Appendix: User-Centred Design Research with Teenagers Hannah Green
User-Centred Design Research with Teenagers in support of thesis
Augmented Reality and Public Space in the 21st century city and studio project
Hannah Green Masters of European Design (MEDes) The Glasgow School of Art 2017 Thesis Supervisor: Frances Robertson Studio Supervisor: Mil Stricevic
Introduction / Approach & Research
1. Workshop Part 2: Introducing deign and teamwork through Snapchat filter excercise.
6
Introduction This appendix will encompass the primary research undertaken for my project which took place during 4 main workshops with teenagers. It will discuss the individual aims and objectives of each engagement tool used in these workshops, as well as the insights that emerged. These insights are also backed up with data from secondary research. The appendix aims to provide a bridge between the academic writing in the thesis and the brand and concept of Parrot, the studio project. List of Workshops Three 12 to 13 year old girls Anonymous, teenage girls (2017) On their use of mobile technology and attitudes to the city, Interviewed by Hannah Green (in person), Glasgow, 7th April 2017 Twelve 12 to 15 year olds, mixed group Castlemilk Youth Complex, IndiYouth Unit (2017) Part 1: Understanding attitudes and use of mobile technology and the city, Designed & Conducted by Hannah Green, Glasgow, 10th April 2017 Eleven 12 to 15 year olds, mixed group (half had participated in previous workshop) Castlemilk Youth Complex, IndiYouth Unit (2017) Part 2: Co-Design a teen orientated space, Designed & Conducted by Hannah Green, Glasgow, 13th April 2017 Seven 10 to 11 year olds, mixed group Castlemilk Youth Complex, IndiYouth Unit (2017) Pre-Users: Understanding attitudes and use of mobile technology, transportation and level of independence, Designed & Conducted by Hannah Green, Glasgow, 13th April 2017 Eight 11 to 14 year old girls Studio Club 5678, After School Club (2017) User Engagement & Concept Testing, Designed & Conducted by Hannah Green, Glasgow, 9th May 2017
7
Introduction / Approach & Research
The Starting Point Before beginning my research with teenagers I had a hypothesis that supposed that despite being ubiquitously digitally connected to friends, family and the rest of the world, one still needs physical interaction with the people around you and of your city (or local environment) in order to maintain mental health, contribute to social development and act as a citizen. My concern was that we were losing the latter. However, this assumption was based on intuition, personal experience and lacked context. I decided to choose teenagers as the users of my studio project due to their generation’s expectations and upbringing with digital technology and that they are at an intriguing age in developing independence and growing freedoms. Putting my hypothesis to one side, I set about exploring how and through what medium they communicate and play, their understanding and perception of the urban environment and their values. Research & Workshop Approach The objective of running short workshops was to do qualitative research where the age of the participants (under 18s) and the nature of one of the focus areas (digital communication) made it difficult to do ethnographic research in the form of observations and one-to-one interviews. The risk with one-to-one interviews was that participants would express what they thought I, as a researcher, would want to hear and that there would be huge variations between teenagers even of the same age. My concern was that a small number of in depth interviews might not reflect teenage attitudes and behaviours as a whole, but would be skewed towards the personality of the individual. The aim of the workshops was to be semi-structured, allowing the participants to take the lead. As my project follows a user-centred design process, the objectives were to gain insights and understanding into how teenagers relate to digital/physical (specifically social relationships and public space), which after analysis, would contribute to persona creation and identifying more focused areas of design opportunity. The area of design opportunity was translated into a concept and brand which was then presented to a group of teenagers to test the concept. My approach was based on reflection from previous workshops I have both participated in; such as the future orientated ones led by Santini Basra, designerin-residence at GSA and those of the annual MEDes seminar week, hosted by a different school each year and that I facilitated, for example the Professing Practice project. I researched academic papers on designing with young people, notably the work of Allison Druin, Professor at the University of Maryland in Human-Computer
8
Interaction (1999, 2002) as well as the work of Little, L. et al (2016) Perspectives on HCI research with teenagers and Bowen, S. et al (2013) Engaging teenagers productively in service design. The style of activities were influenced by designers in practice from IDEO’s 5 points in Designing with Teens (Bredouw, 2016) and Snook’s 7 Tips for Co-Design with Young People (Fountaine, 2016). The methodology of these design firms was more relatable than the technology orientated academic papers. Despite this insightful work, there does seem to be a gap in resources for both design research with, and designing for, teenagers. There were no books in the GSA library either that covered any of these topics. There are also limited products that are designed for and used by teenagers. Snapchat and Instagram are platforms which teenagers have re-appropriated and use very differently amongst their peers compared with users even 5 years their 2. Lifeguard’s dream, 1972 senior, which makes the challenge of designing for teenagers even greater. Contextual Research A research approach that I found to be insightful and supplementary to this was to turn to photography as an area where teenagers have been documented extensively over the years. By looking at the similarities between teenagers spanning generations, helped my understanding of the particular mindset of this age group. The work of Joseph Szabo, who photographed his high school students in the 1970s and 80s (2) is currently being shown alongside Sian Davey, a contemporary photographer whose work charts her stepdaughter and friends’ adolescence (4), reinforcing this similarity. I was also influenced by the work of Michelle Sank (5) whose portraiture explores the moments in-between childhood and adulthood as well as other photographers including Nina Leen, Karen Robinson, Nacio Jan Brown (3) and Dean Davies. The focus of Little et al’s work was to use popular culture references in engaging with participants, however the
9
3. Berkley, CA, 1973
4. Martha, 2016
Introduction / Methodology
examples used at time of writing, would no longer be relevant to 2017’s teenagers. In order to design activities that they could relate too, I turned to popular vloggers and viral youtube challenges to discover more and to understand references that they might make. In contrast to this, I looked to more cultured platforms such as Tavi Gevison’s Rookie Mag for a teenage view point on life and the values that this demographic holds. As I tested the tools I had designed for the workshop with 3 teenage girls, I also used the opportunity to listen to them discussing their friendships, relationship to school, what they enjoyed doing in their free time and some of the issues they face in being aged 13. 5. Teenagers, Belfast, 2004 This helped contribute to the design of the following workshop and helped me to understand why they are attracted to particular forms of digital communication and not to others.
