News and blog posts from our students and faculty

Category Archives: Classes

User Centered design gone wrong

This past week we read 3 articles, by three different authors. Jon Kolko’s: Our Misguided Focus on Brand and User Experience A pursuit of a “total user experience” has derailed the creative pursuits of the Fortune 500., Michael Hobbes’: Stop Trying to Save the World Big ideas are destroying international development, and Aneel Karnani’s: Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage How the private sector can help alleviate poverty.

In each article I believe that each author was trying to tell the story of how true user centered interaction design went wrong. Whether it be by big business basically creating their own definition for user centered design to appease their unwillingness to change, or as Karnani did, calling out an actual individual name CK Prahalad for trying his hand at user centered design and failing.

I decided to create an infographic artifact to illustrate my take on these three articles.


Posted in Classes, Creativity, Design Education, Design Research, Portfolio | Leave a comment

Impact is Personal

When it comes down to it, there is a problem with our current culture of development. We have the best intentions to create change and drive impact but the culture of scale, numbers and metrics and immediacy get in the way of actually succeeding at this. While I agree that it’s really difficult to continue to get funding for projects that don’t have a concrete method of showing progress, or any guarantee of success, I believe that there needs to be a cultural shift of expectations. Expectations that are built around honoring the personal, local nuances of the individual communities we are trying to help.

Impact through Behavior Change

To help set the stage, I want to talk about how Jon Kolko describes experience in his article, Our Misguided Focus on Brand and User Experience A pursuit of a “total user experience” has derailed the creative pursuits of the Fortune 500.

“An experience cannot be built for someone. Fundamentally, one has an experience, and that is experience is always unique.”

It’s very personal. As designers, we can design the scaffold around the experience but the actual experience is completely out of our control. So essentially, the affect of what we put into the world is fairly unpredictable. Which can be kind of scary.

It’s important to note that even though the outcome is out of our control, this does not relinquish us from responsibility. While Kolko’s article gives a nod to large scale, his emphasis is on the importance of recognizing the role we play in shaping human behavior, from the individual and how that scales to an entire culture, organically. What we put into the world has an impact. Whether the thing is adopted or rejected, people adapt and therefore culture changes.

If we take a moment to think about how personal an experience is for an individual, and that individual is connected to a community of people who have their own personal understandings of the world, we can begin to see the intricacies that make up a culture, and even more importantly the intricacies that any kind of impact will need to consider.

Impact through Iteration

In Michael Hobbes’ article, Stop Trying to Save the World: Big ideas are destroying international development, he begins the discussion of how we handle aid development is broken. He has a couple of different examples of how we have developed this pattern of one-size fits all– Where one type of aid works in one community so let’s scale it and put it in all the communities that need aid. It’s almost like a commoditization of aid.

Nothing is one size fits all– you have to test it, test it again, then test it again. This is not sexy by mainstream standards. This is where our culture of impact is broken. There’s a viral component to sexy which breeds scale. It’s easy for the masses to wrap their head around a solution that is simple and has the story of big impact. It’s much more difficult to be counter culture and to paint the picture of how change really happens– over time, is dependent on so many factors that are complex and interconnected, and we don’t know if it’s going to work, but we sure as hell are going to try. (Which is sexy.) This is where our culture of impact needs to change.

What happens after deployment is just as important as what happens in the design thinking phase. If we connect Kolko’s article to Hobbes’, one thing becomes very clear: We must execute with intention and build in space for reflection and iteration. We should respect the bigger system that is in play here and be humbled by the absolute fact that there is no way we will get it spot on, and that we will have to take our time and work at it.

Impact through Emergence

In Annel Karnani’s paper, Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage completely refutes Prahalad’s stance that by expanding economic reach to the untapped market of the poor, not only can businesses thrive, but including the poor in market strategies might help “end economic isolation”.

