still identify myself with the flip side of perfectionism and its negative traits.
The problem with perfectionism—and the reason you'll want to know if you possess any perfectionistic traits—is that perfectionists actually tend to achieve less and stress more than regular high achievers.
(Scott, 2022)
In her medically accredited article, Elizabeth Scott highlights the 10 traits of a perfectionist and how they differentiation from high achievers:
All-or-Nothing Thinking
Being Highly Critical
Feeling Pushed by Fear
Having Unrealistic Standards
Focusing Only on Results
Feeling Depressed by Unmet Goals
Fear of Failure
Procrastination
Defensiveness
Low Self-Esteem
I can identify with pretty much all of the traits listed above. I have and continue to be highly critical of myself and my practice. On the surface, this is can be perceived as a good thing as this can help inform my critical reflections. However, coupled with unrealistic expectations/standards and fear of failure it can definitely lead me to put additional pressure on myself to try and produce an artifact that is full of profound meaning and is of a polished standard. This may be appropriate for a large-scale project, but when the idea is to produce a rough prototype in a limited time I found that it caused me to crack at certain points during the session and I came very close to burnout. This way of thinking is also crippling at times, causing me to go into a spiral of procrastination and as Scott puts it All-or-Nothing Thinking. It's not that I think, "If it's not going to be perfect I'm not going to do it at all", but rather that I don't know how to move forward at certain points. This may be the very reason I lean so heavily on the tools for ideation, to push me through to the next stage of the process. Perhaps this is appropriate, but it may also not be.
Takeaways
I need to ensure that If I am procrastinating that I recognise that and then use the tools as a way to perhaps get past the blockage. It's about using the tools intelligently and not an all-or-nothing process.
Interactions with others
This was a huge issue during this rapid ideation and leads on from one of the perfectionist traits found in the list above - defensiveness. The very idea of incorporating an SME during a process of rapid ideation is contentious. As Gareth had mentioned numerous times in the weekly webinars, these ideation sessions should be a time of unbridled creativity and exploration of the tools and techniques. However, at the end of the first week, I had two ideas that I felt I was underqualified to develop further without input from an SME. As it happens I actually live with one, my wife is a social worker. At first glance, this may seem like I predetermined the solutions even before starting the process as it is very convenient that I had the SME on hand. However, I can assure everyone that this was not the case and I came to the solution honestly. However, I was not proud of the way I progressed the process after introducing the SME.
The defensiveness of my ideas betrayed my obvious lack of understanding of the nuances and intricacies of the processes social workers use when interacting with vulnerable children. I was hell-bent on using my ideas which I was convinced would add value to their processes. Simply put, why carry around a bag of stuff when you could have an "app for that". The fact that most of these tools were already highly effective in their implementation was irrelevant. I have fallen into the pitfalls of solutionism and worse, had neglected the hard-earned wisdom of my SME. Eventually, we were able to come to an agreement where we could both see the benefits of one element of the app I was proposing but at this point, the trust had been eroded.
Takeaways
In the future, I need to trust in the opinions and experiences of any SMEs I incorporate. I'm glad I have recognised this trait at this stage of my studies, this could be even more disastrous if I take this approach with user testing, so this is a lesson worth learning now. Respect is the keyword here, I knew I was in over my head with the subject matter and should have embraced the knowledge and experience the SME brought to the table and not seen it as a threat.
Solutionism
In To Save Everything Click Here, Evgeny Morozov addresses the topic of Solutionism, a trait I felt I was guilty of in this session. Morozov describes the Solutionist as an individual who looks to solve problems with technology, a noble endeavor if the problem is well defined and understood, or in fact if the problem is a problem at all:
It's also that what many solutionists presume to be "problems" in need of solving are not problems at all; a deeper investigation into the very nature of the "problems" would reveal that the inefficiency, ambiguity, and opacity - whether in politics or everyday life - that the newly empowered geeks and solutionist are rallying against are not in any sense problematic. Quite the opposites: these vices are often virtues in desguise. That, thanks to innovative thechnologies, the modern-day solutionist has an easy way to eliminate them does not make them any less virtuous.
(Morozov, 2013)
To have these words resonate several months after reading them and seeing them in context this way was both a revelation and a smack in the mouth. At the time of reading, I felt Morozov was overreaching in his critique of technologists, but during my interactions with the SME - and literally during the middle section of this session - I was trying to solve problems that had already been solved. The solutions were well-documented practices that were deliberate and methodical, developed and refined by learned professionals. The solutionist in me saw a way to "improve" the tools by making them digital, but the fact that the tools were physical and tactile in nature allowed for collaboration and rapport between the practitioner and the child in a way that I could have potentially been diminished. The process of many tools would not have been improved with the intervention of technology as I had proposed it.
Takeaways
I need to look at the benefits of the solutions I propose to problems and qualify the ones I believe I have identified. At our core, product designers are problem solvers, but this doesn't mean inventing or misidentifying problems that could benefit from technological intervention, or worse still, by being aggressive in the defense of such proposals.
This was a huge couple of weeks for me as a UX Design student. I have had a lot to reflect on, far more than any previous weeks, although the seeds of many of my revelations have were planted earlier on or even before I started the course. I have a real opportunity to ensure that I use this insight responsibly and constructively moving forward and not fall back into identified bad habits.
Reference
Cantuni., R., 2020. Designing Digital Products for Kids: Deliver User Experiences That Delight Kids, Parents, and Teachers. 1st ed. New York: Apress.
Casey, J. and Flannery, N., 2022. UntitledCOPGame PlayThrough. [online] Youtube.com. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=c1Fopk1Z-eM&feature=emb_logo> [Accessed 23 March 2022].
Cooper, A., Cronin, D., and Reiman, E., 2014. About face : the essentials of interaction design. 4th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley, p.41.
GitHub. 2021. GitHub - facebookresearch/detectron2: Detectron2 is a platform for object detection, segmentation and other visual recognition tasks.. [online] Available at: <https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2> [Accessed 18 March 2022].
GitHub. 2022. GitHub - MVIG-SJTU/AlphaPose: Real-Time and Accurate Full-Body Multi-Person Pose Estimation&Tracking System. [online] Available at: <https://github.com/MVIG-SJTU/AlphaPose> [Accessed 18 March 2022].
Morozov, E., 2013. To save everything, click here. 1st ed. London: Penguin Group, pp.6.
Mixamo.com. 2022. Mixamo. [online] Available at: <https://www.mixamo.com/> [Accessed 18 March 2022].
Scott, E., 2022. 10 Telltale Signs You May Be a Perfectionist. [online] Verywell Mind. Available at: <https://www.verywellmind.com/signs-you-may-be-a-perfectionist-3145233> [Accessed 18 March 2022].
Sketch.metademolab.com. 2022. Animated Drawings. [online] Available at: <https://sketch.metademolab.com/canvas> [Accessed 18 March 2022].