The child’s role in the design process…
user tester Reality of the user engagement
informant
Ambition of the user engagement
design partner
Fig 1. Based on Alison Druin’s illustration in The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology
10
The Role of the Teenagers & Methodology When planning the workshops, I worked hard to try and understand what the role the teenagers would take in the design process. I was aware from the start that I may only be able to do ‘one-off’ user engagement rather than continuing engagement, so I planed the sessions to involve aspects of ethnography leading into participatory design. The tools I designed can be categorised into three main themes: icebreaker, information gatherer and co-designer. Using the models by Druin (2002) and Hart (1992), as illustrated left and below, my ambition was to design these sessions to allow the teenagers to be ‘design partner’ and ‘6. Adult initiated, shared decisions with children’.
The Ladder of Participation
8. Child-initiat ed, shared decisions with adults
Ambition of the user engagement
Degrees of participation
7. Child-initiat ed and directed child ren 6. Adult-initia ted, shared decisions with children 5. Consulted and informed
Reality of the user engagement
4. Assigned bu t informed 3. Tokenism
1. Manipulat
ion
Non-participation
2. Decoration
Fig 2. Based on Roger Hart’s illustration The Ladder of Participation which, in turn is based on the ladder metaphor coined by Sherry Arnstein (1969)
11
Introduction / Methodology
I felt that this would empower the teenagers and enable the workshop to be as beneficial for them as it was for me. However, upon reflection I believe it was unrealistic to give the teenagers so much responsibility in a very short space of time and that these roles need to emerge through trust with the researcher and develop over time. A more realistic interpretation was that the teenagers acted as ‘informants’; they did more than a ‘user’ or ‘tester’ as they were often faced with abstract concepts and were involved prior to the design of the product. In reflection, if I had designed the activities with the role of the ‘informant’ in mind, it might have been more successful than expecting co-design to a commercial or academic research standard. Similarly, their participation was more akin to ‘assigned but informed’, yet I would not be able to call the project truly participatory for the following reasons. Hart (1992) states the following points which make a project participatory at a basic level: ‘1. The children understand the intentions of the project; 2. They know who made the decisions concerning their involvement and why; 3. They have a meaningful (rather than ‘decorative’) role; 4. They volunteer for the project after the project was made clear to them.’ Due to recruitment, my project would fall short on the 4th point as it was the adults in the youth groups that decided they would be a part of my project, not the teenagers themselves. However, the reverse argument is that if some of them had been given a choice, they would have refused on principle, in line with the long standing cliché of teenage rebellion. Therefore, whilst I researched and attempted to take a participatory approach and follow a co-design methodology in my studio work, it would be more appropriate to describe it as a user-centred design project. The Key Challenges The challenges that I faced in approaching teenagers as a user group was in recruitment, in anticipating their willingness to participate and their cognitive and social development. I initially wished to focus on 14-17 year olds but was unable to recruit this age group as schools were interested but unwilling to lend their time in the run up to exams, and they are the least represented age group in youth clubs or organised activities. Out of over 30 emails to schools, youth groups, clubs and scout group, I received only 3 positive responses. I was invited to spend 2 afternoons at
12
Castlemilk Youth Complex where my initial group was 12 12-15 year olds. I was then offered to run a workshop with a group of younger children (or pre-teens) who were 10-11 years old. Druin’s work (1999) highlights the ideal age to do co-design as between 8 and 12 which meant that I decided to expand my user group to pre-users in the hope of achieving better engagement. The workshops took place during the Easter holidays where they were a part of the IndiYouth Unit run by the Indigo Childcare group. These teenagers were required to be there during the week by their working parents, as a substitute for school. Therefore, the participation of this user group was not voluntary but enforced by the youth workers who were keen to enable a diverse range of activities for the teenagers. Due to the busy and flexible nature of the youth club, I was unable to confirm prior to the workshops, the numbers, timings and whether the same participants would be in both sessions. Whilst I had thoroughly planned, scheduled and designed each session, the reality was that I had to be very flexible, adapting and improvising the activities as well as managing the engagement and behaviour of the group.
