Pocket Pedal by ahol

TRAM TRACKS

ALTERNATIVE FOOTPATH ROUTE

ST KILDA JUNCTION

END OF BIKELANE

GRADE SEPERATED BIKE LANE

PEDESTRIAN XING MULTPLE LIGHTS THIN BIKE LANE BLIND CURVE LANE CHANGE

LYCRA BROS OVERTAKING

Thanks to Stanislav, for taking my idea and turning it into something much more interesting (22,000 words more interesting, to be exact!) Nads, for putting up with many a grumpy morning and testing the game so many times youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re now better than me at it, Carmel; for much; needed editing; Jamie, for many late nights battling Unity and C#, Jill, for much strategic advice / therapy, Alexa, for setting up a workshop in spite of looming essays, Kathy and Jessie, for Oscar-winning filming and interview skills, Workshop participants, for spending an evening playing Pocket Pedal like pros, Julia, Terri and Zoe, for allowing me to focus on this at the end, and my family, for letting me commandeer our houseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entire supply of phones for testing (you can have them back now).

TRUCK EGRESS Cyclists forced to ride in traffic lane

contents Abstract: How can games be used in activist design? Project Outline : Testing design strategies: St Kilda Road, Melbourne 1 Cycling p. How can cycling be defined to be compatible with the design process? 1.1 Who does cycling impact? 1.2 Cycling: a need for phenomological urban planning? 1.3 Current and future states of cycling 1.4 How can urban dwellers begin cycling more? 1.4.1 Experiencing infrastructure. 1.4.2 Experiencing cycling practice. 1.4.3 Experiencing access to the bicycle 1.5 Core project aims: 1.5.1 Using artefacts to explore the cycling assemblage 1.5.2 Reducing stakeholder conflict by unpacking the time-space differential 1.5.3 Idea generation through a phenomenological understanding of cycling: 1.6 Next Steps 2 Design Research question: how can design be used as a process for activism? 2.1 Designing a common frame 2.2 Exploring conditions in a collaborative space 2.2.1 Props 2.2.2 Play 2.2.3 Enactments 2.3 Expanding design space 2.4 Design as activism 2.5 Key Outcomes for Workshop activities 3A Games and design Research Question: Can games be useful for participatory design activities? 3.1 What is a game? 3.2 Implication of games on proposal 3.3 Pocket Pedal

3.4 Simulation Taxonomy 3.5 Activist game case studies 3.5.1 Rosario Habitat 3.5.2 Forum Theatre 3.5.3 McDonaldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s game 3.6 The playful and the simulated 3.6.1 First level simulation: mock up 3.6.2 Second level simulation: conscious-raising 3.6.3 Simulation and authority 3.6.4 Playful simulations 3.7 Participatory design as metagame 3.8 Games as insertable artefacts 3.9 Next Steps: embedding Pocket Pedal into a cycling workshop 3B: Pocket Pedal as artefact 4 Pocket Pedal Workshop Stakeholders Workshop Outline: Activity 1: Interview Game Activity 1A Scene Identification Activity 1B Stakeholder identification Activity 1C Interview Game Activity 2: Journey Game Activity 2A: Co-design with traditional Go Pro footage Activity 2B: Journey Game Activity 3: Participatory Navigation Simulation through performance chunking Nesting Flexibility through social interaction Consequences Activity 4: Individual Play A lab for testing ideas Mechanics Stakeholder discussion Abstraction Challenges Results

Pocket Pedal as a discrete artefact Activity 5: Prompt game Mixed idea generation The need for immediate response in simulation Appreciation of human infrastructure Workshop Discussion The effectiveness of co-design games Design frame Using rules Using artefacts of various fidelities Creating a safer space through feedback mechanisms Using novelty, engagement and play 5. Urban Gaming Toolkit How can design move me away from existing assumptions surrounding a problem? How should this toolkit be used? What is a productive lab space? How do I design the conditions for a productive lab space? What the Urban Gaming Toolkit wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do Challenges and omissions Mindsets Players, not participants The Physical Space The Virtual Hybrid Simulation Type Electronic simulations Cardboard computing Simulation Taxonomy Fidelity Flexibility Immersion Authority Methods Set 1: Activating an Audience Glimpses Mock Interviews

Vested Interests as collective framing Set 2: Levelling stakeholders through simulation Breaking down complexity Feedback mechanisms make Magic circles Play creates collective framing Competition = Triangulation Set 3: Creating participant needs through incomplete gaming Games as part of an assemblage of codesign Nesting games to create contingent, immersive experiences Use Participatory Navigation to collectively play a one player simulation Metagaming through Playful simulation Artefacts ‘Thing’ props Premade Cards Blank Cards Virtual Smartphones Projection ‘Do’ props Quantified outcomes Scores Warnings Data generation Data is generated Record everything Roving cameras Prompt reactions Situating reports Combine your data Follow ups Now it’s up to you Bibliography

