News and blog posts from our students and faculty

Category Archives: Interaction Design

A Concept Map in an Hour

We’re starting off Quarter 2 with our class in Rapid Iteration and Creative Problem Solving. The first assignment came at us really quick- we had 48 hours to create a concept map of the Austin Bus application- CapMetro. We learned that a concept map, a tool for sense making, is a representation of a system that sacrifices accuracy for comprehensibility. Its particularly useful for this project because it helps examine an entirety of a complicated system in one visual representation.

This the first iteration out of 7 that will take place over the next 8 weeks. We’ve been learning how to complete assignments in broad strokes, which is a challenge for me in particular. To address this difficulty I decided to complete my first pass through concept mapping in just an hour, and I learned how effective it was to flesh out all ideas, even at a high level, in a limited time.

The first concept map I created represents the app as it exists today. The second shows my ideas to help improve issues and breakdowns that I observed.

Moving forward, I would like to continue to use rapid iteration in the form of one hour windows for getting through the process in its entirety.  As for CapMetro, I’d like to continue with mapping the entire system (only portions are shown here now) so that I work towards even more ideas to optimize usability.

Screen Shot 2014-10-29 at 10.30.11 PM

 

 

Posted in Classes, Interaction Design | Leave a comment

Oh Capital Metro App… mapping the pain

In our first assignment for Q2 in the Rapid Ideation and Creative Problem Solving class, we were tasked to deconstruct and analyze the current state of the Austin Capital Metro mobile app. The goal of this project is to find the obvious inefficiencies in the system structure, and map them out in a visual “Concept Map” of touch points, or areas of interaction with the app that we personally deemed important to the end goal the user is attempting to create. After mapping our version of the current state of the app’s system design, we then created a new, first iteration, of what we thought would be a good starting point for the optimal system flow for completing the task of 1. planning a trip, and 2. purchasing a ticket to be able to take the trip you need.

Below is my Concept Map of the current system flow of the Capital Metro app on a relatively high level. ConceptMapAsIs-01

The main issues I found with the current app was not only the general confusion in the interface, but the redundancy of information, when things could easily be consolidated for ease of use.

Below is my first iteration of the basic system flow for a re-design of the app. The first screen being an actual geo-located map of where you are in the Austin area, and what bus stops are surrounding you visually represented by clickable icons that give you more info about the bus, the schedule, and the route.

ConceptMapIdeal-01

I also believed it was important to be able to store information about your most valued routes, and easily purchase tickets within the app, both in the constant navigation bar as well as during the establishment of your route choice.

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

Map this app

Some things are complicated. Take the CapMetro app, for instance. The CapMetro app is presented by the CapMetro public transportation system here in Austin, and is responsible for communicating vast amounts of information to CapMetro riders, including bus routes, schedules, ticket prices, ticket purchases, detour information, and much more. In order to understand the CapMetro app in its entirety, our Rapid Ideation and Creative Problem Solving class is working on creating Concept Maps. Concept Maps are visual representations of systems that simplify the system in such a way as to make it more comprehensible, more quickly. This is important for us as designers as we begin to think about constructing systems, and important for the people to whom we show our ideas, so that they can make sense of this complex information, too.

We’ll be mapping this app several times over the next few weeks. The Concept Maps here are first-pass iterations, done rapidly over the past 48 hours. The first two represent the system as it exists today. [Continued after the maps, click to view larger.]

capmetro_concept_map1

Concept_mapl2

The last Concept Map represents my ideas for optimizing usability at a conceptual level. These ideas will continue to improve over the next iterations. [Continued after the map.]

Concept_map3

As early observations, I think that trip planning, schedules, and next-bus information all share the goal of getting riders information on the optimal route and time for their travel. That commonality leads me to believe there are ways to consolidate that information, as you can see around the “Find a Ride” bubble. Secondly, the current CapMetro app uses phone numbers to handle any problems or breakdowns in the app or in service, which necessitates leaving the app to dial. A chat function within the app could streamline customer inquiries, and I think would probably take up less time for CapMetro than fielding phone calls. Lastly, while an overview of the system and route maps are necessary, they are difficult to read and comprehend on a small phone screen. I think there is a potential to use the stops themselves to better handle large-format route information, perhaps in conjunction with the app. Going forward, I also would like to consider the app payment structure to make it easier and more enjoyable to use. If you have thoughts on optimizing this app, please feel free to comment, especially since this is an ongoing project!