6. Example of Castlemilk participant using his phone over talking to others at the youth club
7. Engagement tool testers in the West End
The initial workshop materials had been tested with 3 well educated teenagers from Woodlands in Glasgow who expressed maturity, self-awareness, confidence, the ability to articulate and enthusiasm for the project. The teenagers from Castlemilk showed little interest in the workshop, had a significantly lower literacy and struggled to verbalise or engage on the same level as 8. Participant reluctant to engage with the teenagers from Woodlands. However, it was through activities much of the non-participation in the activities and their somewhat challenging behaviour that I gained the most insight. Although both sets of teenagers were probably extreme users (at opposite ends of the spectrum), it allowed me as a designer to constantly be thinking of how my studio work could engage both types of teenagers. If it could satisfy the polar opposite demographics, there is a good chance it would appeal to the age group as a whole. Working with
13
Introduction / Methodology
the teenagers from Castlemilk challenged me on various levels as a designer, researcher and facilitator. They pushed the limits of the engagement tools that they enjoyed and were quick to reject those that required more involvement and creativity. Druin’s (2002) attitude that anyone can, and will take to low tech prototyping or ‘bag-of-stuff’ style co-creation was unfortunately proven wrong in this situation. There was an almost unanimous rejection of the blank sheet of paper, despite the increasing guidance and iterations that I had made to the activities. I quickly learnt from observing the youth workers how to engage with the various personalities but what was most challenging was the different types of attention that each individual needed in order to actively participate with the workshop. I returned to Sanders (2008) levels of creativity in engaging the public with co-design to look for guidance. Here she acknowledges that people can be multiple types in different areas of their lives but that their ability as a co-design partner will ‘vary in terms of the amount of expertise and interest needed’
Type
Motivated by Purpose
4
Creating
Inspiration
‘express my creativity’
3
Making
Asserting my ‘make with my own hands’
ability or skill
2
Adapting
Appropriation ‘make things my own’
1
Doing
Productivity
9. ‘Scaffolding’ role of designer/researcher in facilitating workshops
‘getting something done
As I was able to run two workshops with the group from Castlemilk Youth Complex, I tried to reflect on the success and shortcomings of the engagement tools in order to redesign more appropriate activities for the following workshop. In my approach, I realised that I had tried to ‘offer a clean slate for those at the ‘creating’ level.’ (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) when in face the level of creativity of the participants was not yet at this level. In iterating the approach, I attempted to ‘provide scaffolds that support and serve peoples’ need for creative expression at the ‘making’ level’ for the second workshop by providing clearer instructions, themes and pre-prepared sheets that the participants could fill in, rather than approaching a blank sheet of paper from scratch. Whilst this would have been
14
appropriate for the participants from Studio5678, which I will touch upon later, I feel that the Castlemilk teenagers would have benefitted from more guidance from myself as a researcher and designer. What differed between my low tech prototyping activities and Druin’s (2002) was that I was alone in facilitating whereas they had multiple adults working with far smaller groups of children to guide them in making. In the second workshop, fellow student Jade Richardson, regularly paused her duties as photographer and note taker to get involved in the activities, encouraging the participants through her own engagement. The youth workers often did the same. However, upon reflection it would have worked better to take a small dedicated team of designers to work with each pair or trio in the co-design activities to encourage creative expression and maintain focus. My design concept, which will be touched upon towards the end of this appendix, involved engagement with Studio Club 5678, an after school arts and design club run by two graduates from the Glasgow School of Art in Partick. I was unable to engage with this group earlier on in the project due to scheduling, which was disappointing as I felt that they would have been a better group to try to co-design with. The first reason is their enthusiasm to participate. Due to the voluntary 10. Studio5678 crowd around Parrot activity nature of attending the Studio and the expectation that they are there to be creative, try new things and participate in group activities, meant that when I went to test the concept I faced none of the same challenges that I had had with the teenagers at the Castlemilk Youth Complex. Similarly, their desire to create meant that they had no fear of ‘getting stuck in’ with pens and paper. They were motivated by the link to the Glasgow School of Art (GSA) and seemed to be empowered and enthusiastic about giving their opinions and being challenged by the activities. I faced similar issues with Castlemilk Youth Complex as the schedule of the session had to be discarded as I conducted the activities in between tie-dye stages. The initial group of 4 12-14 year olds grew gradually into 8 10-14 year olds as others wanted to be involved. The Role of the Staff In both groups, the involvement of the adults present was instrumental in the success of the workshops. The youth workers at Castlemilk Youth Complex worked hard to manage the behaviour of the participants and after a calamitous afternoon
15
Introduction / Methodology
11. Tools created to help facilitate activites
with another visitor the previous day, had taken extra steps to ensure they would participate. The camaraderie the youth workers provided, who also gave me feedback and words of wisdom from their experience, was essential on keeping me energised and holding the group together. The staff who ran the Studio exuded warmth and enthusiasm, and welcomed me into the club. I felt that this enabled a positive and safe atmosphere which was beneficial to their engagement with the concepts I was presenting. The ethical benefit of their supervision meant that I did not need to worry about obtaining a PVG in time and did not need to undertake the health and safety assessment in order to hold workshops at GSA. I would recommend that the Product Design Department and GSA builds upon these relationships that have been created, in order for future students not to be held back in struggling to source young participants for research, co-design and user testing. Ethical Considerations & Documentation