Karnani emphasizes that the real fortune at the bottom of the pyramid is allowing growth to come from within, that the place for outside markets is to create producers out of the poor rather than simple consumers. Allowing the space for the emergence of local change and progress. Which could be about helping meet basic, fundamental needs, or working with local governments to make change as a way of empowerment from within rather than impact from without. And yes, this would take some time, this wouldn’t be fast, and it would be local and personal.

All three to some degree or another argue that no solution can be one size fits all, we must understand that experience and therefore impact is personal, and we cannot control outcomes. Because of this, when we put something into the world, the follow up is just as important as the design phase. We must create the feedback loop.

The impact we have may not have a red bow tied around it. We need to take time to understand the real problem and not allow ourselves to get caught up in the story of scale or profit. If we acknowledge that impact is personal, we can begin to create change that scales in a way that is sustainable and truly lasting.

Posted in Classes, Theory | Leave a comment

Re-Prioritizing Scale to Achieve Cultural Impact in Design

In our Theory of Interaction Design and Social Entrepreneurship class, the first set of readings we were presented with are three viewpoints on how having the best of intentions to help can still lead to the introduction of consequences into the world that don’t leave people better off as we had hoped. With this being our fourth and final quarter as students at Austin Center for Design, understanding the influence we have on people and society as a whole is an important reality for us as designers to grasp.

Michael Hobbes, author of Stop Trying to Save the World uses the example of PlayPump International. This organization came up with the idea of PlayPumps, which are merry-go-rounds hooked up to a water pump that would “harness the energy of children to provide fresh water to sub-Saharan African villages. While the potential impact was extremely compelling to donors and the media earning PlayPumps significant financial support, an unintended consequence of the design made the pumps installed reliant on child labor.

Jon Kolko, author of Our Misguided Focus on Brand and User Experience addresses how marketing and design efforts have emphasized gaining control instead of encouraging behavioral change. The intent to build a relationship with customers is overshadowed by the draw of “gain[ing] efficiencies by producing…exactly as perscribed, in mass.” In applying this mindset to the design of user experiences, we prevent people from being able to “participate and contribute in a meaningful way.”

Finally, Aneel Karnani, author of Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage makes a case for reducing the costs of the goods sold to them or making these individuals producers of the goods themselves in order to affecting the people living in poverty in a positive way. Otherwise, he says, “The only real way to alleviate poverty is to raise the real income of the poor.”

In other words, these three authors present points of views with the metric of success along a spectrum.


Success over time begins first with Hobbes and the novelty that comes with having an idea that attracts a following. He says that it is “a narrative we’re all familiar with by now. Exciting new development idea, huge impact in one location, influx of donor dollars, quick expansion, failure.” From here, the expectation for continued success is to scale the idea up to more people in more locations as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible. In order to garner public and financial support, the viability of a socially impactful idea is met with the pressures to scale. Only then is your idea recognized for its potential to drive behavior change. “PlayPump International…seemed to have thought of everything. The whole package cost just $7,000 to install in each village and could provide water for up to 2,500 people.” They were not addressing behavior change specifically, but were evaluating the idea’s ability to scale from a quantitative perspective. For designers, Kolko addresses this by saying that “Every design decision…contributes to the behavior of the masses, and helps define the culture of our society.” If success continues to occur over time, going down this path, we would expect the output of scaling an idea and driving behavior change to achieve cultural impact. This is where the breakdown occurs. Karnani’s point made here summarizes this breakdown: “Markets of the rural poor are often geographically and culturally fragmented; this combined with weak infrastructure makes it hard to exploit scale economies.”

Should we re-prioritize the notion of scale as the determinant of success over time?

Effective social impact is attached to the perception that an idea must ultimately achieve massive scale in order for it to be determined viable as a success. In other words, the challenge is changing the perception that success is directly proportionate to one’s ability to increase the number of people an idea touches. If we can begin to understand that cultural impact is affected over time by ongoing user testing and feedback followed by iteration, the concept of scale becomes an output of driving behavioral change. As a result, success is achieved by driving cultural impact over time.