 

Posted in Interaction Design, Methods | Leave a comment

Wash, rinse, repeat

Our second quarter methods class is called Rapid Ideation and Creative Problem Solving and rapid it is. We started Monday night; were informed that we would iterate on the same assignment 7 times over the the 8 weeks of class; and told the first iteration was due Wednesday. The project is to redesign the smart phone app for Austin’s public transit system known as Capital Metro.  Each successive iteration will tackle a finer level of detail and require a higher level of fidelity. For the first iteration we are not focusing on screens or specific functions at all. Rather we are creating two concept maps: one of the system in its current state and one of our vision of how it could be improved.

CAPMetroReDesignCurrent1-01

Based on mapping the current system I identified the following high level problems, questions and opportunities I would like to explore in my proposed redesign:

Redundancy

Schedules and route maps are treated as separate sections when in fact they are just two different ways to view information about the transit services.

Notifications, service alerts and latest advisory all seem to present the same information.

Treating all intents the same

The Capital Metro app currently caters to three different intents. The first is a slower paced intent that involves browsing available services to plan a trip or look at a schedule and route. The next is a more focused information-finding intent, when is the next bus coming to this stop? Finally, is an action oriented intent, I want to purchase a ticket. It is easy to imagine a narrative where these intents lead from one to another or narratives in which each exist independently.

What if each of these intents was supported by its own app that integrated seamlessly with the other two, but could also be used on its own for a more streamlined, uncluttered experience?

Not integrating with other tools 

Do users want an other trip planning tool or if they want to use whatever they have been using (in my case Google Maps) and have it connect to Capital Metro’s database and applications? What if you could use google to plan a trip in the public transit option and instantly compare it to the the database used for Next Bus (which uses real time data tell you when the bus will actually arrive rather than just what the schedule says) to improve the fidelity of Google’s projected time and transfers? What if after finding the route you want using Google I could go seamlessly to the buy a ticket for the route? What if Capital Metro could access the locations you have saved in Google Maps?

The Capital Metro app is already using GPS for the users current location in some cases. How can this be better utilized?

Other possible points of integration: On your calendar to see when your week or month pass expires?

CAPMetroReDesignNew1-02

PDF of concept models: CAPMetroReDesign1

Posted in Interaction Design, Methods | Leave a comment

WICKED WEBS & DESIGN PROBLEMS

Wicked Webs & Design Problems By: Crystal Watson & William Shouse

 “The easy problems have been solved.  Designing systems today is difficult because there is no consensus on what the problems are, let alone how to resolve them.”

Each author in this segment argues for design thinking or creativity’s importance in the larger world. The authors’ positions seem to build on each other. Rittel talks about where it came from, Buchanan talks about what it looks like in the world. Paccione, DeBono and Cross take things inside, and noodle on how and where it resides in the brain. They also ponder the whys, whethers and hows about sharing it. Finally, Wyatt takes a ‘what have you done for me lately’ approach and gives us the lowdown on how to share design thinking – but with a mercenary hook.

Rittel identified and named wicked problems, that little thing we all came to AC4D to work on this year. He asks us not to consider what is the “right” thing to do, but the good thing to do.

Buchanan takes Rittel’s lead and talks about what “design thinking” looks like. He gives us a framework, the four orders of design, that push us to consider where and how to apply design thinking. He gives a nod to visual and material design, but also reminds us to consider service design and complex system design as suitable targets for creativity. He evangelizes design thinking as an apt approach to any subject matter, also reminding us that design is inherently cross disciplinary, and indicates that it draws on many kinds of intelligence and knowledge.
Pacione makes a case for design literacy – not just design thinking, telling us that design will have its greatest impact when it is no longer perceived to be in the hands of people who are professional designers and is put back into the hands of everyone. However he states that there are those that are already familiar with the methods of what he considers to be a higher state of design thinking in which he categorizes design and design thinkers into the “Master” or “Iterator of others ideas” and the “Virtuoso” the true design innovator. His methods are laid out in a series of situational diagrams that he uses to back up this theory.

