Speakit

372 views

Published on

Speakit is an intermodal messaging system that allows for the repurposing and re-appropriation of surfaces and privatized spaces by introducing guerilla communication. This system was specifically designed with the Vancouver 2010 Olympics in mind.

Published in: Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
372
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Speakit

  1. 1. SPEAKITINTERMODAL MESSAGING SYSTEM.CHING SHENG HUNG, KITTY ZHANG, JOEL RICH, ROSS PAPA
  2. 2. PROJECT BOUNDSCreate an object that has to do with the Olympics.
  3. 3. 1. AUDIENCE initial Initially, we looked at the “anti-audience” to the Olympics which would be the people protesting against the Olympics. But to maintain a wider possibility of use, we specified our audience to people with any dissenting (and not necessarily radical) views on the Olympics.
  4. 4. 2. RESEARCH METHODS Rather than jumping straight to the whiteboard, we applied different research methods to gather quantitative and qualititative information from our proposed target audience.
  5. 5. cultural probe WEEK 1During the first week, we launched our Cultural Probes. Theseprobes comprised of a Camera which was meant for keeping avisual diary, a Map that would collect qualitative data from theuser in regards to how they feel about different areas in the city,Envelops which they would fill with items indicative ofneighborhoods we label, a Blog where standard q&a would occur,Political Cartoons to give us an imprint of their personality andthe Box which would give us an imprint of their creativity.
  6. 6. cultural probe results WEEK 2The Cultural Probe results were varied and more importantly,surprising. Alot of the misconceptions that we had aboutour use group were cleared up. Our audience are intelligent,social people whose views are slightly cynical (for example,making fun of traditional protest methods) but still hopeful.We found that the political cartoons gave us the best insighton their point of view.
  7. 7. personas WEEK 3&4We then synthesized this insight into our user group anddeveloped 2 personas, Jefferson and Helen. They would embodythe characteristics that we decided defined our audience. Wethen compared and contrasted their personas to find similari-ties or interesting conflicts. Our hope was that these overlapswould define a design space to work in. These overlaps did, inthe end, inform many of our design decisions.The surprising result of the persona work was that Jefferson andHelen became part of the design team in the sense where wewould ask whether Jefferson or Helen would take part of, buyinto, or believe in the design ideas we come up with.
  8. 8. informances WEEK 5Our informances then applied person to action and situation. We wereable to put ourselves into our audience’s shoes and potentially walk fora moment in their lives. This helped us discover little interactions andthe finer details of communication and social connection that mayhappen to our user group. The informances were also the first smallsteps in regards to process and ideation where we tried to define aspecific problems and potential solutions.
  9. 9. scenarios WEEK 6The Scenarios took the informances a step further and provoked us to bring ourinformances into the light of further process. We took smaller social andbehavioral interactions and tried to map the cause-effect cycle that would takeplace in these interactions. We ended up getting caught up in developing andimplementing a “What” with our informances and audience group whichconstrained much of what could have developed. Instead of more specific andpossibly interesting situations, we came up with expediant solutions. The stepswe as a group will take afterwards will hopefully be reflective on this lesson.
  10. 10. RETROSPECTION post scenarioInstead of moving forward from our Scenario exercises, we went back and tried to digestall the information that we’ve collected. We were having trouble grounding ourselvesinto a solid design idea mainly because all the different bits of information were stilldisparate and seemingly unconnected. So we went back to the whiteboard and looked atpast readings (like Dick Hebdige’s book “Subculture: the Meaning of Style”) to find someconnective fiber between the parts. This helped us ask more meaningful questions thatwent past the stereotypic surface level which did help us start to explore the foundationof the “why” questions we’ve been asking.
  11. 11. 3. DESIGN PROPOSAL initial Our intention is to design a method to incorporate the opinions of people in the system of the Olympic Games, thus possibly provoking discussion and inclusion of all members of Vancouver.
  12. 12. 4. IDEATION PROCESS We looked at defining our user more clearly and identifying more specifically their needs and goals. From this we developed questions to put restraints on our ideation process. We also defined important characteristics that are inline with our user that would then be designed into the end product.