How can games be used in activist design? Even the most imaginative design initiatives often remain unimplemented. In an attempt to alleviate this gap, between ideas and will, design methods such as ‘metadesign’ and ‘codesign’ recognise that solutions to complex challenges cannot be provided by designers alone. These methods demonstrate that design can achieve more not by attempting to ‘fix’ problems for others, but by initiating, encouraging and curating conditions that support the broadly inclusive social activities needed for change. In an innovative extension to the existing practices of collaborative design, this thesis demonstrates that games can create and support these indispensable activities. Well-designed games allow stakeholders to interrogate complex situations, and provide opportunities for safe experimentation. Research discussed in this thesis confirms that games situated within codesign can reduce ignorance and generate new visions of possible futures. The powerful capacities of games for activist design are investigated in this work via the application to urban cycling. This ‘site’ is a good test for activist design as it resists change through traditional design methods. Cycling, embedded in the broader road environment, is both complex (an assemblage of bodies, infrastructure and behaviour at many scales) and condensed (involving both space and time, and experienced at different speeds). It involves a great range of stakeholders who have many backgrounds, experiences and values. Such complexities lead to conflicts on the road, and impasses in design. Traditional participatory practice positions designers as filters for a community’s needs. However, filtering input from diverse, potentially conflicting stakeholders is difficult, especially from the outside. These needs cannot be passively found by a designer (particularly when knowledge is unevenly distributed), but instead must be actively created by a community. To address this challenge, this thesis sets out to redesign the design process itself. The result was the creation and running of a dedicated workshop, amplified by a provocative design toolkit. This workshop tested the ability of games to assist the curation of productive codesign activities, with a particular focus on urban cycling along St Kilda Road, Melbourne. Applied to the immensely challenging environment of St Kilda Road, the toolkit functioned as a range of metagames of varying fidelity, organised around the custom-built smartphone game ‘Pocket Pedal’. The workshopse metagames can engag participants through play, and encourage a rich, collaborative exploration of issues in stalemate situations.

Testing design strategies: St Kilda Road: Melbourne This work tested the use of games embedded in codesign in a situated cycling workshop in Melbourne, Australia. Using Pocket Pedal and the Urban Gaming Toolkit, the workshop aimed to create a shared design frame in stakeholders (refer Section 2), explore issues on St Kilda road and give participants tools to imagine future cycling possibilities. St Kilda Road, a scenic boulevard in Melbourne, was chosen as the case study for codesign workshop activities. The route is a major artery for cyclists, motorists and trams entering the city from Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s populous southeast. Many typical issues encountered in cycling are present on the route: large volumes of traffic, poorly implemented, low quality bike infrastructure and conflicting stakeholder groups. The road serves as a concentrated example of urban cycling problems (Refer Section 1). It is one of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most populous bike and motor routes, has the highest rate of doorings in Melbourne, and is the busiest tramway in the world. Recognising these issues, local government has proposed installing grade separated bike lanes along the St Kilda Road corridor. Upgrades, however, have stalled for years due to unsupportive State Governments and community concern for the loss of on-street parking. In response, the game artefact Pocket Pedal was designed (refer Section 3), simulating a segment of the route and attempting to recreate virtually the complex interactions between motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and residents. In Pocket Pedal, a player must ride to the city along a digital St Kilda Road without crashing or engaging in high levels of risky behaviour. To test out the use of game artefacts on stakeholders impacted by the St Kilda road proposals a workshop was held (refer Section 4). Stakeholders include cyclists, motorists, transit users, planners, residents and health professionals. The game was tested both as an individual artefact, and broken into various elements/props embedded in other codesign activities. Through knowledge gained from designing physical and virtual games, and running the workshop, the Urban Gaming Toolkit was made (refer Section 5).

GRADE SEPERATED BIKE PATHS DESIGN HUB REPAIRS BLOCK B.LANE

TRAMSTOP/BIKELANE SWAP MATERIAL

TRAM SUPERSTOP

HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

CAT CALLING FROM TRAMSTOPS HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS CARS CROSSING BIKELANE 90째 BIKELANE TURN

PEDS WAITING FOR TRAM BOTTLENECK ENTRY TAXIS

PEDESTRIAN XING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING HORSESHIT LANE CHANGE X 2

90째 BIKELANE TURN BUSSES & HORSE CARRIAGES

DOUBLE PARKED TAXIS PEDESTRIAN XING MULTPLE LIGHTS THIN BIKE LANE BLIND CURVE

LYCRA BROS OVERTAKING

LANE CHANGE

TRAM TRACKS

ALTERNATIVE FOOTPATH ROUTE

ST KILDA JUNCTION ST KILDA JUNCTION END OF BIKELANE

15 GRADE SEPERATED BIKE LANE

bikes

1 Cycling How can cycling be defined to be compatible with the design process? The purpose of this section is to theorise an understanding of urban cycling best suited for design. Rather than an activity or transit method, cycling will be conceptualised as an ‘ecology’ of diverse stakeholders, environments and practices. This ecology will be defined by investigating how riding is experienced; its influences, impacts, current cycling states and desired future states. From this, implications for the project will be identified, and core design aims established.

