News and blog posts from our students and faculty

Category Archives: Reflection

Studio: You are MY sunshine

Even on the dreariest days, in a town where droplets falling from the sky is never a thing you are prepared for, the umbrella service is here, brought to you by Laura Galos, Lindsay Josal, and me, Crystal.

You are my sunshine…

sunshine_intro

The Result…

sunshine2

 

Posted in Classes, Creativity, Motivation, Portfolio, Reflection, Uncategorized, UX For Good | Leave a comment

Studio: Sew now what

EPSON MFP image — and imagine the rest of your life, narrated by Alec Baldwin

Posted in Classes, Creativity, Motivation, Portfolio, Reflection, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sitting at my desk in the AC4D studio I can see what my classmates were talking about when they critiqued my drawing assignment a few Saturdays ago. The small fidgety drawings of faces, which I had been so involved in when I was doing them, get lost in a sea of lines and uniform tone. However, the sketches of hands, which I found somewhat frustrating, read loud and clear at this distance. Pat, our studio teacher, has been telling us to step back from our work early and often since the beginning of the quarter. This week I vow to remember to actually do that, before presenting my work up for critique on Saturday.

early drawings

This past week’s assignment was to create a story board after volunteering at a local non-profit. We were tasked with noticing opportunities for improvement in the service or process based on our experience and illustrating it.  As soon as I finish a quick first pass of the panels I put them up on the wall across the studio from my desk and asked some of the other students to take a look.

Process5 copy

I can see that having my drawings up is helping me better utilize different line weights and areas of dark and light. Of course, my classmates’ feedback is invaluable.

Pat encouraged me to keep experimenting with darker lines and areas of black.  I plan to rework some of these panels to the point of over doing it so I can see what is too much and then back off from there.

Complete storyboard below the break

(more…)

Posted on by Samara Watkiss | Leave a comment

IMPOSITION TO INFLUENCE: The designers role in affecting a system of beliefs

The dictionary defines a value system as being an open set of morals, ethics, standards, preferences, belief systems and world views that come together through self-organizing principles to define an individual, a group or a culture.

So what if the organization of these principals is not so self defined?

What if these principals are molded, formed and influenced by ideas and objects that surround the self whether intentionally or not, influencing the belief systems and preferences that define a person as the person they are.

In the past couple of weeks we as a class keyed in on 6 author’s writings. Some being recognized designers, some design historians, some design thinkers. Through reading and re-reading and analyzing the scanned pages of 6 very different theories and experiences, notated with dialects from the translated Italian version to very straightforward literary magazine articles; I couldn’t help but notice that each author, whether they were a working designer or not, all had a sense of there being some sort of behavioral shift that came out of the end product of a design experiment or idea. As if the designer was given a power to control the thoughts and actions of their subjects through manipulation, experience, product, or education. Some I found a little off putting I have to admit. To be a designer to me is not to revel in the idea that you can puppet a community into jumping off the commodity cliff, but ideally perhaps educate thorough innovation, or aid in a person or communities hardships through easily accessible tools.

Although it seemed that my final conclusion was just more questions about “how do you know if you are doing it right??” I was at least driven to put down on paper my thoughts on how the 6 authors we studied fit on a simple, and very biased scale of a designers role to either manipulate and impose a value system into a public, work to adopt and understand the value system of their public, or to try to gently influence and broaden a public already established value system.

So here you go, my own personal version of a scale of importance that the role of design has, as I see it, through the ideas of Bernays, Le Dantec, Vitta, Pilloton, Dewey, and Margolin.

Click to Enjoy

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

Graphic Recording: Hunter Sunrise @AC4D

AC4D_Hunter_01-600px

AC4D_Hunter_02-600px

AC4D_Hunter_03-600px-2

AC4D_Hunter_04-600px-2

AC4D_Hunter_05-600px-2

AC4D_Hunter_06-600px-2

AC4D_Hunter_07-600px

Posted in Reflection, Social Innovation | Leave a comment

Hello Again, World: A Reflection of Post-AC4D Life

Hello, everyone.

After almost two months out of AC4D, and after meeting some of the new students who are going to be in the next year, I’ve collected my thoughts (albeit messily) on what it has been like post-graduation. This post is intended to educate the new students going in, to connect with AC4D alums, and hopefully to give comfort to the folks in my class who are still probably going through their own processing.

I’ll be the first to admit it, I was terrified of graduating. The last time I graduated from an educational institution, I had a serious disconnect with reality and fell into a depression. I actually recorded this story for RISK! podcast during my time at AC4D, and it was fresh on my mind when I graduated.

This time was different. Instead of feeling unprepared for the “real world” post-college, I felt incredibly prepared. I had productive thought patterns and artifacts and a killer portfolio and contract work; I had GANTT charts and efficiency to tackle even the most complex of problems. It feels amazing to be doing the work you’ve always wanted to do with the people you want to do it with. Without AC4D, I wouldn’t be doing what I love today.

On the flip side, I was entirely oblivious to how my year in the program had changed the relationships around me. There is something for me about the creative process that naturally distances yourself from others in its observation and analysis. I wondered if in the search to become closer to others by making and doing I was ending up alienating myself. I’m currently a terrific designer who is growing and establishing bonds with clients—where exactly was my passion in doing the same thing with my friends and family?