DeBono takes creativity seriously enough that he developed entire systems to alter our thinking patterns, provoke movement, and evaluate their effectiveness. Interestingly enough, one of the huge examples he uses is that of humor to incite creativity, to use the pattern of lateral thinking as the actual process. He insinuates that traditional modes of thinking are artificial, learned, and so distinct that they can literally be put on and taken off as easily as a hat, with his 6 colored hat system of idea organization. Insisting that these tactics can used by anyone he regals us with tales of success from a large telephone corporation and the organizer of the 1984 Olympics. Also sure to remind us he sold them all many of his books.

Cross tells it’s not just inherent, there are ways to polish it up, improve literacy, develop fluency, to put ideas on paper, sketch and iterate to form re-solutions to any problem. For Cross, it’s a mode of thinking, something holistic and vast, not a set of be-hatted party tricks to pull out in front of Japanese businessman (DeBono, p.15).
Design is too important to be left to designers, it should be a discipline in itself, a cultivable skill, possessed to some extent by everyone.

Wyatt is less concerned with the ineffable nature of design thinking than the output, and what it will achieve for her and her business. While she encourages all to utilize design thinking, (even publishing a free download!) she seems to believe that the important work is best left to the designers. She’s strategic in choosing how deeply she steeps regular people in design thinking, and is a bit of a tease. She wants to give customers just enough information so they have a category to understand her greatness, but not enough to be able to do what she does without her.

IDSE102_Assignment_04_Watson_Shouse-01
Posted in Classes, Creativity, Design Research, Interaction Design, Portfolio, Strategy | Leave a comment

UX for Good: Meeting the team

A group in Kigali marches toward the memorial

This post is my third in a series on the UX for Good design challenge. Check out the first post: UX for Good Introduction to get a better understanding of what the UX for Good design challenge is about.

 

Today I watched part of the team visit the grounds of the Kigali Genocide Memorial.

It dawned on me that we externally worked through an issue that many observers & participants of the design process also have to work through: Just because you are studying X problem, doesn’t mean that your end output will be directly attributable to this problem.

 

I.e. – just because our design focus is “creating action that stops genocide”, doesn’t mean our design solution will be directly attributable to stopping a genocide.

 

Yesterday I asked a man at the memorial the following question, “What is this place to you?”

His response, “In one way, it is a home.  The bones of my mother and father are here… But in another way, it is hope.  Hope that the people who come here will be moved to see the hatred and intolerance that generated this – and take it upon themselves to say something when they see it happen in the future.”

He’s not stating he hopes people stop mass killings (not that it needs to be stated).  Rather, it would seem he observed a different problem altogether; that hatred and intolerance between individuals set the stage for the event to happen.

This is different than the problem that most of us perceive.

When you visit KGM, and other holocaust memorials, you will see a single statement at both of them – “Never again”.  Someone in our group made the observation, “this statement feels hollow… what makes this feel so hollow?”

We’ve had this decree since the Holocaust. Yet somehow there have been multiple instances of massive atrocities since then.  It might feel hollow because our awareness of these atrocities conflicts with our belief in the statement – in effect, exposing the facade.

When I reframe this concept within the context of our mission statement – I can’t help but ask a question.

 

“Never again”…  Never again what?

 

One answer might be that we find a way to generate a swifter response to future instances of foreseeable atrocity.

If there is mass killing on any scale, we should make a concerted effort to mitigate it as soon as possible.  But this is an obvious statement that everyone already largely agrees upon. And yet, history has demonstrated this isn’t enough.

 

What if killing isn’t the problem “we” should be trying to solve?  I.e. if the killing has started, “we” are already too late.