In terms of the ethical considerations, I prepared tailored consent forms which included participation in the activities and permission for photographs and videos to be taken. These are available upon request. The first challenge was to take photographs without isolating teenagers whose parents had not submitted the consent form. The second challenge was with those whose parents had signed, but the teenagers either challenged being photographed or refused to be in any photos. In this situation it required a frank conversation that explained that the photographs weren’t really about them but that they were to convey the overall activity which was necessary for my work. When they realised they weren’t the centre of attention, they tended to comply. The third challenge was in photographing the activities. My initial thought was that the teenagers would be distracted and put off by setting up a camera in the room (Druin, 2002) so I hoped to assign one teenager per session as photographer. However, as I realised that would be too disruptive, I tried to take photographs myself. For the second afternoon at Castlemilk Youth Complex I brought a fellow student with me to assist in this. We used their theatre space which had less distractions (xbox,
12. Survey Activity with 10-11 year olds
16
projector, pool table) but it had no windows or natural light. Given the energy of the teenagers and their constant movement, the photographs were hard to capture. For Studio5678, I needed to respect their overarching policy of not including faces but showing backs or hints of the activities. For this session, I decided not to take a photographer but set up a go-pro in the corner of the room to take photos. However, the challenge with this approach was that I was unaware that one girl’s bin bag dress used for tie-dying was covering the lens for a substantial part of the workshop. Probes & Digital Technology As a way to bridge the struggle between facilitating the activities and ensuring that they were well documented, I planned an exercise that required the participants create photos and videos of themselves to share with me. However, finding a universal medium and a way of not disclosing my phone number, email or social media profile required the use of Snapchat, where they could communicate with a profile specifically set up for the project. The aim was to create a ‘probe’ that would appeal more to them than the common use of disposable cameras in ethnographic research, as well as being cheaper and faster for me as the researcher. However, the fact that snaps are supposed to disappear and that I would record them, despite being transparent, seemed unethical. I raised the idea with the youth workers who immediately warned me off the idea of any continuous communication with the group outside of the session. In undertaking design research with this age group, there is the need to be hyper vigilant and aware of the potential ethical risks which might not seem so apparent in working with adults. As I had a fairly short research period I was aware that I had to make significant compromises in how I used digital technology and ran activities to ensure that I maintained an appropriate and ethical approach. The Workshops as a Design Research Tool The benefits of conducting user research through these workshops was substantial. It allowed me to observe them interacting with their friends, peers and adults which meant that conversation topics or insights arose that I could not have planned for but simply happened as a result of their interaction. The short but intense nature of the workshops meant that within a short space of time, these insights propelled my project forward after each workshop. It also meant I was able
17
13. Participants share memes in the break
Engagement Tools / Introduction
engage with a diverse group of teenagers which led to my three main personas; which are similar but very different in the nuances of their behaviour. By conducting more than one workshop, I was able to iterate the tools and adapt my methodology for each one, contributing to my overall development as a user-centred designer. In addition, it enabled me to better understand teenagers and their relationship to mobile technology and the urban environment, which would be the focus of the studio project, Parrot. Engagement tools The following engagement tools are grouped by ambition and objectives rather than chronologically. Each spread contains the objectives, method, reflection and key insights that arose from the activity. The following pages highlight the key design directions and research recommendations that arose from the research insights.
18
Contents of Engagement Tools Design Directions & Research Recommendations Icebreakers Skittle Questionnaire
20 - 21
Group Portraits
22
Information Gatherers Investigator Sheets
23
Communication Maps
24 - 25
‘Say Anything’ City Themed
26 - 27
Yellow & Green Hand Survey
28 - 29
Discussion Starters ‘Would You Rather’ Technology Themed
30 - 31
Parrot Presentation & Map of Glasgow
32 - 33
Creators What makes a great place? Mindmap & Invention
34
Map & Re-imagine route to school
35
Co-Designing Snapchat filters
36 - 37
Re-design & Compete for Glasgow Spaces
38 - 39
If your phone had no screen - what would you do?
40 - 41
19
Design Directions 1.
Personalised interaction with application
2.
UX design should allow for self initiation and decision making
3.
Interaction should be multi sensory
4.
Embrace the smartphone, as without it they consider it punishment
5. Encourage a connection to the user’s local environment 6.
Facilitate face-to-face interactions
7.
Be aware of teenager’s knowledge and perception of corporations, the government and school
8. Create many short non sequential moments in the experience 9.
Leave room for creativity but not in an overwhelmingly open way
10. The style of language must neither be too childlike or too formal
20
Research Recommendations 1.
Consider forms of self-expression that do not require written or drawing skills
2.
Utilise teenagers’ skills and confidence in digital media by prototyping through guided high-tech solutions. Reconsider the value of low tech paper prototyping, its easier for the researcher but less engaging
3.
Encourage ways of expressing their own knowledge e.g. data, lighting
4. Prepare multi-sensory tool kits that include sound and light 5.
Create flexible engagement tools that allow teenagers to initiate the activity and take their own approach
6.
Be open to contradictions
7.
Prepare for short attention spans and disruptions
8.
Work with movement and the tendency to fidget as part of the activity
9.
Be prepared for teenagers to challenge parental consent in being recorded and photographed
10.