That, I currently don’t have the answer to, but like every question I ask that’s a wicked problem, I’m currently whiteboarding it out. I’m setting constraints. My fiancee will not let me make a GANTT chart to track the progress of our relationship (though I tried), and I don’t need or want to have that kind of predictability. I’m getting used to setting my own structure and pace in my own life, and what’s good for myself and those around me who I care about.

My year at AC4D seems like such a blur. I vaguely remember the emotional highs and lows, but every once in a while, I pick out a memory that I truly cherish, like first time I saw Alex’s baby over Skype. It was late and we were both bone tired, and Alex was holding his newborn baby and calling out design ideas over Skype to me. We both laughed at how ridiculous it was to have a kid in the middle of an intensive program, but I also remember having a deep well of respect for Alex for taking on possibly the two most trying moments of his life at the same time. I still have that respect for him.

My only piece of advice for students going into the program is that it is going to be possibly the most intense, exciting, infuriating, and empowering year of your life. You will feel all of these emotions, sometimes all at once.

Record it. Take pictures. Don’t trust your memory to remember it all because after this year is over, you’ll be thinking “what the hell happened to me?” It won’t feel real, but once you see a photograph or a video, you’ll remember again and know that you achieved something amazing with the help of some amazing people.

Posted in Reflection | Leave a comment

Intent vs. Practicality: On the desire to develop Research Insights Databases

Many of the faculty have been in the position before: a client wants to maximise their research ROI by having you simultaneously conduct design research AND help them develop a means for efficient knowledge-sharing of your (and all future) research insights. I just wrote a little diddy on some of the reasons this is tough, and why asking for a more efficient means of sharing insights is missing the point.

http://www.laurenserota.com/blog/2014/5/4/intent-vs-practicality-why-a-research-insights-database-is-a-bad-idea


Commentary welcome.

Posted in Design Research, Reflection | 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

queery: “Is it working…?” and Our Ponderous Process

Hey everyone!

Alex and I have been touch and go on the blog posts, and I do apologize—today I’m making up for it by posting some progress shots to show you where we’ve come from, and what we have so far.

As Alex mentioned, we’ve come out of the end of this developer hole that we put ourselves through trying to build the application from scratch. Not a good idea, and I’m sure that the lesson Alex learned from that is when prototyping, build fast, and then iterate.

I’m pleased to say that our Google Forms, while perhaps too argyle, is working well:

So far we have a few responses, and enough to pair folks together via interest, so I’m looking forward to having folks meet with one another and gauge their feedback on the meetings! Functionally, it is doing what we want it to do, on a low-fi scale, and in the next four weeks, I want to bring up the fidelity of this bit by bit.

So about that argyle…
Currently, queery is lacking in visual design. Google Forms can only do so much, and in order to change the argyle pattern in the forms, we would have to host the form somewhere else and dig into the CSS. While it is possible, it’s not something I’d like to get into in the first version of our prototype, so Alex and I mutually decided that the next phase of queery will be built on top of a WordPress framework, which allows for decent customizability.

As a teaser, I’ll show you what we have in store for queery.

Our logo has shifted slightly, but has gone from this:

…to this.

We’ve shifted from charcoal and turquoise to navy and teal; our color palette is currently this:

We wanted to take the idea of the transgender pride flag and modify it slightly from baby blues and pinks to stronger, more mature teals and corals. We’re hoping that this palette conveys the friendliness and encouragement that we desire in the application while still maintaining a sense that this is a trustworthy, safe process.

What I’ve learned so far is to trust that we will probably not get it right the first time.  I have a lot of anxiety about how the coffee meetings will go because I so badly want to make a positive impact in the community that piloting this is a big deal for me. I also know that the designing process is an iterative one, and that through the stumbling and falling, we’ll pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and keep going.

Incredible thanks to the folks who are currently using queery—we wouldn’t be able to do this pilot without you. And to those of you who are in the LGBTQIA community in Austin, if you want to pilot queery, get in touch with me via chelsea (at) getqueery.com.

I’m looking forward to seeing what the coming weeks will hold.

Posted in Interaction Design, Methods, Reflection | Leave a comment

Build Scaffolds. Inspire Articulations. Make New Knowledge. And Repeat.

Access to information technology can make our lives easier, of course, but how people are affected and the sharing of their experience is where we can find meaning.

The diagram below maps 8 author positions around the roles and implications of technology and the meaning of experience and context. Click on the diagram for a full view:

 In What We Talk About When We Talk About Context Paul Dourish describes the interaction of information or object and activity as an alternate concept of context. Context as an interactional problem is the relationship of dynamic objects and activities.

But object interaction is more than the transmission of information, as Bohnear describes in Affect: From Information to Interactionit can be a form of social action, which achieves social ends collectively, in ways in which collective meaning shapes individual experience. 

So if you build scaffolds (supportive frameworks) people will articulate their own experiences that can be interpreted for new knowledge for others.

Posted in Classes, Interaction Design, Reflection, Theory | Leave a comment