ºÝºÝߣ

Editor's Notes

• #3: To begin with, let me briefly define how we saw the concept of EDD - Experience Design; Experience-Centered Design; (Empathic Design) 2: experience as the primary target; experience as a ¡°Design dream¡±; Over the last few years, a lot of interest in Experience-Driven Design as an approach but fairly little knowledge on and methods for how in practice to design for specific user experiences (role playing, body storming, user stories) ¨C one of the motivations why we wanted to explore this Traditional targets: persona, user segment, user needs, usability goals, technology-driven goals, pragmatic problem solving¡­ ? exploring how a rather abstract experience can actually serve as a design target
• #4: 1.1 students¡¯ backgrounds mainly in engineering, UCD or interaction technique research ? ¡±designerly¡± way of working on conceptual design 16 students altogether (8+8), ages varying from late-twenties to early forties
• #5: ¡±How to support moving and navigating in the Finnish winter¡± Coldness, limited visibility, snow covering roads, routes changing¡­ - design problem was timely, but also broad as a design space
• #6: 1.1: A general trend in product design to focus on enjoyability and pleasure The 22 PLEX categories cover a broad spectrum of experiences, some of which are ¡®evident¡¯ in play activities, while others may appear surprising in this context (e.g., ¡®Suffering¡¯ and ¡®Eroticism¡¯) or common also outside this context (e.g. Sympathy, Expression)
• #7: By grouping these based on semantic similarities we expected to broaden the design space make the students think about several aspects in the designs; also to see how they make selections based on the group of three targets - multiple groups with the same design problem ? allowed us to see the diversity in the solutions as a result of having different target experiences
• #8: 4-hour workshop with 5 stages of idea creation/refinement activity with varying stimuli and tasks - Around subtopics of the problem domain - E.g. keeping warm & equipment, change of landscape and routes - And with different methods of brainstorming - E.g. Visual sketching, VNA-cards, collage creation - The groups¡¯ own PLEX Cards were carried along
• #9: Videos at: http://www.tunnelvision.fi/vid/edd_ws_exitement_draft_small.mov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQm9UcMsEok&feature=g-upl&context=G2d72a0eAUAAAAAAAAAA
• #10: Videos at: http://www.tunnelvision.fi/vid/edd_ws_exitement_draft_small.mov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQm9UcMsEok&feature=g-upl&context=G2d72a0eAUAAAAAAAAAA
• #11: Videos at: http://www.tunnelvision.fi/vid/edd_ws_exitement_draft_small.mov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQm9UcMsEok&feature=g-upl&context=G2d72a0eAUAAAAAAAAAA
• #12: Videos at: http://www.tunnelvision.fi/vid/edd_ws_exitement_draft_small.mov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQm9UcMsEok&feature=g-upl&context=G2d72a0eAUAAAAAAAAAA
• #13: Videos at: http://www.tunnelvision.fi/vid/edd_ws_exitement_draft_small.mov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQm9UcMsEok&feature=g-upl&context=G2d72a0eAUAAAAAAAAAA
• #14: Clear novelties cf. to ¡±traditional¡± results of practical assignments Expanded the design scope (not only about solving wintery challenges but also taking advantage of the possibilities) - Product features: by a designer, e.g. functionality, content, interaction style, and presentation style - Apparent product character: high-level description of the personal perception of the product features (e.g. novel, interesting, useful) - Consequences are judgments about the products emotional and behavioral consequences (e.g. pleasure, getting inspired by using the product)
• #15: 1: ¡±fundamental WHY¡±, ¡±guiding star¡± - e.g. snow angels started off with a rough idea of an interactive jacket but needed focusing to understand what to do with it 4: Who are the users, what¡¯s the context, consequences of usage etc.
• #16: Regrouping: groups of similar or mutually contradictory experience categories - perhaps, the more out-of-scope the experiential targets are, the more ¡±disruptive¡± or ¡±revolutionary¡± the concepts might become Approach: We perhaps did not give the students enough methods to choose from especially engineers often want clearly documented and step-by-step processes Targets: Can inspire, guide and help communicating But can be harder to ¡¯guarantee¡¯ or measure in the first place (being subjective, subjective and more open-ended) Some might say that a target is not a good one if you cannot measure if it has been met Would benefit from coupling with other types of targets that can be more easily validated
• #17: PLEX: broad/abstract enough to allow various interpretations concrete enough to be ¡±measurable¡± What: Philosophy related to UCD and complements it nicely, but more vision-driven whereas UCD is more analysis- and empiria-driven Approach in terms of what to put in the focus, what are the fundamental goals Although serves well as stimuli in idea creation, is not (yet) a method in terms of providing concerete how-to instructions or processes for later phases in the design processes, especially concerning new designers¡¯ needs for specified processes and methods