 

An alternative answer is that we find ways to design counter measures to the subtle forbearers that set the stage for an atrocity to flourish.

Design concepts in this problem space are difficult to craft.  More often than not, our “business minded” culture doesn’t permit taking action unless it is directly attributable to the end result.

I.e. If you can’t show that doing X will stop a pending atrocity, no one will take any action.

The result, as history has continued to show us, largely inaction.

This is the same type of thinking the plagues the companies I worked with every day as a consultant @frog design.  Business leaders want imperial evidence that making a move will result in all of the return.

“Guessing the future” doesn’t work like this. 

 

Edison knew this during the development of the light bulb. When asked about all of his failure, he responded, “I have not failed.  I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

Edison would not have lasted in our world of quarterly returns.

Changing the future requires rigor, iteration, and sometimes a hopelessly optimistic attitude about reaching the end state.

I have hope. 

As a designer and systems thinker, my value to a team often lies in reframing a given situation.

Consider the following: if the subtle forbearers to a major atrocity are largely cultural undertones that have potential to evolve given the right circumstances, they inherently happen over time. Thus, they may have a higher chance of being noticed by someone who intimately participates in the culture in which they exist.

Designers often make reference to a potential solution as abiding by specific design principles.  They are a way of saying, we can create any product, system, or service; but if it is to be successful, it must do the following.. Design principles are the result of research, reflection, reframing and rigorous iteration. They guide us in crafting meaningful solutions that are not always directly attributable to the initial perceived problem.

 

It may be that the design principles for this particular problem read as follows (Note: this is purely a hypothesis that will change):

  • In-order to be successful, the person must be able to identify the undertones that led to a particular atrocity (any given person who visits an existing memorial).
  • In-order to be successful, the person must then be able to reframe these undertones within the context of their own culture; identifying similar patterns of action or behavior that act as a single block in an overarching foundation.
  • In-order to be successful, the person must then be able to generate concepts that have a purpose to achieve a more ideal outcome; and be able to execute upon these over time.

 

The solution we could then create would reframe the action we hope to generate as:

  • - a “thing” that is contextual (a person can apply it to their own cultural circumstance)
  • - a “thing” that is sustainable (the visibility of their action generates more action)
  • - a “thing” that may or may not be an external creation by the person doing the reframing – but solicits action towards the achievement of a positive outcome (Focus on crafting / executing small steps to the ideal state).

Tomorrow, we officially start research.  We will ingest the perspective of visitors, survivors, and hopefully perpetrators over the next 3 days.

These raw data points will be combined with our own understanding of the world around us, allowing the team to generate design principles that guide our creative thinking.

I hope to have another post sometime in the next three days.

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

UX for Good: Immersion

This post is my second in a series on the UX for Good design challenge. Check out the first post: UX for Good Introduction to get a better understanding of what the UX for Good design challenge is about.

At AC4D, we are the evangelicals of ambiguity.  Time and time again I’ve pushed people out the doors of the school with a single mission – go and explore the world around you.  Immerse yourself into the cultures and problems to which we remain largely blind. Not by choice, but generally by habit.  It’s our nature to become so comfortable in our routines that we don’t even realize what they are. I am no exception to this.

These moments of “motivation” are often met with disbelief & fear from the people we are forcing them upon.  “What do you mean I have to go out and talk to people?  Right Now?  I just learned how to do this?”
We try and provide words of encouragement, but you can see the fear in their eyes.
They are participating in a process that is forcing them out of their comfort zone without any clear understanding of the outcome. They are required to blindly trust us.

I attempt to remain aware of this problem in my own life; occasionally making adjustments in my patterns as a means to discover the unexpected. Like many of the design researchers I know, I think to myself  “You understand aspects of the world that others do not”, “you are so informed”.

But my first 20 min in Rwanda as part of the UX for Good design challenge generated a realization that my “informed state” has largely been one of false enlightenment.