What is the value of having user input in a design solution before you determine how an idea will be scaled?

When the novelty that surrounds the potential for making a difference quickly wears off, you might be left with something no one wants to use. You have now invested time and resources into something that you thought would make things better, but actually do not work at all. Re-prioritizing where the scaling of an idea should take place over time allows designers to more effectively shape culture through their work by focusing first on and foremost on behavior change by getting things in front of users, incorporating feedback (or not) and iterating.

Posted in Classes, Scale, Theory | Leave a comment

Can a Solution Retain its Effectiveness when Scaled?

This week in our Theory of Interaction Design and Social Entrepreneurship class we looked at three different readings.  One by AC4D founder Jon Kolko called “Our Misguided Focus on Brand,” another by Michael Hobbes called “Stop Trying to Save the World” and the last reading by Aneel Karnani called “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage.”

Each of the readings this week focused primarily on the shortcomings of popular approaches to scaling businesses and international development solutions.  For most people, these shortcomings aren’t surprising.  Just because a solution works for one group of people, does not mean that it will necessarily work for everyone.  To solve problems on a large scale is difficult for this very reason and there are myriad examples of organizations attempting to solve problems in this way only to fail — and in some cases cause more harm than good.

Below is the typical “hockey-curve” of business growth.  It is a common belief that a successful business will have growth that looks similar to this.  You start with a good idea, prove your concept, and then money pours in for you rapidly grow your business in such a way that you end up “owning” your market segment.


As all of our authors point out, this is not the best way to retain effectiveness.  If we map effectiveness against the growth curve, most solutions start off very effective for a small group of people, but as time goes by and the growth frenzy starts effectiveness sharply falls off.


So what we are left with is a chasm between effectiveness and scale.  This is a problem.  In an ideal world, solutions to the world’s problems would retain effectiveness even at scale.  We see this kind of ideal state in scientific solutions, like cures for diseases; the Polio vaccine remained effective at the same time it was scaled to eradicate the disease.

I’m calling this chasm, the “Opportunity Zone” and each of our authors presents a different way to deal with it to increase impact without losing effectiveness (or creating more harm than good).


Kolko’s article “Our Misguided Focus on Brand” discusses how a focus on brand and “owning” a market segment or “owning” an experience misses the mark.  He argues that this attempt at ownership amounts to trying to control the consumer and control will never work. Each consumer (er, person) has a unique experience and attempting to provide them with a one-size-fits all experience is impossible.  Instead, our experiences should be designed to be conversational, providing a give-and-take framework that treats people as the nuanced beings they are.  I believe thinking about problems in this way does a lot to bridge the gap between effectiveness and scale — it also seems a lot easier said than done — but nobody said it was supposed to be easy.


In Hobbes article “Stop Trying to Save the World” he presents a number of examples of international development projects that failed or caused more harm than good.  As I stated earlier, he chalks this up to the reality that what amounts to a solution for one group of people does not necessarily amount to a solution for every group of people.  Instead of hurriedly scaling every solution we come across, he suggests that we continually test each roll-out of the solution– before, after and constantly — to make sure it remains effective.

Below is Hobbes’ solution graphed in terms of effectiveness and scale.  His solution while logically sound, would be inordinately expensive, would slow any hopes of large-scale impact, and does not bridge the gap between effectiveness and scale.  While he argues against quick, large-scale impact as a goal– whether we like it or not these are the projects that attract attention and funding, and so I believe it makes more sense to figure out ways to minimize negative impact, increase probability of success and not fight the appeal of scale.


Karnani, in our final reading “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage” argues against the notion presented by CK Prahalad that there is a fortune to be made for large Multinational Corporations by selling to the poor.  He provides a thorough refutation of Prahalad’s arguments, and argues instead of focusing on selling to the poor we should look at them as producers and focus on increasing the real income of people by reducing prices of goods sold to them (by giving them the option to purchase lower-quality goods that they need) and by facilitating the growth of labor intensive (low-skill) enterprises.