1.1 Who does cycling impact? Urban cycling is complex and far reaching. Cycling environments do not just describe riders and infrastructure, but include drivers, transit users, planners, residents and business owners. The impacts of cycling are intersectional and multiscalar: •

At a city-wide level , cycling contributes positively to public health, congestion and the environment (Fishman et al. 2015). A study in Portland estimated that investing $138 - $605 million in cycling infrastructure would result in savings of $143 – 218 million in fuel, $388 - $594 million in health care costs, and $7 billion - $12 billion savings in lives (Gotschi 2011).

•

At a local level, cycling impacts the street. Though often met with opposition , upgrading cycling infrastructure has been associated with increases in revenue amongst nearby business owners. While cyclists spend less per shop than motorists, riders visit areas more frequently than drivers. (Allatt et al. 2013; Lee & March 2010; O’Connor et al. 2011)

•

On an individual level, cycling impacts the body. The health benefits gained from cycling have been found to outweigh any increase in road trauma. Health benefits have been calculated to be anywhere in the range of 9 to 96 times larger than any increased road risk (Rojas-Rueda et al. 2011; Teschke et al. 2012; Götschi et al. 2015).

In academic, government and design discourse cycling is almost universally praised. Why then is urban riding still undertaken only by a few? Implication for design 1: Urban cycling environments extend beyond cyclists. Codesign activities are to establish a method for a diverse set of stakeholders to collaboratively work together.

CRASH DATA

SPLAT MAP

STREET MAP

URBAN FABRIC

1.2 Cycling: a need for phenomological urban planning? Urban riding is complex and requires additional analyse than conventional car-based transit discourse (Popan 2015b). By describing cycling as an ecology rather than a series of separate elements, barriers to the practice can be more readily understood. Unlike motorists, cyclists are exposed road users. This means a cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surrounding environment exerts a much greater influence on them than on other modes of traffic. Simple things like hills, exhaust fumes, frequent stop-starting are insulated in a car but are felt on a bike. This complex interaction between cyclists and environment leads ethnographists such as Lugo to describe a bike rider as an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;assemblage of body, city and machineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, the intersection of the built environment and others moving through it (Lugo 2010). Cycling environments are also fast. Riding cannot be understood solely in terms of space, rather, time must be considered. The speed of stakeholders is important: motorists are much faster than bike riders. There is therefore a time-space differential between drivers and cyclists, leading to potential conflicts. A phenomenological understanding best describes this mix of complexity and fastness inherent in cycling. Just as a house is not a building but a dwelling (Whittemore 2014), cycling routes are more than transit routes. Cycling routes are places themselves, ridden through and experienced. Implication for design 2: The experience of cycling environments differs amongst stakeholder group (cyclists, motorists, transit users, stationary stakeholders). Rather than focusing on solutions, codesign activities aim to lessen ignorance and equalises an understanding of cycling for all groups. Game artefacts need to capture the complexity and fastness of cycling in the safety of a workshop setting. Games are to both describe cycling and allow participants to investigate it themselves.

Bike footrests, Copenhagen 21

1.3 Current and future states of cycling In Australia and other English speaking countries, cycling rates remains low. While cycling participation is now increasing rapidly (Johnson 2011)primarily in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and is presented as a thesis by publication. The Safe System Framework was used as the theoretical model for the research and the research stages included i, only 1% of road trips in Australia are made by bike. More pressing still is how dangerous it is. In Melbourne, it has been calculated that the relativist risk of serious injury of cyclists compared to drivers is 13:1 based on police data and 34:1 based on hospital data (Johnson 2011)primarily in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and is presented as a thesis by publication. The Safe System Framework was used as the theoretical model for the research and the research stages included i. There is also a lack of cycling diversity in English speaking countries, where female participation is under 30%. The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark all have female cycling rates above 45%. Unlike in these countries, cycling rates in Australia are also inversely correlated with age (Aldred et al. 2015). Alarmingly, increased participation in cycling has actually seen a reduction in gender diversity in some areas of the USA (Pucher et al. 2011)