What I thought were the boundaries that defined my perspective – those that I attempted to subvert in the name of “immersing myself in problems & cultures”, were not even close to the boundaries I’ve come to identify as a result of traveling here.
Our initial decent into Kigali was in the evening, just as the sun started to set & the area moved into twilight.  As we passed over the roof tops of small towns and villages, I couldn’t help but think they looked the same as the villages we saw while taking off in Brussels. Small clusters of white walls and red clay roofs that travel along the roads that connect them.

From 8,000 feet in the air, everything looks the same.

But as we approached the ground, an extremely unexpected difference in these clusters of homes stirred a panic that I have not felt in a long time.

There were no lights.

No visible lights in the street.  No visible lights on the homes. Or so few that I could actually count the number of them between each village we passed. For anyone reading, this detail might seem like an expected observation.  It does fall within the western narrative I’ve heard from friends and family before coming here; That Africa as a tarp ridden collection of unsafe villages. A narrative that is never explicitly stated, but always inferred. One of thousands of sweeping generalizations that I’m guilty of as much as the next person – and just as afraid to admit.
For me, the concept of limited electricity wasn’t what gave birth to paralyzing fear. If my computer dies, it’s not the end of the world.  If I have trouble charging my phone, it’s not really a big deal. These are the first world problems that I’ve grown largely accustom to solving on a daily basis.

Rather, this small detail pushed me into a state of awareness, and sheer panic, that only comes with the realization that you are completely out of your element. That you are entering into a state of un-retractable ambiguity.

My irrational internal monologue went something like this:

  • You are alone.
  • You have just been dropped into a culture in which the behavioral norms and customs are completely unknown. You are exposed.
  • You don’t speak the language.
  • You have no local currency; as the Rwandan Franc wasn’t offered at any of the exchanges so far.
  • You are an American – so the association with your government’s foreign policy decisions are just one of many lenses in which you expect to be judged (In Rwanda, this history is particularly unkind – Read about the US & UN response to the genocide if you are unfamiliar with what I’m referring to).
  • You are the first to arrive in your team. A group of people you have never met.
  • Your transport may or may not be waiting for you. (I arrived early. So for 20 min I stood by myself outside in the dark)
  • It’s 7pm at night and you have no choice but to press on.  There is nowhere else to go.

I just crossed a boundary I was unaware of and I was letting my capacity for irrational narratives take charge.
 As a designer, the goal is to cross these boundaries.  To be immersed into a particular context, gain some form of empathy, and use that to create momentum towards solving a problem. 
Ambiguity is the hallmark of a good design project. In lacking an understanding of the end state, we are awarded the opportunity to craft it.

But until this point, my experience with these “moments of unknown” have been supported by elements of familiarity. The invisible support structures I’ve unconsciously relied upon were suddenly gone.  I have no team of trusted designers. I am not retiring to the safety of my home after a few hours of contextual research. I am not the facilitator who can choose to end the interview if things take a turn for the negative.

All I have is trust; to trust in the process I preach & the people that I meet.

I am now one of the growing number of student’s I’ve kicked out the door with a call to action to “embrace the unknown”, and I can once again empathize with the fear associated in doing this.

As I embark on this project, I hope the unexpected remains constant. I hope to exercise my capacity as a creative thinker in ways I have yet to imagine, and to maintain this state of ambiguity for as long as possible.

However uncomfortable, this process creates moments of reflection, clarity, and opportunity that provide me with the motivation to keep doing it.

 

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

Making suboptimal markets more efficient for societal change

In Theory of Interaction Design and Social Entrepreneurship, we took a critical look at how innovation and social entrepreneurship is described through a series of articles and discussions.

A Social Entrepreneurship Overview

In Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition, Roger Martin describes social enterprise as the progression of both society and economy, Social entrepreneurship, we believe, is as vital to the progress of societies as is entrepreneurship to the progress of economies, and it merits more rigorous, serious attention than it has attracted so far.

A Suboptimal Equilibrium as Context

Martin further describes the characteristic of an entrepreneur as a person who sees suboptimal equilibrium as an opportunity to provide new solutions.  And to give you a bit more context, the map below illustrates an example of a state of suboptimal equilibrium, where over 50% of a country is facing chronic poverty.