The problem with this solution is that by inserting methods of production into a culture, there will certainly be unintended consequences.  Moreover, in order for production as a solution to make sense monetarily, it will have to produce goods at a lower price than they can be currently be purchased and as Karnani argues himself, there are many logistical issues that keep that from being a possibility.



Thoughts? Comments? See below.

Posted in Classes, Theory | Leave a comment

The Best Intentions: above average results

For the “With best intentions” section of our final theory course we are reading an article on international development by Michael Hobbes,  an article on the role of private corporations in alleviating poverty by Aneel Karnani, and an article about the focus of creative energy in corporations by Jon Kolko.  Each author uses the same basic structure for his argument: Here is what is being done now, here is what we should be doing. The issue of the scale vs. measurability of results and the amount of choice assigned to the recipient (whether of design or aid) also surfaces in each argument. But although all of the authors seem to be coming from a similar world-view, as they move from problem to solution they do not move in same direction on these axes. In fact, at the points of disagreement, where the vector of each author’s problem to solution cross, are key tensions. Tensions, I believe, we must keep in mind and use as a method of course correction, if we want not just to be the people with the best intentions, but also, to achieve above average results.

These tensions plus each author’s position relative to measurability vs. scale and amount of choice given to the user are summarized and diagramed in the attached document.

Best Intentions Position Diagram

Posted in Classes, Discursive Design | Leave a comment

Creating the right pilot: Trust your gut, focus on the ideal

This week I waited for my recordable greeting card to come in the mail. Anticipating that the idea was to establish a conversation with individuals, via a pen pal type situation, recording reactions and reflections that were then sent back to the first user, then to another individual to reflect or react to by recording a verbal message.  I would then use contextual inquiry to identify if this back and forth conversation (revolving around the stigma of mental illness) was helpful for the initial user in disseminating the stigma that they had to keep their condition a secret, and to be more comfortable speaking out and owning their condition, because they were at least virtually interacting with others that could identify with their emotional state on a personal level.

Unfortunately, the card did not come in, but during this time of waiting for the card to come in the mail, I was challenged with the opportunity to take a step back and ask if this was really the correct way to pilot my ideal final product. Which is a 2 week trial pack of a mood disorder medication, which included recorded stories of others who have similar conditions and how they deal with emotion, medicaiton, and manage self care. As of now I can only equate my final ideal product to the idea to those voice recorded Hallmark story books, where a child can be told a bedtime story by a loved one who may live across the country.

Yet as I was waiting for my order to come in, to pilot my idea, I had in the back of my mind that this is not the correct pilot, I just felt it in my gut. My ideal end product is actually not necessarily a back and forth conversation as the initial pilot would suggest, but a book of real people with real stories about how they felt and dealt with issues surrounding their life before a diagnosis. Then how they felt and managed getting a diagnosis, being prescribed medication, and how they felt with the idea that they may have to maintain a medication regimen perhaps for the rest of their life.

I did not believe in my first pilot idea, so I went with my gut and started gathering stories, from real people in their own words. That is what I wanted in the first place and admittedly should have spent the past week gathering these stories.

The past being the past it, was time to get to work. I created a script of questions and recruited 2 individuals to interview and record in order to deliver these stories to someone who may be hesitant to seek help, whether by stigma or general fear of a diagnosis that required them to potentially take a medication that helped them reach self-care in the long term, possibly for the rest of their lives.

This is what I did today. Surprisingly people who suffer from a mood disorder (bipolar spectrum or depression) understand what the condition is like and are more than willing to share their own stories if it has the potential to help release the stigma of being the odd man out, or the damaged ones, as well as put them at ease about the idea of having to be medicated in the long term in order to reach the goal in life they seek.