5 years of Melbourne bike crash data, Vic Roads and Monash Alfred Crash Survy

1.4 How can urban dwellers begin cycling more? For cycling to become a less marginal transit mode, the experience of each ‘actor’ in the phenomenological assemblage must be considered (Popan 2015a)but also contributed to a growing interest within sociology for cycling practices (Horton et al. 2006. Though interrelated and unable to be considered in isolation, in context of this thesis, design activities will involve the following elements of the cycling ecology/assemblage:

1.4.1 Experiencing infrastructure As discussed previously (Refer 1.2), a cyclist’s experience of the road is personal. Though bike infrastructure attempts to equalise time and space between transport modes (Lugo 2010), cycling infrastructure is gendered and ageist. Higher quality bike infrastructure such as ‘Copenhagen’ style segregated bike lanes are associated with higher female participation (Garrard et al. 2008). In Copenhagen and other areas of higher cycling rates, the phenomenological experience of riding has been planned. Beyond segregated bike lanes, ‘green wave’ traffic lights preserve a rider’s inertia and keep stopstarting to a minimum (figure 1). Angled rubbish bins are placed along cycling routes, optimised for a cyclist throwing rubbish away mid-ride (figure 2). Designing infrastructure at all scales (urban and personal) for a diverse set of riders emphasises the casual, inclusive cycling needed for high cycling rates (Gössling 2013). It is therefore important to consider a diversity of experiences when designing cycling infrastructure. Rather than building for the stereotypical MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra), a group perhaps more tolerant of poor riding conditions; the experiences of casual riders, females and people who don’t currently cycle need to explored (Aldred et al. 2015).

1.4.2 Experiencing cycling practice . A cyclist’s vulnerability extends past physical infrastructure. Human infrastructure (a city’s pedestrian, motorist and cyclists identities and behaviour) also exerts great influence on a bike rider feeling legitimate on the road. Legitimacy in cycling is two tiered. Firstly, a broader understanding of what is a legitimate road user is needed beyond motorised transit. Secondly, within cycling itself, diversity in riding needs to be embraced, beyond the ‘proper’ (read: middle aged, white, male) cyclist (Aldred 2012).

1.4.3 Experiencing access to the bicycle Access to a bike also impacts cycling rates. This is primarily achieved by dismantling economic barriers to bike ownership. A great example of this is Second Chance Cycles, a Melbourne organisation providing cheap bikes to offenders recently released from prison.

Just as important, however, are knowledge gaps: do people feel confident using their bikes in urban spaces? Implication for design 3: The experience of perceived less â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;legitimateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; riders are important (casual riders, people who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t currently ride, women, children). Workshop activities are designed to encourage a broad experience of cycling to be explored. Game artefacts aim to create a framework ensuring all participants feel legitimate and able to make active contribution to workshop activities.

1.5 Core project aims: Conceptualising cycling as ecology allows for traditionally opposing elements (bikes vs cars, drivers vs cyclists) to be considered as an interrelated system with multiple potentials, rather than just being described in terms of inputs and outputs (Fuller & Matos 2011). Stakeholders can then explore this system. This conceptualisation was tested in a codesign workshop (refer Section 4). The core aims of the workshop are described below:

1.5.1 Using artefacts to explore the cycling assemblage The fast and complex nature of cycling means it is hard to quantify. This can be seen from the underreporting of incidents, near misses and harassment in cycling data. (Sanders 2015; Chaurand & Delhomme 2013)with an average increase in bicycle commuting of 47% (Flusche, 2012. It is therefore difficult to describe cycling environments to stakeholders who do not experience them on a bike. Motorists sometimes perceive cyclists behaving erratically, often actually caused by haphazard bike infrastructure. Design activities aim to prototype effective methods of recreating the experience of riding, allowing participants to test out the link between road infrastructure and behaviour.

1.5.2 Reducing stakeholder conflict by unpacking the time-space differential Many drivers have negative personal experiences of slow bikes on the road (Aldred 2012). The speed difference between cars and bikes contribute to bike riders being perceived as illegitimate (Lugo 2010), often leading to conflicts. Using the artefacts tested in 1.5.1 cycling can be exploring in terms of time and space in participants. Through this, a shared conception of the road amongst stakeholders can be developed.

1.5.3 Idea generation through a phenomenological understanding of cycling: Cyclists experience the built environment differently from motorists. Physical (bike lanes, green lanterns), dynamic (traffic) and cultural (behaviour, identity, perception) infrastructures (Lugo 2010) influence bike riders to a greater degree than motorists. : As described previously (refer Section 1.3), inclusivity in the riding experiences is required for cycling to become a less marginal activity. Through game artefacts, the experience of cycling in all stakeholders can be interrogated, and a diverse range of personal needs in cycling can be identified. By embedding these game artefacts in codesign activities, solutions to these needs can be proposed by participants.