A Social Entrepreneur

So by Martin’s definition, Muhammad Yunus is a social entrepreneur.  And in Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience, Yunus introduces us to his first lesson by challenging conventional wisdom … Grameen Bank’s business model therefore challenges several standard banking assumptions, including the beliefs that loans cannot be granted without collateral and that ‘entrepreneurship’ is a rare quality among the poor. 

He is also explicit about the need for social profit objectives to be clear especially when creating business models for social change.  Without this understanding and transparency – it’s easy to claim that even micro-financing in a way, throws money at a social problem or even worse takes advantage of the already compromised.

The Progress of Economies and Societies

In Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage, Aneel Karnani describes a balance of society and economy progression that makes sense … private sectors can help alleviate poverty by focusing on the poor as producers.

Make Suboptimal Markets More Efficient for Societal Change

So after a year at Austin Center for Design I’ve come to the conclusion – design with and for people to make suboptimal markets more efficient for societies to change and progress.  It’s not brilliant, fancy or even provocative but it’s given me the confidence to move forward in these wicked problems we’ve been in over the past year.  It’s also the same lens I see our own Social Enterprise called Stitch in.

Stitch as a Social Enterprise

Stitch focuses on the suboptimal equilibrium of healthcare. Below are concept models of the current and proposed systems around care management specific to a surgical recovery process.

It challenges our mental models for creating and distributing medical knowledge. For example, in the idea that health knowledge should only come from medical experts or we can only receive medical information in the form of paperwork as we leave care.

So we created a platform to help individuals define their own recovery and share medical knowledge. Stitch alleviates poor adherence and readmission rates by providing a new way to support both medical professionals and patients.

So again, to help economies and societies change and progress, make suboptimal markets more efficient for people.

 

 

Posted in Interaction Design, Social Innovation, Theory | Leave a comment

queery: Connecting the queer community, one person at a time.

Hello, everyone!
Chelsea here, at the end of this quarter to sum up our journey with queery throughout our time in AC4D and beyond. I admit, this will be a bittersweet blog post for me. We’ve grown so much and learned a lot in this past year, and looking forward to the future is a simultaneously exhilarating and frightening exercise.

First, let me tell you a story. When I was 16-18 years old, I came out as queer to my friends and family. There wasn’t a lot of questions; in fact, there were no questions. I had this overarching sense that no one really wanted to address it; it was an elephant in the room.  It was what one of our participants called being “unsupportive in a passive way.” They said,

“I don’t care who you make out with, but we’re all equal.” That’s coming from a kind place, but often it is incredibly dismissive of what it’s trying to support. The feelings of otherness is so much bigger than who we kiss or what bathroom we use. It’s so relentless.”

As we worked with the trans* and gender-variant community, I realized that while our experiences were completely different, we did share this feeling in common—the feeling of being alienated from our friends and family and the subsequent fear of rejection when we came out.

One of our participants, Emily, talked about her experience as she was “walking the plank” both with her identity and her social interactions.

After synthesizing the stories of the many participants in the trans* community, we realized that there was a circle of rejection, retreating, and reinforcement that the community experienced.

Rejection was in the form of people ignoring them, people verbally or physically abusing them, or people cutting them out of their lives outright. There was then a retreat to safer, online spaces where they could be themselves with others, but through online media and their own experiences (like the story of this trans* student being suspended just for using a gendered bathroom), there is a continuous reinforcement that people do not accept or care about them, and then they feel rejection anew.

We made queery to break that cycle.

queery is a service that allows members of the queer community to meet based on interests for one-on-one networking. Users choose their interests, their location, and schedule, and queery pairs them up by what they want to talk about.

We’ve also considered the fear of being outed (or indicating to someone that you are queer before you are ready to tell them)—we don’t want to be like Google Plus, who accidentally outed a transgender woman to her coworker. Because of that, we have a commitment to the privacy of our user’s data, and also a handy way of people to find one another in a coffee shop without outing themselves, where folks hit the “I’m here” button on the reminder pop up, and the screen will turn green and vibrate (thus alerting the other person that you are there, but not calling too much attention to yourself).