I also learned the importance of getting this information out of the computer and on to the “wall”. The wall being a place where you can visualize your journey and ideas, inspirations and wishes that you can physically look at and see on a daily basis. This allows you to be able to see where you have been, where you are going, and where you want to be. To iterate, and I acknowledge I should have done this sooner. I should have trusted my gut.

Out of respect of the two individuals I will not post the recordings until next week when I am able to edit down to the core ideals I am initially going to pilot, to a new “patient” with the same hope that it will aid in creating a virtual bond with my recorded individuals and their experiences in hopes that the stigma of being judged as the damaged one, as well as the realization that it is ok, and rather normal, often rather necessary, to seek aid of a medication regimen is not weird, or uncommon.

My pilot has changed. I now have the necessary stories/tools to relay to someone who may be feeling like they are “not normal”, but being not normal is actually ok with the appropriate treatment. Some of the greatest minds of our time have been “not normal”, and have gone on to make a true effect on changing the world.

I truly was fascinated and inspired by hearing others give their trust and conviction in helping others by revealing their personal information on tape. I appreciate the community that is willing to speak out about 1 in 4 people you may walk past on the streets where you live each day that manage and thrive some sort of mood disorder, but still having a program to not only reflect on their own actions themselves, but also be the crafters of some of the most insightful realizations about the world we live in at the same time.

Posted in Classes, Creativity, Design Education, Design Research, Interaction Design, Motivation, Portfolio, Reflection, UX For Good | Leave a comment

Pilot testing phase 1

At this point in the process of product development, we are able now to release a few pilot tests of rough prototypes and monitor the results in order to use the information gathered to make our final product the best user experience it can be.

The hierarchy of what my products realities are that: recovery (or stability) from a mental illness cannot solely depend on medication alone. There also needs to be a support system in place for the patient to guide them through the journey and recognize intervention points when and if the patient is having a rough time or is falling off the path to stability.

This being a hypothesis derived from the last 16 weeks of research (contextual inquiry, interviews, and secondary research) led me to beginning my first pilot, focussing on simplicity and human connection.

Please keep talking
Pilot 1

Value proposition of the pilot is:

Helps an individual connect with other that are “like them” and reduces personal stigma.

The pilot could be something like:

A recordable greeting card that is mailed to an individual newly diagnosed with a “mood disorder”. The card includes a story of an individuals experiences and where that person is in their diagnosis (newly diagnosed individuals will receive stories of how people dealt with hearing their diagnosis, and how they are attempting to manage self care, individuals that are further along in their diagnosis will receive stories from others on how they deal with issues such as the stigma or the diagnosis in everyday life, as well as how they deal with medications and self care).

Inside the card there is a prompt and instructions on how the user can record their own story about how they are dealing with issues surrounding their personal diagnosis. And how to put the card in the pre-posted envelope and mail it back (to me). 

For this pilot I would act as an intermediary and the letter would come to me, which then I would vet and then phase 2 would begin. A back and forth communication between chosen individuals would be under my control for this piloting stage.  

The next person that receives the card would be farther along in their diagnosis, and would be prompted to listen to the recorded story in the card, then record over it with either a positive message on how they identify with the story that was told, or a similar story about themselves.

They would then mail it back to me, I would vet it, and then pass it back to the first user. 

This would continue always with the same first time user, but received back with a different story/reflection from a new individual. Again this would be mailed back to me for the cycle to continue. 

Less like a pen-pal but more like remote group therapy. 

The cycle of mailing back and forth would last at least 4 cycles, and then I would collect feedback from the initial user. 

I would need people who:

Have been newly diagnosed with a mood disorder, have been diagnosed with a mood disorder but are reluctant to seek out a support group, and a group of individuals that are farther along in their recovery.