Explore common language to use with teenagers when discussing communication online and ‘in real life’
21
Engagement Tools / Icebreakers
Skittle Questionnaire - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Part 1 (Tested prior
to the workshop with 3 teenagers) Objectives To introduce myself to the group and vice versa Set the tone of the workshop as fun and lighthearted Encourage participants to give their opinions and establish trust Understand the group dynamic and unanimous opinions Method
14. The question guide for colour of skittles
The activity is conducted around the table, taking it in turns to take 3 skittles from the bag. Depending on the colours selected, participants answer corresponding questions.
Reflection This icebreaker was initially run with the test group of teenagers who probably would not have needed the sweet incentive. However, this activity worked well with the Castlemilk Youth group as it immediately gave unenthusiastic participants a boost and willingness to participate. It distanced the activity from a test or something associated with school and turned my role from ‘annoying lady coming in to do an activity’ to somewhere more on their level. It captured their interest in the workshop and triggered questions like ‘what do we get to do next?’. This was the first time I had met them so it also set the tone that I valued their time as I had made the effort to bring them treats. However, amongst a big group often the louder participants began to get restless and speak over others. I had to be quick to distinguish between joke names and their real ones which I memorised quickly, they treated even the simple task of saying their name as a test for me. Also for many reasons, constantly feeding the participants sugar is unsustainable. Insights In response to ‘Which app do you use the most?’ participants were keen to answer precisely, getting out their phones to report which app had been consuming the most data and comparing their usages. These participants showed high digital literacy in that they could talk about and interpret data freely.
22
The longest most participants had been without the internet was when sleeping or going to the bathroom. One participant (aged 12) told a story about how they didn’t have wifi at home for 3 months and that he had to go outside. This caused raucous laughter amongst the group. Teenagers demand and expect to have access to the internet all of the time, going outside is perceived as boring and uncool.
23
Engagement Tools / Icebreakers
Group Portraits - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop
Pre-Teens
Objectives
15. Example group portraits created
To introduce myself to the group and vice versa Set the tone of the workshop as fun and lighthearted Introduce the creative aspect of the workshop gently Overcome resistance to the blank piece of paper Ensure I had their names written down so I could remember them better Allow them to be free to move, fidget, jump, lie down etc as part of the activity Method Participants move around the room, when told to ‘stop’, they find a partner and draw a part of their face. This is repeated until it by bit a portrait is formed. Reflection
16. Participants make full use of the space when drawing
As a quick warm up this worked well. Due to odd numbers we got the supervising youth worker involved which helped as it allowed them to see that even an adult ‘can’t draw’ and that creating a beautiful picture was not the purpose of the activity. It also instantly revealed which of the participants would be either need more encouragement to take part or struggled with a short attention span. Contrary to popular opinion, the participants tended to view drawing as a chore, and it was initially met with a resounding ‘nooo’ and were very aware of what they couldn’t do.
24
Engagement Tools / Information Gatherer
Investigator Sheets - Castlemilk Youth Complex
Workshop Pre-Teens
Objectives Understand the level of independence related to age group Discover their association to places and the city Understand their likes, dislikes and what they value Method Working in pairs, participants interviewed each other to find out about their favourite places in Glasgow, what they liked and disliked about their bedrooms and general demographic information.
17. One of the participant’s interview
Reflection This activity took longer than expected and the pairs tended to answer the same when required to give their own opinion. However, it provided an interesting insight into family dynamics and recorded how they go to school, a precursor for the following activity. Insights Many couldn’t think of any places that weren’t home, school, the youth club or a friend’s house expressing the limited freedom and engagement young people of this age have with the city.
18. Example of data collected
25
Engagement Tools / Information Gatherer
Communication Maps - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Part 1 (Tested prior
to the workshop with 3 teenagers) Objectives Understand how participants communicate with friends. Understand differences in consumption and creation of media on social networks Understand what elements make an enjoyable social experience
19. Example Communication Map in use
Method Participants either work alone or in pairs, using the list of hints, to map out what they love, like, think are ok and rarely do when it comes to social media and being with friends. Reflection
20. Participants test the map before the workshop
This tool was tested prior to the workshop and was incredibly successful. It made the participants reflect on the different elements of their social life for example, one said that they love messaging friends on instagram but rarely post photos, instead they love sending photos to friends via snapchat. However, this tool did not work as expected in the workshop as the participants did not reflect as deeply as the teenagers it was initially tested with. They tended to write down things they loved such as friends, food, YouTube and wifi and did not reflect on how or through what medium they liked to communicate with friends. Insights
21. Close up of Communication Mapping
The major insight from both groups was that they did not differentiate in talking to friends face-to-face and in messages. They did not perceive a separation or understand how hanging out ‘in real life’ versus online could be different. Similarly, neither group understood
26
what I meant by ‘online’ as they are connected digitally to each other 24/7. In terms of social groups, most of the teenagers were quick to point out that they valued their friends and making new ones but readily ‘disliked’ other people who they perceived to be annoying or a ‘snake’. A ‘snake’ is a specific type of person who says one thing but another behind your back, this is mostly applied to social media where you actually see their behaviour in terms of posts or comments.