We’re very cognizant of the feedback we’ve received around keeping our user’s data safe, and because of that, this has changed the way we’ve thought about making queery a sustainable business to continue providing value to the queer community.

When we thought about adding in the additional challenge of maintaining queery through a stream of revenue, we wanted to make sure that the queer community knew that they own queery. That’s why we propose to do a yearly pay-what-you-want subscription (minimum $10) for the community. The idea that is you can pay into the community to help out other members in the community, or if you don’t have a lot of cash on you, can still access queery for a minimal fee.

When we projected this out with growth over three years, we realized that we would most likely be profitable in 2017 and be able to continue to provide value for the queer community by adding more features and partnering with other local LGBT and trans*-specific organizations to throw parties, get people to know one another, and get people connected.

In this quarter, we have been piloting with the local queer community in Austin, and the feedback we have received from the community that encourages us. One participant said,

“[When I met the other person,] I felt connected [to the queer community] again, and that felt awesome. I hadn’t realized how cut off I felt.”

However, there is more than just encouragement—we learned through the pilot that the intent of queery was not as well-explained as we’d hoped.

“It was a little bit unclear to me what the purpose or the end goal of this was except to meet people and possibly make a friend.”

Indeed, queery’s purpose is to meet and make friends, but I think we wrongfully assumed that people would have the same mental model as we did around the importance around friendships, and so in future iterations, the importance of making friends will be better explained.

We also found that the network effect extends beyond queery. Emily and Robert, two participants, met through queery, and later recognized one another at a party. Emily invited Robert over to hang out with her and her friends. If queery had not been present, Robort might have never received that invitation. We were overjoyed when we heard about this.

I also realize that if queery succeeds, we might be planning for our own obsolescence. If the queer community is already well-connected, wouldn’t that mean that queery is no longer needed?

Maybe. I’d love to live in a future where when someone comes out, it is not looked at as an elephant in the room, but celebrated with open arms and love. I’d love to see, and have seen before, queer communities rally around their members for support. And I hope that queery is another support for the queer community to lean on one another when they’re going through rough times.

I want to work collaboratively with other LGBT organizations from an angle of being queer-first; a unique angle for those of us who don’t want fit the mold, don’t really care to fit the mold, or those of us who ware figuring out what the hell is a mold.

I plan on continuing my work with queery and will continue to reach out to the communities that we have built ties with in the past year. Without their help, I don’t know where I’d be.

And if you’re interested in getting in on queery’s next steps—contact me. We need folks to pilot, and we’ll be seeking out more and more folks from the queer community in Austin to help me make queery something great.

Signing off,
Chelsea

Posted in Interaction Design, Startups | Leave a comment

Coupling between thinking and actuation

As part of the creative problem solving process – designers research to understand a problem space, apply their own subjective point of view or intuition and create provocations to make sense of incomplete information.

In Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking, Karl Weick states, Sensemaking is not about truth and getting it right.  Instead, it is about continued refracting of an emerging story so that it becomes more comprehensive, incorporates more of the observed data, and is more resilient in the face of criticism. 

In Discovering Design Ability, Nigel Cross states, some of the relevant information [in a design problem] can be found only by generating and testing solutions; some information, or ‘missing ingredient’ has to be provided by the designers himself ... this extra ingredient is often an ‘ordering principle’. These ‘ordering principles’ give people access to new information on the whole and can take on various activities, such as the diagram below for example: 

In Theory of Interaction Design, we read 10 articles and discussed the relationship between creativity, knowledge, perception and strategy. The diagram above is an overview of each author’s summary along with my own position.

Thoughts? Make sense?  Your perception of it?  Can we design for an individual’s perception? Stavros Mahlke, in Visual Aesthetics and the User Experience, thinks we can and should by integrating ‘non-instrumental qualites’ like aesthetic, symbolic aspects and emotional user reactions with traditional user experience interaction design.   

In summary, it is in our thinking and activity where solutions are created and make sense.

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