  13. 13. 4.1 AUDIENCE rede ned Rather than using the term “Protester” since it carries with it alot of social and cultural baggage, we moved to using the term “Social Commentator”. We still used the cultural context in which our personas were developed but by using the term Social Commentator, we open up the opportunity for a more rounded discussion; one that would allow for both positive and negative opinions to be expressed.
  14. 14. 4.2 WHY? Some Foundational Questions 1. Why would we give people a tool for motivation / influence 2. What tools/systems exist already 3. How can a tool enable people to be anonymous but unignorable 3a. Do people want to be anonymous? 4. Can a tool enable people to be visible. 5. How can a tool empower the grass roots level? 6. Can a tool provoke people to move beyond personal safety limits to enact change. 7. How does our users interact with people they may not know 8. What kind of information do they want to share.
  15. 15. 4.3 Additional ResearchINTERVIEW WITH A GRAFFITI ARTIST - What time of day will people be implementing these objects? “I usually go out at night so I don’t get seen. It also adds a level of mystery. A blank wall at night all of a sudden becomes art in the morning” - Appreciate the assortment of tools “It’s good to see different tools for different purposes. It doesn’t make sense only having one spray can tip” - Speed “The projector might take long to set up don’t you think? I’d want to be in and out in a couple of minutes if not seconds” - Sticker Subculture “There aren’t alot of people that Sticker in Vancouver. I like Stickering, but I’m not sure if this would fly”
  16. 16. 4.4 ELEMENTS OF THE END PRODUCT Kinetic Abilitiy to slip in and out of Anonymity Comfort + Un-ignorability Local, one-on-one, interpersonal interaction Creative Misuse (scaffold, afford, and allow for creativity)
  17. 17. 4.5 DESIGN AS BRICOLAGE From Hebdige’s “Subculture: The Meaning of Style”, explored the idea of bricolage and it’s role in subcultures. We were directed to Panagiotis Louridas’ paper “Design as Bricolage: Anthropology Meets Design Thinking”. The thoughts on bricolage outlined in the early part of the paper became a driving force in the development of the project and helped develop a new analogy.
  18. 18. SOCIAL COMMENTATOR AS BRICOLER“The rule of his game is to always make do with whats available ”(Louridas, 1999)
  19. 19. 4.6 METAPHOR From this new analogy, we developed a metaphor for our design which then propelled us into a flurry of possible forms.
  20. 20. MetaphorTHE ARTIST’S TOOLKIT “He uses an inventory of semi-defined elements: they are at the same time abstract and concrete. They carry a meaning, given to them by their past uses and the bricoleurs experience, knowledge and skill, a meaning which can be modifed, up to a point, by the requirements of the project and the bricoleurs intentions” (Louridas, 1999)
  21. 21. 6. DESIGN PROPOSAL rede ned Our design involves developing tools (signifiers) that will reappropriate and manipulate found materials to convey a Social Commentator’s point-of-view, story, experience. In turn, hopefully provoking discussion and retrospection within the recievers of the message.
  22. 22. 7. PROTOTYPES We prototyped three tools that could possibly go into the toolkit as well as “packaging”. The technology is based in future developments and may not exist currently. This allowance was done so the fundamental ideas can have a feasible manifestation without being overly restricted.
  23. 23. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Overview The Lazertagger is a tiny programmable projector that can be installed onto most surfaces. There is an infrared laser that acts as a switch. When the laser is broken, the projector would project a dot matrix laser projection displaying the message of the Social Commentator onto buildings, statues, crowds and people. The public space is then transformed from an unsable place or a place to sit or walk through, to a space of connection between people within the public space and the thoughts of the Social Commentator.
  24. 24. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Digital Interface The Lazertagger is a simple plug and play device that acts like a usb stick. The interface is an input interface that allows for a preview of the message.