22. Participant shows off his map
Despite, the assumptions that Gen Z are all content creators and vloggers, most of these participants showed high levels of consuming media but never created, for example, their own videos for YouTube.
23. Participants work in pairs and alone
24. Two participants show off their favourite things
27
Engagement Tools / Information Gatherer
‘Say Anything’ City Themed - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Part 1 (Tested
prior to the workshop with 3 teenagers) Objectives Understand participants’ associations with the urban environment Explore participants’ relationship to public space Gauge awareness of concepts associated with civic participation Utilise an appealing format for gathering survey style data
25. Participant tests the ‘Say Anything’ game before the workshop
26. One of the older participants keeps track of the rounds
Method The ‘Say Anything’ challenge, that is popular on YouTube, requires a group to say one word after another as quickly as possible with the first thing that comes to mind. The aim is to see how long the group can keep it going in a sort of relay, without laughing or drawing blanks. This was re-interpreted for the workshop, where I had already picked the starting words, such as city, square, neighbours, citizenship and each person in the group got to pick a piece of paper from the bowl. I asked for two volunteers to list all the words that had been said in order to document the activity. Reflection
27. The group laughs at another participant’s word association
This activity worked well with both groups, allow the results were quite shallow it allowed me as a researcher to gain a better idea of how they perceived their urban environment. For example, the participants in Castlemilk were able to name more shopping centres than things about the city. However, upon when explained what the word ‘commons’ meant, they were able to rapidly talk about lots of things they thought it might be including car boot sales and eBay.
28
Insights In both groups, any words associated with citizenship, the council or civic was perceived negatively, as boring, unrelatable or something that was given to students at school who always did as they were told. This is an important insight in deciding how to frame and brand my studio project so that it would appeal to this age group. 28. Example words from ‘Say Anything’
29. Example of ‘Say Anything’ in use
29
Engagement Tools / Information Gatherer
Yellow & Green Hand Survey - Castlemilk Youth Complex Pre-Teens Objectives Understand participants use of smartphones and digital media Conduct a survey in a fun way Allow them to be free to move, fidget, jump, lie down etc as part of the activity Method 30. One side of the hand used in the survey
Each participant was given a hand with green one side and yellow the other. I asked yes/no style questions where they had to answer either with yellow or green. In between questions, I asked participants to explain further why they had chosen a certain way. For example, almost all the participants said they preferred YouTube over watching a film, so I asked them to explain their choice in order that I didn’t make assumptions. Reflection
31. One side of the hand used in the survey
This activity worked very well, for the one participant
that refused to be photographed, she acted as the scribe for this activity, counting the hands and listing the answers to the questions. The low-tech but interactive nature of the activity kept the majority of the group’s attention. To keep them focused, I would switch between yellow and green so they needed to listen to find out which answer would have which side of the hand. Insights Participants had short attention spans and craved quantity, explaining that films were too long to watch and that with Youtube they were able to watch lots of different things in the same time. Although the age range was between 10-11 all owned smartphones, and were incredibly attached to them, yet none of them used them for making calls.
30
With this younger age group, there was a preference for Instagram over Snapchat, despite the application’s rules in over 13s only. Facebook is associated with something that they feature on but don’t use personally. ‘I’m not on Facebook, but I’m all over it. My Nan posts pictures all the time’. It is not cool and is something that their parents and grandparents use. To have your phone with you all the time is normal and to be without it can only mean one thing - punishment. Some of the participants had real issues with being photographed, although their parents had given consent. Even though they were young, they were incredibly aware of their own image, how it might be used and if they had a choice in being photographed.
32. Participants disagree on video vs photos
31
Engagement Tools / Discussion Starter
‘Would You Rather’ Technology Themed - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Part 1 (Tested prior to workshop with 3 teenagers) Objectives Provoke debate and discussion amongst the participants Gain a more nuanced understanding of participants relationship to technology Method
33. Participants test the cards before the workshop
Based on the longstanding ‘Would You Rather?’ game where participants answer a question of two extremes that are designed to be hard to answer. For the research, the questions were designed to provoke them to think about physical and digital boundaries and preferences. For example, ‘Would you rather forget how to type or how to talk?’ or ‘Would you rather have more friends at school and less followers on Instagram or more followers on Instagram and be ignored at school?’ The group would go around the table, taking a card at random before announcing it to the group and what their answer would be much to the horror or agreement of the other participants.
34. Close up of the tool in use
Reflection This was one of the most successful activities in terms of engagement and research insight. The questions sparked huge debates with all participants weighing in on what they would choose, as well as pushing each ‘would you rather’ to far beyond what I imagined. The benefit to this style of group interview with indirect questions was that they triggered each other and conversation flowed rather than the standard ‘I don’t know’ answer to most other questions. 35. One of the most debated ‘Would You Rather’ scenarios
32
Insights The participants always valued meaningful relationships, face-to-face communication and choosing a non-digital life over a solely digital one. However, the youth workers laughed at this as their behaviour, on a daily basis, completely contradicts what they said they valued. This was an insight that drove my project forward as as designer we should listen to what they value. Teenagers are under huge pressure to perform on social media and upkeep a visible profile which is at odds with what they want.