1.6 Next Steps Through understanding cycling as an interlinked ecology, perceptions and ideas of many different stakeholders can be identified, tested and shared. Rather than conceptualising cycling as a series of right/wrong inputs and outputs, an environment can be created to explore the diversity of needs in participants. Through the process of unpacking these needs, a framework for idea generation can be created. The following chapter will describe design strategies employed to productively depict, explore and exploit such ecologies.

ST KILDA JUNCTION Bike lane between many lanes of traffic, route freight vehicles use

KINGS WAY BYPASSN Bike lane ends, replaced by left hand turn traffic lane

PROBLEMATIC BIKE BOX Bike box in right-side lane, forces cyclist to cross a lane of traffic

NGV LANE CHANGE Bike lane crosses two lanes of traffic to right hand side of road; cyclists forced to ride with traffic

UNPROTECTED BIKE LANES Non-grade seperated bike lanes offer little protection to cyclists on busy route

ST KILDA JUNCTION Cyclists must negotiate narrow bike lane between multiple busy lanes of traffic

design 41

2 Design How can design be used as a process for activism? The purpose of this section is to justify the choice of design methodologies in relation to the key research questions of this thesis – namely, how activist design can be used for change in complex environments. Design is conceptualised not as a final outcome, but as a management strategy for dynamic and contingent systems like urban road environments. This section considers ‘activist design’ as the creation of atmospheres, toolsets and methods, to encourage productive social activities for effective change in these systems. As discussed in Section 1, cycling is best considered as a complex ecology involving conflicting stakeholders with a diverse set of backgrounds and experiences. Such systems cannot be ‘solved’ by single designers. Rather than designing a ‘solution’ to cycling, a codesign workshop was devised and tested on stakeholders of the current St Kilda road upgrade proposals. Using games embedded as artefacts in participatory activities, this thesis tests a strategy of ‘design[ing] the design process’ (Westerlund 2009). This involves designing artefacts and spaces where stakeholders are empowered to safely challenge existing views, reduce their own ignorance and collaboratively imagine future possibilities (Albinsson et al. 2008). Specific game artefacts will be discussed in the next section (Refer Section 3). This section investigates how the design process can be redesigned to best support the productive social activities needed in cycling, what design strategies are amplified through the use of games, and how game artefacts can be effectively embedded in a design workshop.

Design virtual artifacts for design activism: Pocket Pedal game, Unity 5 43

2.1 Designing a common frame According to Lars Albinsson, writing in the context of developing new design techniques for ‘Open Innovation’, idea generation is most effective when a diverse set of stakeholders can be part of any development of solutions (Albinsson et al. 2008). However, integrating stakeholders with varying backgrounds, interests and competencies into successful participatory design outcomes can be difficult. In cycling, stakeholders including planners, motorists, cyclists, residents and local shop owners might have radically different experiences, professional backgrounds and beliefs. These diverse groups need to be able to work together for effective change to happen This thesis explores the use of interactive prototypes (games) as a method for designing a common frame in stakeholders. Prototypes are a limited representation of a design that users can interact with (Brandt 2007). As amplifiers of design processes, prototypes use a combination of rules and props to create a common framework that people can relate to, a levelling of stakeholders. Prototypes are ‘boundary objects’, shared between participants but allowing for different interpretations (Brandt 2006a). These facilitate stakeholder interaction between potentially disagreeing or hostile groups such as cyclists and drivers. Prototypes achieve this effect by helping participants shift their attention to interacting with the artifact rather than focusing on each other.

i wish this wAs

:IT'S DANGEROUS HERE

i wish this wAs

:IT'S DANGEROUS HERE

i wish this wAs

2.2 Exploring conditions in a collaborative space Traditional participatory practice positions an architect as the ‘filter’ for a community’s needs (Cossio et al. 2012). As Westerland theorises in the context of creating participatory artefacts, needs cannot be simply ‘found’ by a designer but must be actively imagined or created (Westerlund 2009). Asking stakeholders what they want is insufficient for design, as individuals simply repeat characteristics of the environments they already know (Albinsson et al. 2008). In the context of cycling, some stakeholders (cyclists) are more aware of their needs than others (drivers). Through an explorative design process, all stakeholders can discover and test out various needs themselves. Several strategies for embedding exploratory artefacts in workshop activities are discussed below:

2.2.1 Props Props allow a designer to create a framework where participants can collaboratively explore an issue. Rather than attempting to recreate a scenario in all its complexity, props simplify; breaking an issue down into manageable pieces participants can engage with. Using props in design activities encourages stakeholders to move away from the general and to the specific, as participants must interact with the object in front of them. Images, videos and objects are more powerful than relying only on language as tools for discovery. When participants can employ all senses and interact with tangible objects, more reflection and comments are generated (Brandt 2006a). A designer can influence participatory outcomes through the strategic implementation of props. More abstract props evoke a wider range of responses in participants, while higher fidelity props narrow response range for more detailed analysis. In the context of this project, this interpretation of props allowed workshop activities to abstract elements of cycling (infrastructure precedents, phenomenological aspects of cycling, etc) into conceptual yet tangible ‘chunks’ of riding, readily testable by participants. This deployment of props in the design process is innovative because higher fidelity props (smartphones with the Pocket Pedal game installed on them) can be nested in lower fidelity props (cards instructing participants how to play), creating immersive but adaptable experiences (ref 3.6).

de ry o ing at r ip bo ic e rt b pa an c

g si

2.2.2 Play Workshop activities use play as a core mode of interaction. Huzinga’s work Homo Ludens identifies play as core to human culture, ‘the free activity standing ... outside ordinary life as being not serious but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly’ (Huizinga 1955). Play creates a ‘magic circle’, a protective space where players are spared the physical consequences of their actions (Bogost 2006). Interpretations such as that of “ludic design”, introduced by Bill Gaver to describe new methods for interaction, recognise play not as a wasteful activity but a mechanism for imagining new possibilities (Sengers et al. 2005). The role of play in the social construction of reality has been compared to mutation in genetics, a constant testing out of new ideas (Brandt et al. 2008). In the context of this project, play, through design games (refer Section 3) allows props/artefacts in workshop activities to have defined relations/ rules with each other. The engagement and safety associated with play is a powerful tool for encouraging participants to interact with props and each other in new ways.

2.2.3 Enactments Enacted scenarios are where participants act out situations to understand a subjective experience (Binder 1999). Enactments situate artefacts both in the ‘real’ issue (the scenario enacted) and in the safety of the workshop setting (where the scenario is performed). This creates an ongoing dialogue both between stakeholders, but also between stakeholders and the designer. Emphatic scenarios can be particularly useful at participatory events where participants come from different backgrounds (Brandt 2006a); the stage and props becoming common language for engagement. Through improvisation, enactments create processes that redesign themselves, allowing activities to move beyond even a designer’s initial conception of a framework (ref 3.5.2). This cycle of exploration and testing ensures the outcomes of the group surpass any individual potential of participants (Wood 2008).

2.3 Expanding design space Within political theory, agonism is the idea that democracy is intrinsically contentious, needing confrontation and dissensus to work (DiSalvo 2012). Using the exploratory strategies described above, agonistic but playful activities can be created for workshop participants EXAMPLE: FUTURE WORKSHOPS Future workshops is a participatory strategy employing critique and exploration to encourage participants to step out of preconceptions and engage in novel ideas. In the critique phase, participants criticize current practice. In the fantasy phase, participants create and come up with ideas about how to deal with problems identified in the critique phase. Finally, in the implementation phase, participants return to the present to identify strategies for integrating ideas in reality (Halskov & DalsgĂĽrd 2006)&. Using a similar process, the cycling workshop enabled participants to challenge worldviews themselves rather than being simply told about change. Through interaction with game artefacts that provoke, participants engage in a process of self-discovery. This exploration is much more effective at encouraging participants to move beyond their previous assumptions than traditional authoritative dissemination of knowledge (Ratto 2014). This state is called an expanded design space, where a participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to envision possible futures is expanded (Brandt 2006a).

Public Lab Balloon Mapping Kit (discussed overleaf)