They would interact with the pilot by:

  • Receiving the package in the mail.
  • Opening the package to find a recordable greeting card with a pre-posted/labeled envelope.
  • Instructions on the front of the card will introduce the narrative they are about to hear and instruct the user on how to play the recorded story of an individual dealing with a point in their diagnosis (content is currently in the works).
  • After listening to the story, the user is instructed to follow the printed instructions, with a prompt to get them started, on how to record their own story about their diagnosis.
  • The user is then instructed to place the card in the pre-posted envelope and mail it back (to me). The user will be aware that I will be vetting the content as I would like to establish a sense of trust that whatever they choose to say will not be judged.
  • After a day or so, the user will receive the same card in the mail with a new message from a different individual and instructed to keep the conversation going (by re-recoding their story, or reaction).

I will use contextual inquiry with the initial user, to establish how they felt about sharing their stories, hearing the stories of others, and if the process was beneficial. I will be testing if the method of the recorded stories at all encouraged the user to go out and speak to real life individuals whether in a group setting or a confidant. This will be my measure of breaking a personal stigma, and establishing a connection with another human through the power of storytelling.

It took a few runs to realize this first pilot (separating the medication aspect from the personal connection breaking stigmas), Some scenario storyboarding and a basic process flow about how this might be realized.



Congruently, I have been revising the story arch of a 14 day medication trial, processing what content would be on each page, along with imagery, establishing a visual heirachy that both promotes support, and directs the eye to the second component which is the medication (one pill per page).

I am currently in the process of both recruiting the individuals that I would need to successfully test my first pilot, as well as developing the content design that will actually be seen, read, and heard on the first pilot prototype.

Posted in Classes, Creativity, Design Research, Interaction Design, Portfolio, Strategy | Leave a comment

Q3 Summary

After 8 weeks of research, and 8 weeks of prototyping and scenario user testing, I am currently in the process of developing an audible book that brings the compassion of group therapy as well as the encouragement of a medication regimen to individuals living in isolated environments, such as rural West Texas.

This idea has the goal of bringing the voices of individuals who may be suffering the same condition to someone who may not have the resources to talk to anyone about their condition as well as the provide them with a 2 week starter pack of their prescribed medication, with information about that medication as well as intervention moments for the patient to reach out to their health care provider if they are experiencing any negative or positive effects from the medication. Ultimately the goal is to get the new patient confident enough through de-stigmatizing mental illness that they themselves reach out and talk to others, and continue the conversation through their recovery.

Here is a link to a wrap up of the research and prototyping done in quarter 3.

Q3 Wrap Up

Posted in Classes, Design Research, Interaction Design, Portfolio, UX For Good | Leave a comment

Shaping the Conversation: Designing for Family Discussions Around Aging


Over the last eight weeks, Laura Galos and I have been working on a design solution to help facilitate the difficult conversations seniors and their families have around the major changes that come with aging.

Last quarter, we spent eight weeks conducting qualitative research with a range of individuals in their 30’s to their 80’s. We started with a focus on how people are planning for and financing their post-work years in the context of increasing longevity. The subject of aging and the impact it has on finances led us to explore how age-associated life changes also affect health and family relationships.

We found that communication about aging-related transitions can be difficult, as the older family members faces changes in the way they live, while younger family members find themselves feeling the “role reversal” of caring for the people who had previously cared for them. The communication problem families are faced with crosses a range of topics–from limiting driving, to agreement on living arrangements, to health issues, and others.



For some families, broaching these hard subjects is too difficult to bring up until forced by external events. We wondered about the root cause of the avoidance in families. In synthesizing the stories our participants shared in research, we came to the following insight:

Elderly individuals fear asking for help because taking others’ time and resources will result in being robbed of their own independence.

We considered the need for a gentler “ramp-down” for seniors, rather than the abrupt changes that happen as a result of small problems growing into large ones. On the other hand, we clearly see a need to give the elderly as much control as possible in making choices about their lives. This was an opportunity to design a solution that allows communication between aging parents and grown children to embody more honesty, mutual understanding and a place of emotional safety for both sides.