36. Castlemilk participants debate the scenario
Participants spoke about wanting to sometimes go out but couldn’t understand what they would do once they got there, showing that urban public spaces are not welcoming or designed for teenagers. Teenagers won’t accept a limit and pushing it is fun. During the activity they dissected each ‘Would you rather’, questioning it’s validity and coming up with creative solutions around the limitations. In verbalising their ideas, they were highly creative and inventive. The deeper insight here is that they are more likely to be creative when they aren’t aware that that is what they are doing and can express themselves how they want.
37. Examples of ‘Would You Rather’ cards
33
Engagement Tools / Discussion Starter
Parrot Presentation & Map of Glasgow - Studio 5678 Concept Workshop Objectives Gauge understanding of the concept Test visual language and style of concept Provoke debate and discussion amongst the participants Encourage participants to think about the concept in relation to their city Method 38. Participant draws out the interaction between different friends’ streets
I showed the group of girls a short slideshow presentation, giving very little away in order to let them interpret images shown and explain back to me what they would consider a fun and engaging way of exploring the city. Using the map of Glasgow spread out on the floor I encouraged them to write their thoughts onto the map. Reflection
39. The first group of participants add their thoughts to the map and create links
This activity worked very well, by encouraging them to write onto a large group map rather than a piece of paper, they immediately started to interact with the geography, writing notes on specific locations. They showed me how they would like to share their experience with a friend who might live on a certain street in relation to where they lived. They were also excited by the fact that it was Glasgow specific, allowing them to relate better to the concept, pointing things out that they liked in the city and showing me where they would want to place a ‘parrot’. Insights
40. The second group of participants review the previous groups notes and add their own
As part of the discussion I proposed various partners, asking them what they would think if it was connected to, for example, their school, Glasgow Council or a brand, such as Converse. They expressed a desire to
34
to have a social space that was not connected to school, as they valued the friends they could make outside of the people that they have to spend every day with. This was reinforced by the staff from the Studio club. However, they did acknowledge that by having it ‘approved’ by school, that it could make things such as school trips more enjoyable and independent. They also expressed a distrust of the government and of brands. They were suspicious of why Glasgow Council might be involved in a game, whilst admitting it would make it feel ‘important’ they were more keen on asking whether they would be tested as part of the experience. Similarly, they didn’t want it to be associated with brand such as a shoe shop because, in their minds, they didn’t have any money to spend so ‘what was the point’. One girl in particular felt like it would be ‘tricking her’ if it ended up being a promotion. This distrust was a really important insight in understanding where to position the Parrot brand and plan the service.
41. Group from Studio5678 gather to listen to presentation
35
Engagement Tools / Creator
What makes a great place? - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Part 1 (Tested
prior to workshop with 3 teenagers) Objectives Understand participants feelings towards places they enjoyed spending time in Allow them to express what is important to them Create their ideal world, beyond what is currently accessible to them Method
42. Youth Worker helps participant to brainstorm whilst others lose focus
Participants were asked to work in groups to brainstorm and create a mind map of what makes up a place that they enjoy spending time in. Based on their mind maps, they were then given a variety of materials in order to prototype (draw/make/collage) what their ideal place would look like and contain. They were given a written sheet to fill in that guided them through what it might be called, what activities would take place and highlighting the three most important elements. Reflection
43. Participants work together in small groups to design their spaces
44. Example of mindmap created in the workshop
Whilst I did end up with some humorous and inventive designs of the participants’ ideal place, the activity was somewhat of flop. I ran this activity after they had had their tea break and the group attention span was at a low. Three of the most disruptive teenagers decided to leave, and their was a change over in youth workers who did not have the same rapport with the group as the previous staff. Upon reflection, the activity was too vague. I hadn’t conveyed clearly enough what they were supposed to do and at the same time, given them too much to do. I used this opportunity however, to chat to them one to one to find out what they were interested in and think about how the activity could be redesigned for the second workshop.
36
Map & Re-imagine route to school - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Pre-Teens A variation on this activity was designed for the pre-teen workshop which involved mapping their route to school, before re-imagining how their journey to school could be better. Insight The insight that came from this was when one boy remarked ‘I don’t see anything on the way to school’ when probed further he admitted that because he wasn’t allowed his phone at school, he just looked at his feet as he didn’t perceive that there wasn’t anything to look at. This disconnect with the surrounding urban environment is something I suspected, but had not fully realised on this level.