2.4 Design as activism As discussed throughout this section, activist design does not have to be focused around producing end results. Such design instead aims to challenge traditional conceptions around participation and democracy (Björgvinsson et al. 2012) through the creation of politically transformative spaces. EXAMPLE: PUBLIC LAB BALLOON MAPPING KIT (PREVIOUS PAGE) Public lab’s Balloon Mapping Kit (and the availability of low-cost helium balloons) enable ‘citizen scientists’ to create higher quality aerial maps than satellites (Wylie et al. 2014). Through designing simple props (helium balloons, low cost camera filters, free algorithms) individuals can perform powerful vegetation analysis on landscapes. The activities enabled by Public Lab alter power dynamics in cartography, challenging conventions of who can make ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ (Wylie et al. 2014). Diversifying who can make ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ is designing an expanded design space for users. Rather than attempting to ‘design’ for better land-use strategies, Public Lab created a space that allowed participants to interrogate their environment in ways they couldn’t before. This allows new needs to be identified and novel ideas be generated. The focus on creating artefacts that similarly empower users is important in urban cycling environments. Designing objects that enable participants to perform new methods of analysis (ie. exploring their environment in new ways) is needed, as bike riders rarely can make ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ in their cycling environment. Though design activism aims to create spaces for non-authoritative exploration (Ratto 2014), high barriers to entry exist in participatory design practice. Issues arise if making activities are too restrictive, not meaningful (ie. just observation) or if technical/knowledge requirements are too high. Self-selection is an issue all participatory design faces: participants must be privileged, informed and motivated enough to take part activities. This is an issue in cycling, as marginalized cyclists (casual riders, females, children) are key targets for any design intervention.2.5 Key Outcomes for Workshop activities By considering activist design as a method for creating spaces that encourage particular kinds of activities amongst stakeholders, much more complex and far reaching outcomes can be generated than what a single designer can achieve. In cycling, and on St Kilda Road, traditional design outcomes for better cycling may already be known (the local council of Port Phillip has already designed a bike upgrade scheme for the route). However, these end-product designs are not enough to manage this complex ecology. Such proposals do not reduce ignorance amongst stakeholders. As referred in section 0, some groups (certain motorists) are opposed to upgrades while others (the State Government, the body with actual jurisdiction over the road) are less aware of a cyclist’s needs. The upgrade scheme has been delayed for

years. Workshops can reduce opposition to infrastructural implementation as stakeholders achieve a level of consensus. Artefacts let designers create new methods for participants to explore environment in the safety of a workshop setting. By embedding these artefacts in activities adaptable to participant responses, designers can facilitate stakeholders in confronting their own previous conceptions. Expanding design space through props, play and enactments lets a designer direct participants to ‘creating’ cycling needs themselves. This creation is the making of ‘credible and actionable’ knowledge needed for activism. These game artefacts must be designed carefully. The following section will discuss how games can be used as embeddable objects for these design outcomes. A framework for creating an expanded design space amongst participants will be discussed, and specific game proposals outlined.

game

3 Games and design Can games be useful for participatory design activities? Cycling infrastructure can be overwhelming for non-professionals to engage with (refer Section 1). The codesign process aims to expand design agency to non-designer stakeholders (refer Section 2). However, designers struggle to ensure a broad range of people can make the ‘credible and actionable’ knowledge these processes require (refer Section 2.4). Games offer a level of engagement that most activist processes lack. Since the 1970’s, participation in the democratic process (perhaps the most common ‘activist activity’) has declined: voter turnout has decreased 8% in OECD countries, and party membership has dropped over 60% (Lerner 2014). Yet, each year more people play games: 50% more children play video games now than in 1999, and 40% of gamers are female (ESA 2015). People who participate the least in politics (youth, people of colour, low income families) engage with games the most. (Lerner 2014). This section investigates how games can create new frameworks for the activist design strategies explored in Section 2. In the context of this design process, games are successful not in isolation but when they can be embedded as artifacts in codesign and engaged with productively by participants.

3.1 What is a game? Traditional media such as an architectural render is representational, meaning it produces a description of traits and a sequence of events to form a narrative. Games, on the other hand, are based on an alternative structure known as simulation (Frasca 2003). A game is a simulation in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, resulting in a quantifiable outcome (Salen & Zimmerman 2004). Useful in this definition is the notion that designers only indirectly shape a player’s experience. Through the design of mechanics (components, data and algorithms) and dynamics (the run time behaviour of mechanics interacting with the player and each other), rewarding experiences in a player are evoked (a game’s aesthetics) (Hunicke et al. 2004). In this framework, videogames can be thought of as computational artefacts arising from a series of rules, or processes (Bogost 2007). Games trying to make a point do not just author arguments through representation such as words (oral rhetoric) and images (visual rhetoric). Rather, games can use procedural rhetoric: authoring arguments through the processes, rules and conditions that define players interaction. Ian Bogost argues such games are persuasive games, creating emergent experiences where the player discovers and forms opinions for themselves, rather than simply being told (Bogost 2007)(Rockwell & Kee 2014).

3.2 Implication of games on proposal There is a substantial body of work in the use of games outside playing for enjoyment, for example educational games (Oak & Bae 2014; Zielke et al. 2009; Steffen P. Walz 2015). However, there is also much criticism surrounding these ‘serious games’. Namely, prioritisation of the serious objectives of a designer above player experience (Ferrara 2013 & only representation simply). On the other hand, through careful consideration of the processes evoking a player’s experience (gameplay), persuasive games can facilitate the emergence of new possibilities in players (Bogost 2007). Such games share many elements of co and meta design, namely a shift away from the designer in complete control (Jones 1979), to designing the conditions for participant self-actualisation (Albinsson et al. n.d.) exploring emergent and interlinked ecologies (Thackara 2005) (Fuller & Matos 2011), and uncovering unexpected potentials (Wood 2008).

