Week Seven a visit to 'Lifetec'

Introduction:

Upon arrival at Lifetec we congregated in the conference room to listen to the introductory lecture on the organisation and exactly what they do. Lifetec is a non for profit organisation that deals with assistive technology for the disabled or unable population.

Assistive technology is a device or system that provides people with practical solutions to everyday life activities.
Assistive technology can help people to:

• Look after loved ones by assisting with showering, dressing, and eating
• Make mobility safer and easier
• Open jars and turn taps on and off
• Make computers easier to use and screens clearer to read
• Ensure personal safety by using personal alarm systems at home
• Make recreational activities much easier
• Plus countless other ideas

Retrieved from:  http://www.lifetec.org.au/home/default.asp 

Group activity:

The activity was to collect one item off the shelf at Lifetec and re design it as we see fit. As a group we wanted to select and item that was non mechanical and was an everyday pratical piece of equipment.

Used for gardening this tool is specifically designed for assisting in the lifitng of pots. The problem we found with the design was:

• Materials slection
• Metal componant has limited leverage and dependant on weight
• no adjustable height mechanism for variety of users. 

Implementing minor design changes improves the products functionality in the desired user interaction. By adding the wheel users will have the option to roll heavy objects rather than carry. The wheel of coarse would have to be large in surface area to accommodate the terrain it would be used in. As mentioned above a simple adjustment for the height would be incorporated along side the adjustable clap for the metal element to grip the pots.

What our group took away from the site visit:

Designing in such a framework as assistive technology really opened our eyes to go back to basics in terms of ergonomics and usability of interactive products such as the one above. For our semester project these considerations will be met and design through the users perspective will be enhanced through the remainder of the project. 

Week six workshop 'A cold Turkey approach'

Introduction:

This weeks studio was the beginning of the concept initial brainstorming and thought process in regards to the semesters project. As the lecture came to an end the class was addressed to conduct three concept bombs based off provided design briefs.These design briefs held unique attributes that had three similar desired outcomes; scenario, object and interaction. The desired outcome was to get us thinking about the semester project possibilities and interactive design suggestions.

Concept bombs:

This is one of my three concept bombs, the design brief stated to help communicate users with family and friends whilst inside their home. The design must be incorporated into an everyday item to tie the users together. My design focused on what the possibility could be if you where sitting in your living room watching TV and wanted to interact with someone whilst watching a program. The design showed interaction with the users communicating and discussing on information in front of them (TV,movie ect).

 More concept bombs:

Observation of the Concept Bombs:

As a group we walked around the class and observed the other students work, a mark was given as to which design we believed was the best of the three. The activity was very engaging and it was great to see what others had come up with in regards to the brief we where given.

Our chosen Design Direction:

The image above is one of the designs that our group member 'Kui' came up with "Tell Tale". It is a wearable device that is shaped like an animals tail. The user programs it to sense anything he desires, and they will feel the "tail" wag when  the tail senses an object nearby. As the user gets closer the mechanic changes, the tail starts to wag faster and more violently indicating that the source is getting closer.

From further discussion as a group we picked apart the vital elements of the design concept. We realised the input could change and be a possible adjustable element depending on the users need. The design was thought to be a target for computer gamers specifically. This was due to the fact that one of our group members is connected within the gaming community and is under the impression that this device would appeal to the market. As well as this the environment and habitual trends indicate that gaming users would benefit from this device as it could communicate information and even possibly replace current information communication such as emails, facebook ect.

As one of our group members is not familiar with the gaming industry and has no understanding of the habits and environmental scenarios surrounding the topic, we suggested for next week she undertake a research approach. Through this understanding of environmental influences, habits and user preferences would be discovered to help develop the design and push it forward to a formidable concept.

Week four Design workshop 'Interactive Model'

About the Design

This week our team focused on putting our skills and acquired knowledge from the previous workshops together in order to produce an interactive model. This model did not specifically have to be a master design piece, rather show and input leading to an output and the reason for these sequences.

After much collaboration on last weeks class and building further more on the idea of designing for a gambling environment our group came up with an idea to re design a roulette table. This table would directly interact with the user and give them feedback as to how well their individual bet was going.

Similar to the table demonstrated in the video above, our goal was to incorporate a noise experience, taping into the users emotions such as anxiousness and excitement. However this idea was quickly scrapped as we began to understand that the interactive aspect had nothing to do with the user actually causing the interaction. Therefore we went back to the drawing board and explored one of our initial ideas in terms of the user environment.

Public spaces

This particular environment provides opportunity to design an interactive product that can fill in time and add to the way everyday people interact within public spaces, in particularly pedestrian crossings.Our group decided we wanted to add something to the void of time people spend everyday waiting at traffic lights. The interaction between complete strangers doesn't happen often therefore we decided to introduce a game that you can compete against any random in the street. Simply the input is the individual person punching, kicking or using any kind of force to hit a surface which will the measure speed and strength. Simply the person that wins will be shown where the output of the green or red man is to cross the road. (For more information refer to final video at the bottom of this post).

Here are some images from the process that our group undertook in the building stage of our model.

 Reflecting on the Model

The model came together nicely and surprisingly withstood a lot of pressure for numerous amounts of people testing it within a public space. For now i will provide the link to my gorup presentation as I am having trouble uploading it.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bwskb6a0Nubda0pEcTBrY1lubms/edit

Week Three 'Product Deconstruction'

Design Workshop

During this week the design for our individual model began. Concept development began through an initial brainstorm as a group. As in the previous weeks we decided to start the workshop deconstructing another product.