45. Step 1: Participant maps out journey to school
46. Step 2: Participant redesigns experience
47. Example guidance and material produced during the workshop
37
Engagement Tools / Creator
Co-Designing Snapchat filters - Castlemilk Youth Complex Workshop Part 2 Objectives
48. Step 1: Participants design their own
Act as a warm up to the participatory design activity Stimulate their creativity by using a subject that they all could relate to and enjoy Introduction to paper prototyping of a digital service Introduce them to working together to design something that is greater than the sum of the parts Understand why Snapchat filters are so appealing and if there are specific ones that they favour Method
49. Step 2: Participants swap and layer tracing paper over their partner’s drawing
Working as individuals, each participant was given a sheet with what looked like the Snapchat filter interface. They were asked to start by drawing in their most used filters in the circles, as it would appear on Snapchat. Then they were asked to design their own snapchat filter. After a short amount of time, they all swapped sheets, layering over tracing paper, and asked to add onto the other participant’s filter. This was repeated three times. There was space on the side of the sheet to describe the sounds it might make and any other additional information. Each filter (3 layers) was placed on the floor and the participants were given dots in order to mark their favourite. The winning team got sweets. Reflection
50. Jade fills in for the participants who lose concentration to help others complete the activity
Once again I struggled with keeping such a large group focused (it was not possible to split the group due to the need for supervision by a youth worker) and there was a mix in their willingness to participate. There were a few in the group who met the activity with complete refusal and answered with silence or ‘I don’t know’ to encouragement. In this situation, the youth worker, who had a clear bond with the teenagers, shared similar
38
experiences in designing activities that he thought the teenagers would love but instead would be faced with non-participation. Despite this, some participants threw themselves into the activity, making their filters more elaborate and multi-sensory but essentially wishing to control their original creation from the adaptation of others. The voting also became a lively and raucous event. Insights The insight from this activity was the need for selfinitiation. By this I mean that many of the participants need to think that it is their idea to do something, rather than being told. This insight is something I expected from the age group, the stereotypes of teenage rebellion were proved right. Therefore, in the design of the application the user would need to have complete control of the experience, initiating and leading the way rather than receiving instructions from the application. 51. The voting on the filters commences
52. I help one of the participants stuck for ideas
39
Engagement Tools / Creator
Re-design & Compete for Glasgow Spaces - Castlemilk Youth Complex
Workshop Part 2
Objectives
53. Participants work on their designs, with the help of Jade
Utilise a competition style activity, with familiar popular culture references to engage the participant in co design Understand participants feelings towards places they enjoyed spending time in Allow them to express what is important to them Create their ideal world, beyond what is currently accessible to them
Method
54. Example judges Zoella & Alfie used in the activity
In groups they were asked to pick a ‘boring’ place in Glasgow from a selection of images. They were then asked to re-imagine how you might make these places more fun. Utilising the 4 judges, Nicola Sturgeon, Usain Bolt, David Tennant and Zoella & Alfie, I introduced them to the requirements of the design, showing them what they might consider in their creations. They then presented their ideas in small groups before the ‘judges’ selected a winner based on how well they had fulfilled the categories. Reflection
55. Example re-design of the outside of the Science Centre
After the voting in the previous activity, it was once again, hard to regain focus amongst the group. It was also difficult as participants started to leave (the timing was out of my control) to go home and the boys grouped together in two groups, leaving the girls to do their own thing. The girls did not want to form a group and did not participate. However, this activity was more successful in that they (begrudgingly) found the ‘judges’ amusing and the two groups did work hard to try and come up with a better idea than the other. One girl teamed up
40
with the youth worker who, upon working one-to-one, came up with some meaningful and relatable ideas that reinforced the issue with lack of financial accessibility to the city centre of Glasgow. As mentioned previously, this activity would have benefitted from more adult involvement working directly with an individual group rather than my role which turned into overseer. Insights One of the insights that came out of this activity was again in alternative forms of creativity and literacy. Upon seeing Jade taking photographs, one of the boys went to the office to get the club’s go pro. He worked around the room to get the best angle, before setting up two or three phones with their torches on in order to light the shot. This sensitivity to light and image was, up until recently, solely the ability of professional photographers. Another girl also remarked upon the importance of ‘good lighting’ in her ideal place which she then tried to act out standing under one of the lights in the room, showing me what was wrong with the colour on her skin. Despite not enjoying pens and papers and having lower than average levels of literacy, the participants showed creativity and skills in digital media. Low-tech for a young person has a very different meaning to that of an adult. They feel more confident and engage better with highly technical situations than integrate digital technology into the activities rather than what we perceive to be the more accessible option of pens and paper.
56. Participants and I working together
57. Participants present amongst the disco lights set up
58. Example material produced to guide participants in the workshop
The demand for multi-sensory experiences also came out of this activity. The presentations were not complete without the drum kit being dragged out and a disco light set up. Their resourcefulness with the technology they have at hand, although being somewhat disruptive, was exciting and showed how they are not satisfied with ‘flat’ experiences.
41
Engagement Tools / Creator
If your phone had no screen - what would you do? - Studio 5678 Concept
Workshop
Objectives Explore new ways of using mobile technology through movement Understand what would be ‘socially acceptable’ for the participants to do in public Method 59. Participant shows the ‘capture’ gesture
I set the scene of interacting with a phone that had no screen, and presented six functions that we needed to come up with solutions for how you might achieve them. I started by proposing somewhat over the top movements, which encouraged them to take over and show me it would ‘be better like this’. Reflection
60. Participant holds up icon she created a gesture for
This was the final ‘creator’ activity I designed and I took into consideration the lack of engagement with physical media and the need for adult involvement in the activity rather than letting them tackle it alone. It was successful in that we were a very small group and once they overcame the easy option of using voice control, they came up with inventive ways of controlling their phone through physical movements. Insights
61. Participants practice a signature synchronised ‘parrot’ gesture
Teenagers are very self aware, any big or sudden movement was deemed too embarrassing but they were attracted to small, punchy movements that would be their personalised way of interacting with the application.
42
62. I record a participant’s moves created to search for a ‘parrot’
43