In our exploration of the topic, we found that the journey of bringing up tough topics between younger and elderly family members follows this general path:


We found that the journey usually begins when the family member that is responsible for caregiving, feels the need to address a tough topic. They look outside themselves for help or outside advice and will often have discussions about these issues with siblings. This usually leads to the building of a “case” against the elderly’s need to change their behavior and is followed by an intervention-like conversation that can leave both sides feeling frustrated, angry, hurt or shut down.

We see our product as an opportunity to change this journey from building a case to building understanding on both sides. Along this desired path, the intent of our product is to breaks up the conversation into smaller units focused on building understanding between family members, rather than a large conversation based on a “case” for the need to change. This likely also means that younger and older family members might having these conversations over time, rather than all at once.


For both the younger and elderly family member, our value promise to them is this:

By using our product, we promise to help you stay on the same team as you make aging-related decisions together.

Our first iteration explored the notion of team by using game mechanics. Games allow the user to take on different roles, explore alternatives in a safe space, and have a lighter, more fun experience. They also have the ability to diffuse the responsibility of bringing up tough topics.

One of the concepts we came up with is called Balloon Bounce. The object of the game is to answer questions related to a difficult topic within a certain amount of time. Not answering the question within a certain amount of time results in a challenge that family members would complete together.


While this idea was fun and more playful, the use of technology was more than either side wanted to take on.

Still exploring game mechanics, we still went with something that was a more familiar form. Conversation Cards. Using a question deck and an answer deck, the object of the game is to learn about each other so the answers are about the person who is asking the question. To play this game, one person would ask the question while the other players provided an answer that they think most closely aligns to the person who asked the question’s preferences. The person who asked the question would then pick the winning answer and award the person who answered with the point.


There is a mix of fun, lighter questions, but also brings up harder questions that get the family members closer to the answers they’re really wanting to know. Users enjoyed engaging with a familiar form and coming up with solutions together. For older family members, the conversation is not centered around things being taken away from them. Because this started to get to answers family members wanted to know, we needed a way for them to follow-up on the conversation.

Veering away slightly from the game mechanics, but into that continuous conversation users were looking for, our team came up with a service called, Enveloop.

Enveloop is a web-based service that allows family members to bring up tough topics by answering prompts in the form of letters and sending them physically through the mail.


Some users that we tested this service with liked that this allowed them to do something they felt was more meaningful for their older family member and saw this as a way to gain empathy for the changes they were experience as they aged. They liked that the technology made using the service convenient for them, but minimized it on the side of their elderly family members. Physical letters are a form they are already familiar with. Where users were less clear on the value of our service came from managing different communication methods. How would bringing up difficult topics through letters in the mail be better than talking over the phone or having a discussion in person?

The intent behind our initial design iterations was to test how tough topics could be more approachable for everyone involved. While our idea is still evolving, testing each of these concepts with users that are having or anticipate having difficult conversations about age-related life transitions in the near future, provided us with a set of criteria that will be used in our next iteration to help us move the idea forward:

  • Feels non-threatening for older individuals
  • Feels approachable to family members
  • Leads to solutions, not just fun bonding moments
  • Uses a medium older individuals already enjoy
  • Includes a way to follow-up on conversations
  • Takes into considerations families who live apart

Shaping the manifestation of this idea has proven to be as challenging as shaping the conversation between family members and the elderly itself. Quarter 3 has been as much about learning how we can make the impact we intend to have in this problem space as much as it has been about embracing where we are in the process with an idea that still exists in multiple manifestations.

Hard to believe we’re moving into our last and final quarter at AC4D. In the last eight weeks, we will pilot our idea and get our product in the hands of potential users. Check back in another week to see where our next iteration takes us!

Posted in Classes, Design Research, Reflection | Leave a comment

Summit: Ramping up for Piloting

Summit: Process and Next Steps

Posted in Classes, Design Research, Methods, Portfolio | Leave a comment