Initially we thought deconstructing the Panasonic head unit would result in discovery of potential mechanical elements that we would be able to incorporate into our design. However much of the system was technical chip programmed, extensive manufacturing as well as expensive design intent. In saying this the one input I discovered on a more personal level was the interaction with the turning nob on the front. As i mentioned in my previous blog the current state of interaction with majority of technical products is the swipe of a finger on a touch interface screen. Do you remember the old school ways of stereos and the crazy emotional connection between the turning of a nob that rotates elegantly to output a sensory emotion of music or altercation of the technical device?

The objective of the exercise above, (mind mapping) was to analyse the type of environment we wanted to design for. By doing this we clarified in our minds exactly what design intent could be produced. Casinos and public spaces stood out as both environments that offer a possibility to design for a unique user experience that any one can enjoy.

As an interactive process we began to experiment with various inputs and out puts. These we not necessarily final ideas more built exploration on the previous weeks workshops.

Basic programming was used to achieve these results, and from this an idea generated for a possible model exploration. Based from this and the in workshop discussions through group collaboration we decided on a possible design. Throughout the gambling industry interactive design has sky rocketed, the implementation of sensory experience has added value to machines such as pokies.

From this video you can see how the machine is engaging the user to keep on playing and feed money into the note acceptor. Although this specific machine has a negative impact on society the design is continually changing and interactive creativity within the soft interface is continually adapting and competing.

Week Two 'In The Workshop'

Learning outcomes resulted in possibilities for the project and a greater understanding of Interactive Design.

The learning outcomes our group achieved through the deconstructive process was fantastic! Materials and even functional elements such as speakers, buttons and vibrational motors (circled above), may come of use in the weeks to come as these parts formed the beginning of our parts selection for the project. The team interacted with mainly a pump, this pumps function was looked upon closely and tangents helped to understand the possibilities of the input and output the product produced. As Industrial Designers we picked apart the pump to find a functional possibility that may serve a purpose in potentially another product. The input of the pump is the compression of air therefore the output may be linked to buoyancy and self floatation incorporated into products specifically for the ocean.

In the reading 'The inmates are running the asylum' Cooper refers to the notion that the corporate businessmen of the world have let the IT specialists have to much of a say in the development of modern day products. This is evident through the example above of exactly how products have all fallen due to the age of computers. As Industrial designers it is our job to bring back the possibility of how we interact with products through the way we touch, hear and even smell. Modern day technology encourages us to be drawn to these high pix-elated screens and non reflective titanium cases. But not only that, advertising through social media has contributed drastically with more and more companies going online and more people (even the elderly) caving in. Change through the way consumers interact with products is the key to a greater and more fulfilling design. Such a process needs much hands on work and research into the market, in regards to the consumers and exactly what they need and how they need it!

Week One 'An Introduction'

Week one Workshop

Today we engaged as a group in an in class workshop that was designed to get us thinking from the right mind set in regards to our project. We had a number of ideas, and through discussions with Yasuhiro Santo the group better understood aspects of the design in regards to data collection and server attributes. We began to discuss what exactly the data could be used for and how this data may provide information to the stakeholders to further enhance the design.

As we discussed many ideas we decided to run with the idea of a pill interactive system for the elderly. the design was thought to communicate data to servers to help further investigation for the obvious companies such as pharmaceutical and Government agencies.

Set Reading

The Design of Everyday Things by Donald A. Norman, 2002.

Sourced from: http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=AVkl5ZyCyolztM:&imgrefurl=http://www.paulolyslager.com/must-have-book-collection-on-ux/&docid=36-tuMvw1o9uaM&imgurl=http://www.paulolyslager.com/wp-content/themes/paulolyslager.com/images/books/everyday.jpg&w=170&h=233&ei=jlIzUNDqHonjmAXq-4HABQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=313&sig=100970829892924981196&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=98&start=0&ndsp=59&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:110&tx=69&ty=86&biw=1920&bih=951

As this was a set reading for myself in the past i have read the majority of content, although decided to brush up on it as Marianella suggested. In the first chapter Olsen speaks of the nature of simplicity and how we as humans act upon cues in regards to interacting with the simplest of products. Why does it sometimes take us five times the amount of time necessary to figure out or realise how to use something? Olsen goes on to explain that a well designed product results in us feeling familiar and confident to approach, where as badly designed products may throw us off. However in saying this the idea of curiosity or the open ended possibility can sometimes draw us into a product due to the emotional affect this may have on us as designers.

Yes! i know what you might be thinking, why are you showing me a toilet? Well because when you are use to a simple two switch version and then are in a foreign country with what appears to be a mini computer on the side you are both scared but curious. This is a great example of Olsen's ideology that a product can be overcomplicated and prove to be a negative, or depending on the person you may feel you are intrigued and want to figure the entirety of the product.

Microwaves are another example of how a basic household product can be over complicated. For myself I believe that a simple design such as the bottom one achieves the desired result (heating or defrosting) in the most efficient way. The interface selection can become far to advanced and although i realise their is a market for both. However I believe the majority of households would prefer the easy to use twist and go design, due to the minimal desired effort to achieve the same result. 

Inspirational Images