  25. 25. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Application The Lazertagger comes with Sticky Tac. To attach the projector onto a surface, one would cover it with the Sticky Tac and attach. The application onto a surface is meant to be quick and non-restrictive to the movement which would give the user the ability to slip in and out of annonymity much more easily. Thus giving the Commentator the ability to speak up and provoke discussion without necessarily bringing attention to themselves. PROJECTOR INFARED LASER ACTIVATION STICKY TAC
  26. 26. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Functionality The projector has a infrared laser that activates the projection. If it is pointed at a building or stationary object, the infrared will be continuously tripped thus projecting constantly. The kinetic nature of people interacting with the projector add a different dimension to it’s functionality. The activity of people in public spaces change throughout the day which then adds another aspect of interaction, time.
  27. 27. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Crowd Interaction A crowd of people can potentially act as a stationary object, thus constantly projecting the message. In this way, the projected message is acting like a billboard, but instead of displaying banal advertisements, it’s displaying moments of thought and point-of-views of real people. This can potentially take individuals out of the usual crowd mentality of noticing advertisements but not paying attention to them to potentially being provoked and starting an internal discourse.CROWDCROWD CROWD CROWDCROWDCROWDCROWD CROWD CROWDCROWD
  28. 28. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Crowd Interaction A crowd of people can potentially act as a stationary object, thus constantly projecting the message. In this way, the projected message is acting like a billboard, but instead of displaying banal advertisements, it’s displaying moments of thought and point-of-views of real people. This can potentially take individuals out of the usual crowd mentality of noticing advertisements but not paying attention to them to potentially being provoked and starting an internal discourse. ?
  29. 29. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message.ERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON
  30. 30. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message. PERSON PERSON ? PERSON PERSON
  31. 31. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message. ? ! PERSO SON N PERPERSON ? ? PERSON PERSON PERSON
  32. 32. 7.1 LAZERTAGGER Individual Interactions A public space populated by fewer people can lead to more individualized interactions with the projector where surprise and play could lead into discourse. Since the projector isn’t being tripped constantly, the momentary glimpses of projected messeges may peak their curiousity and lead to further exploration. Larger messages would need more than one person to be completely read. This need for a larger canvas could then provoke passers-by to collaborate with other passers-by to reveal the complete message. ?
  33. 33. 7.2 ‘SCOT Overview ‘Soct is an inflatable art toy that is meant to bring attention away from the system and the icons of the Games and stand as a representation of the people of Vancouver. It does this by symbolically being a mascot for an individual. 6 feet
  34. 34. 7.2 ‘SCOT Interface ‘Soct’s interface is a vinyl plastic canvas. He is meant to be drawn on and customized in however way the user desires thus standing as an artefact of the myriad of peoples and styles that is Vancouver. Paint and markers would be the tradtional way to customize ‘Scot.
  35. 35. 7.2 ‘SCOT Functionality After customizing ‘Scot, the user must deploy it. To mirror the kinetic nature of the Sticky Projector, ’Scot is equiped with a rapid inflation device at it’s feet (also acting as anchors).
  36. 36. 7.2 ‘SCOT Interaction Like the Sticky Projector, ‘Scot interacts both with person and place. The interaction with people is immediate and evident. Some people may go up to ’Scot to take a closer look, take pictures with it, and possibly talk to each other about it. The interaction with place is a little less evident unless many ‘Scots are deployed. ’Scot can create a temporary, transient spaces defined by the personality, style and presence of the people. In turn, reclaiming the space (possibly restricted and zoned only for Olympic sanctioned events) back to the people from the system of the Games.
  37. 37. 7.3 ICON STICKERS The Icon Stickers are an iteration of ‘Scot and symbols for the kit and the movement of people that the kit attracts. Tthe Stickering culture in Vancouver is not prominent so the intention of this component is mainly to act as a calling card for the movement. The hope is that it would spark a greater interest in this art form because there is much creativity in Vancouver but little meaningful urban artefacts of it.
  38. 38. 7.3 THE MESSENGER BAG The “packaging” of the overall kit is the Messenger Bag. When the kit is acquired, the tools will come in the various messenger bags so to not brand the objects but still give them a distinguishable aesthetic. We chose this particular bag for two reasons: 1. Since Anonymity is an element we planned to design into the kit, the Messenger Bag is a good candi- date since it is a fairly ubiquitous bag. 2. The name “Messenger Bag” is a matches with the intention of the kit; the bag of a Messenger.
