Week 5 - Sizing Up Design (Prototypes)

Maybe if a prototype had been built, a lot of effort might have been saved... Oh... This 'is' the low fidelity prototype :P

As usual, I'll start with discussing the lecture before moving onto the group project.

Lecture 5

The lecture started off with a brief mention of our group projects, before moving onto talking about prototyping (which was briefly touched on in the previous lecture). I regard the main point of prototyping is to expose design issues. It lets you see what works and what doesn't. It allows things that may not have been considered to come to the front for better or worse. Once you have a decent prototype, then it can be used to communicate ideas and guide implementation. But you want to make sure it performs before you go onto any other stage. It was stressed that iterative design includes prototyping.

Prototype Fidelity. Prototyping can be a simple as a basic quick drawing, or as complex as a digital/manufactured  model. Simpler prototypes are considered Low Fidelity, while more complex prototypes are considered High Fidelity. It's generally best to start with low fidelity prototypes, since they are more disposable. I know that with the things I have drawn, it's hard to throw something away if I've put a lot of time into it, even if I do think of something better later. It becomes a case of "That will do". By focusing on low fidelity prototyping initially, hopefully the right kind of design will begin to form before too much of a commitment is made. However, you never know when inspiration is going to strike, so there are never any guarantees.

Prototype Types. It was stated that there were three kinds of prototyping: 1) Exploratory, 2) Experimental, 3) Evolutionary. Exploratory being you quick low fidelity ideas to find the direction you want to go in. Experimental being mid level prototyping to work out fundamental qualities of the design (may be either low or high fidelity). While Evolutionary is iteratively working on the design, bringing it to a point of refinement (high fidelity).

Design Inspiration. Design ideas can come from Extrapolation, Invention, or Iteration. Extrapolation is modifying existing designs. Invention combines new ideas with existing designs. While Iteration is more about exploring and evolving an existing design without changing it's fundamental concepts. I myself much prefer the first two.

Experience Enhances Originality. Originality is improved by having a wide range of general experiences.
I remember a friend just scribbling on a page. I told him that was a very nice monkey he drew. He didn't understand. I took my pen and highlighted the appropriate lines, revealing the monkey within his scribble. He was pleased.
Ideas can come from anywhere, even scribble. But if I did not know what a monkey looked like, I would never have seen the 'hidden' image. Similarly, when designing, unrelated visions/concepts/experiences can give rise to cognitive connections that give you that 'eureka' moment. I myself am always designing, looking at the world around me, and seeing more than what is there. However, design means nothing if it is not brought to some kind of fruition. Ideas need to be developed and made into something tangible and worthwhile. I note to myself that in the group project, I feel that since I am older, I have more experiences to draw upon than the other members. This has the dual effect of making me feel I need to have higher expectations of myself, yet maintaing humility since any good designing on my part may be just due to more worldly experience.

Width, Depth and Reflection in Design.  When designing, ensure you explore many concepts (width/divergence), so as to have many potentials. However, there needs to be a depth to the development (depth/convergence), so that the end product is refined. At each step, continually reflecting on the design and trying to see how it could be improved, will ensure the best possible results for your time spent.

In the lecture, we also looked at the ideas that slowly, over many years, lead to the development of the Pump that is still used today.

Group Project - "Flow" (Week 3 of 4)

I feel that our group didn't get very far this week. On seeing the 'lava' design that I put forward last week, everyone basically decided that was the design that we were going with, and didn't really develop their ideas further. I have refined my design a little more in my head, but  I'm holding off doing anything more until we can do it as a group. We will be meeting during the Easter break.

This week, the group tutorial session was mainly about doing the trial presentations that we didn't get to do last week. There were three more groups than normal, since Friday was a public holiday, and other groups attended our session. I'll briefly list what was presented:

• Group 24 - Flow of Time. Represented by a cube, with each of four walls having nine rotatable cubes representing the seasons. Clear design, meets criteria, only needs refinement.
• Group A - Flow in Perception. Represented by a series of arches with points of intersection that gradually shift as you walk along a path. Kind of like a distortion effect of a Fun House. Good idea, still a little vague in execution.
• Group 25 - Flow of Time. Represented by an hour glass. Idea defined, but execution needs to change due to using glass, which is not a material that can be used in this project.
• Group 26 - Flow of Time/Space. Represented by circular maze with images of a tree going from sapling to maturity and back again as you go along path. A sundial is in the centre. Sound idea, vague on construction.
• Group 29 - MY GROUP. Abstract Physical Flow. The Lava design previously discussed.
• Group 27 - Fibonacci Flow. Lots of ideas and potential, but no real design yet.
• Group 28 - Abstract Physical Flow. Represented by the 'effect' that flowing water has on other objects. Kind of like the 'reminisce' of flow. Not yet set on a method of execution.
• Group B - Flow of Time. Represented by plants growing up a statue. Aided growth by flowing tears from the statue. A few powerful messages behind the design: Life-Death, Reclamation. Design is still evolving and not ready for refinement.
• Group C - Flow of Energy. Mentioned yin/yang and double helix. Still exploring ideas with no concrete design yet.

Feedback on Our Group Design.

This following is what one of our group members recorded:

• Reasoning for the Design decisions.
• What size, why was the size chosen?
• The reason behind the specific representation (lava).
• Is there a better way to represent flow?
• Try to improve the design.
• Explain choices for design.

Some of these questions were actually answered in the mock presentation. I think everyone in my group latched onto the lava design because it was simple, elegant, not to difficult to actually build if we had to, and was already thought out to a high degree. Also, most importantly, it conveys the idea of 'flow' very well, while still being an abstraction of it's idea source (flowing lava).

What I feel gave rise to the main comments I myself heard, were the following areas:

• Design Strategy. It was said that a lot of "I" was heard (and not team). Our particular design strategy was to each come up with two different designs, and allow them to compete with each other like gladiators to see which was the strongest. Unfortunately, this resulted in the situation where just one of us was responsible for the chosen design discussed in the trial presentation. It was a mistake to only talk about the final design. For the final presentation, we will have to ensure that the other designs are mentioned, stating clearly that many ideas were explored before settling on what the group considered the best design.
• Design Breadth. There is some truth in the 'going with only one good idea' comment that I heard made. I would have liked my team mates to not just yield so quickly when they saw the design I initially presented. Feedback was given between group members to help development of ideas, although the 'lava' design remained the strongly favoured choice. Still, our above strategy allowed us to have great breadth in design options, which allowed for this design to be proposed in the first place. Once again, the fault was more in failing to express this in the trial presentation.
• Group Design. Since we are firmly cemented on our design idea, we do need to work as a team to realise it. We have already discussed working to our strengths. One member is going to be in charge of bringing everything together using Prezi for our presentation. Two others are doing research for the design, and will most likely be in charge of a simple physical prototype for the design. While I will most likely be doing the drawings for our presentation, since that is one of my strengths within the group. However, such things will be discussed (and done) more over the Easter break. Throughout all this, the design should also be refined, using input and knowledge from all the members (especially the researchers). At this point, I also feel we all need to be involved in the actual presentation, but that depends on how the others feel too. But regardless of who presents what, we should make clear all the team effort involved (which is the real purpose behind doing this project).

There are no project pictures for this week. However, by the end of the Easter break, our group will have gathered it's resources. So next week will be mostly pictures (hopefully).