Generative Research Workshop Summary

Workshop Notes Emily Sappington TGM March 18, 2012

Politics and Voting Workshop Studio 2 Group TGM

Four participants collaborated for a total of 2 hours:

• Two male, two female, 1 undergraduate, three graduate students.

• Two design students, one Chemistry student, one MBA.

General Observations In general, the workshop participants were interested in talking about political candidates and politics in general. Before the activities began, participants immediately started talking about “awful politicians” and how they cannot be taken

at their word or trusted. Participants remarked about the contradictory things they say, and offered examples of offensive sound bites. It became a conversation of sharing what one “awful politician” was caught saying, or how he had contradicted a previous statement, remarked with laughter and eye-­‐rolling from the workshop participants.

Activity 1: Media Consumption Radar Graph

Participants worked aloud as they charted their responses. They fed off one

another, noting things that surprised them. For example one participant remarked: I trust The Economist, but I don’t trust it to give me a clear picture of what’s going on the World, its an accurate, but small perspective. Another participant, laughing

at putting “The Daily Show” as a trusted media source, spurred several other participants to add “The Daily Show” to their radar graphs as well. About “The Daily Show”, one participant simply said: “Its entertaining, that’s why I watch it.” Several mentioned that their news/media sources might not address the “real problems” of the World.

Regarding sources, a few said they get information from their friends, and the

degree to which they trust their friends varied. One participant preferred first-­‐hand friend accounts or sources, such as YouTube videos. This, she said, allowed her to see an untainted account of what happened, rather than a recalling of events. There were distinctions within sources, as one participant commented that he included the New York Times in his radar graph but he does not include the Op. Ed. Section of the Times as part of his trusted sources.

Activity 2: Politician Top 10 List

The overall initial reaction to this exercise was intimidation, as many didn’t

know what exactly to write, mainly whether they should describe personality traits or platforms. Participants quickly started borrowing ideas from one-­‐another for this exercise. One mentioned that he wanted a candidate who supported sciences, and another said “Oh science! That too…pro-­‐choice too”, in regards to thinking of what they wanted out of candidates. One participant remarked that he wanted his candidates to be well-­‐educated, and he even went so far as to mention wanting to see their GPA in College. Others nodded with each other’s responses such as: “Universal Healthcare…” “Oh that’s a good one!” Some of the written requirements became silly, others were described by participants as hopes for a utopian candidate

who might never be able to have the qualities he was writing down. This sentiment reflects our group’s assumed perception of hopelessness in the young voter who feels politicians never follow through with their campaign promises.

Activity 3: Political Butler

The first radical idea to emerge was one participant’s reference to a Sci-­‐Fi

movie, and she envisioned a plug into her head filling her brain with all of the information it needed about candidates. This would tell her everything there was, and everything she needed to know. When “out there” ideas were discussed, they involved things like translucent screens and “movie shit” to quote one participant’s explanation of Sci-­‐Fi inspired devices. When pressed about these sorts of screens

one participant said “I’d have one everywhere” and so he could always be in touch with the news on politics. He described that these screens would have some videos, and some text, but videos would be faster and could quote “see the guy” or candidate. He did note though, after some of his peers questioned his idea, that it would have an on and off switch, so as to not be inundated with the news all the time.

Other ideas were more practical; participants wanted something that had

bios on candidates, reminders on personal contact with a candidate. Several participants seemed comfortable with the idea of a phone that would have updates on when and how they could contact a politician. The idea emerged of an instant cross-­‐referencing system, as one participant put it “Wikipedia-­‐style”. This would be helpful, they said, because “charisma goes far”, so a simple mobile app would prevent a candidate from charming their way into office. Others thought of Twitter, and one participant mentioned wanting to follow a candidates twitter feed to see what they’re posting and reading. He then added “to see that they’re human”. Once the Wikipedia model had been mentioned, it seemed participants thought of other successful platforms, and they thought of a YouTube-­‐like layout, where one could click on an issue, and see the politician’s voting record on an issue side-­‐by-­‐side with a speech video of him or her discussing the issue.

Some remarked that they like feeling like they are consuming media that is

well-­‐written and smart, but “its boring”. The point was then raised again that “…so I watch the Daily Show because its entertaining”. Another participant noted: I hate when news feels like there’s no person writing it, and there is no emotion in the

story. This then lead to a conversation about dry facts versus fake news or elaborations. To this one participant noted: “I worry of the legitimacy of the news I get”. It was then discussed how the ideal situation would be going to the source and saying “I want your opinion…” this is represented in one participant’s drawing of a weekly Skype meeting with politicians and voters. He did mention after drawing his dream political butler system that he was sure this could never really happen.

Activity 4: Card Sorting & Content Generation Exercise

Both groups thought it was important to include a candidate’s voting record,

one used the words “follow-­‐through” to express what this would show. One surprising element, which echoes back to the expressed desire to humanize and

have entertaining aspects of political news, was one group’s desire to include gaffs in an interface about politicians. The two groups compared ideas and weighted different elements differently, and one noted afterwards: “I think [the other group] Rebecca’s is good.”. One group deviated from the cards a bit and began to draw an interface, perhaps because the team had a designer with a vision for the aesthetic layout. This design layout included a bar chart which showed changes in a politician’s stance on issues. Interestingly, the groups did save room for a picture of the candidate’s face, perhaps humanizing them.

While reflecting on the process of deciding content for these platforms, one participant astutely remarked: “We’re intelligent people who vote on just one thing”.

This comment he referred to how each team wanted to include important issues like whether a candidate is pro-­‐choice or pro-­‐gun rights, and it was understood that most people make their decisions on just one issue and not the candidate as a whole.

The participants then ended the exercise talking about different political affiliations.