  39. 39. 7.4 SYNERGY We specifically designed the different components in the kit to work together to hopefully allow for a message that is bigger than the sum of its parts. Scot can be used as a surface to be projected onto for the Lazertagger or as a mount for a Lazertagger to be fixed to. The stickers use the iconography of Scot and are very effective as mini-Scots or as way finding tools to show people where Lazertaggers have been installed.
  40. 40. 8. IMPLICATIONS Since our objects are interacting with people and public environments, we much consider what the implications of these interactions are. A good lens to understand these implications is through the effect on the Stakeholders; the people being directly effected by these objects.
  41. 41. 8.1 PASSERS-BY Implications Passers-by are both user and canvas in these interaction scenarios. A full spectrum of reactions can be expected, from highly interested and interactive to offended.
  42. 42. 8.1 AUTHORITIES Implications The Authorities see the objects, primarily, as safety concerns. Firstly, the projector potentially looks like a dangerous piece of technology (i.e. a bomb). So the Lazertagger alone may set off some red flags and cause uneasiness and distrust. ‘Scot may cause general annoynance thus componding the stress of dealing with potential crowds of people and the system of the Games.
  43. 43. 9. WHAT DID WE LEARN? e research methods were at rst, not the most exciting things to do. As they went on, we realized how valuable it was to look into the patterns, habits and unique mannerisms of the user. To take the Designer somewhat out of the equation so to discover an interesting moment of need or fascination to then design in. “ ere’s a world outside of the whiteboard” Prototyping was an eye opener. Our initial misconceptions of prototyping was coming up with an almost- nished version of an idea. e nish of the object was less important than the goal of communicating an idea. At the end of the day, we didn’t really make anything but we believe that we were successful in our prototyping process. We experimented a lot with di erent materials (shower curtains, Sticky Tac, velcro) and found the importance of play and discovery in the prototyping process. As a team, we agreed that the main thing we learned is that people are the point. e end artefact may end up being really well rendered and the video may end up really slick with great music, but it’s really pointless if the person is lost in the process. e world doesn’t need another designer that can pump out products and objects. We as designers cannot be caught up in the glamour of the nal; we must be excited in the intermediate to achieve a meaningful end.
  44. 44. 10. APPENDIX Videos, Research, Early Sketches, etc.
  45. 45. SOCIAL COMMENTATOR AS BRICOLER“The rule of his game is to always make do with `whats available’ ”(Louridas, 1999)
  46. 46. SIGN (in the terms of Semiotics) POISONSIGNIFIER: symbol; concrete SIGNIFIED: concept; abstract
  47. 47. SIGN (in the terms of Semiotics) DESIGN SPACE We’re designing the means of conveying the message, not the message itself POISONSIGNIFIER: symbol; concrete SIGNIFIED: concept; abstract
  48. 48. METAPHOR:THE ARTIST’S TOOLKIT
  49. 49. THE TOOLBOX ISSUBJECTIVE TOTHE MEDIUM
  50. 50. WHAT MEDIUMS DO THEOLYMPICS BRING?PHYSICAL SOCIALGlass CrowdMetal MascotsWood TouristsFabric / Fur Media CoverageDigital Environments Security Venues Vendors the GAMES
  51. 51. DESIGN SPACEREDEFINITION We’re designing means of opportunites for retrospection and usage of found materials to develop a signifier thus conveying the Social Commentator’s point-of-view, story, experience.
  52. 52. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN WORKSHOP RESULTS
  53. 53. 2 MAIN ACTIVITIES DISCUSSION AND BODY-STORMING
  54. 54. ENVIRONMENTEXCITED AT FIRST, BUT CONCERNED DOESN’T FEELABOUT MONEY USAGE CONNECTED CONCERNS
  55. 55. “IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW IT’S DEPLOYED, ASLONG AS THE MESSAGE GETS OUT” - MICHELLE
  56. 56. PITFALLS.FROM “Effective Use Of Participatory Design Methods”1. EXPECTING PARTICIPANTS WANT TO CONTRIBUTE2. LETTING SMALL NUMBERS OF USERS GREATLY IMPACTDESIGN3. EXPECTING DOMAIN EXPERTS TO BE TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS

×