3.3 Pocket Pedal Pocket Pedal was designed as an iPhone game playfully simulating the riding conditions on St Kilda Road. The player, on a bike, must navigate safely to the city. Refer next section ‘Pocket Pedal as Artifact’ for design details.

3.4 Simulation Taxonomy In order to characterise the experience of codesign amplified by play, this thesis introduces a taxonomy of characteristics such games can be classified under: Fidelity How many defined rules are there in the simulation? This determines a game’s fidelity. While fidelity does not necessarily produce complexity (is chess less complex than Counterstrike?) higher fidelity simulations attempt to depict reality explicitly. Lower fidelity simulations abstract and simplify. Flexibility / Rigidity How flexible are the ‘rules’ governing the game to participants at run-time? More rigid games have defined rules that cannot be changed by players. Rigid simulations generate responses mostly known by the designer, while flexible simulations are open to player interpretation and so generate a diverse range of potentially unforseen outcomes. In general, higher fidelity simulations are usually more rigid than lower fidelity simulations. Authority Is the game experience designed to encourage participants to challenge assumptions made in the simulation’s creation? An example of an authoritative simulation is traffic modelling, used as actual evidence. Realism in games often conveys authority to participants. Immersion Immersion is the ability for participants to suspend disbelief (Frasca 2001b) most video-game characters didnot reflect our everyday life for the simple reason that most of them weretrolls, aliens, and monsters. However, this has changed since the introductionof The Sims (Wright 2000. In the context of simulation design, this can be framed as how much ‘computing’ a simulation undertakes for a player at run time. Videogames are immersive simulations; most of the experience of playing one is offloaded to the computer and does not need to be considered by the player. Enacted scenarios are less immersive simulations; participants must ‘generate’ runtime conditions themselves. Immersive simulations can be employed to explore complex environments as the game takes care of much of the complexity for participants. This ‘offloading to the computer’ means immersive simulations are higher fidelity and usually rigid (rules being less discretionary by participants) unless explicitly designed as flexible (see sandbox games such as Minecraft).

Rosario Habitat locations, Rosario, Argentina

3.5 Activist game case studies This thesis identifies games that have outcomes resembling codesign goals as activist games. These games create processes letting participants make the ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ needed for activism (refer 2.4 design as activism). Several games with empowering interaction models are discussed below in order to establish a framework of successful activist procedural rhetoric.

3.5.1 Rosario Habitat Medium fidelity, semi-flexible simulation Conditions created that are authoritative Rosario Habitat uses gaming to successfully codesign villa (informal settlements) upgrades in the Argentine city Rosario. Previous villa proposals had been met with hostility. Overcrowded neighbourhoods needed to be rearranged (and houses demolished) to provide safer access, more natural light, and larger dwelling sizes. (Lerner 2014). A game was created to make this process accessible to residents. In initial workshops, participants created a framework for determining lot reallocation (the game’s mechanics). At the beginning of the workshop residents were given a base set of rules: lots had to be larger than 100m2, and no more than 30% of residents could move from the villa. Residents then proposed, and voted on, additional rules such as weighting systems and priorities for lot allocation (for example, higher priority for people with disability and family close by). This framework established the conditions for the game. Once the framework for lot allocation had been created, the next series of workshops dealt with lot allocation itself (the game’s dynamics). These workshops were collaborative planning simulations. In each workshop, a large map of the portion of the neighbourhood workshop participants lived was printed. Transparencies were then given out representing 100m sized lots. Using the lot allocation framework participants had created in the initial workshops, residents attempted to redistribute lots by sticking the transparencies over the existing condition plan. The programme created a successful slum upgrade method now used in many other villas in Rosario (Lerner 2014). The game process mediated conflicts when they inevitably occurred, as workshop participants had created the conditions governing reallocation themselves. Through simulation, urban planning became safe and actionable for residents. Participants tested lot arrangements, altered the shape of transparencies to fit more effectively, identified lot space that could be negotiated for, and determine which residents had priority. The simulation created a productive interaction model in potentially conflicting participants. The use of self-generated rules, props (transparencies indicating lots) and immediate response (a successful / unsuccessful transparency arrangement) created a shared design frame (refer Section 2.1) where participants were encouraged to collaboratively test out ideas (refer Section 2.2). The game framework empowered participants,

giving them a tool to create complex lot arrangements (optimised by the social fabric of the neighbourhood) that could not have been achieved by planners alone. In the context of this thesis, Rosario Habitat demonstrates the productive conditions that are generated by using a combination of rigid (predefined) and flexible (self-generation) rules in simulation. Leaving this calculation to participants (less immersion) created a processes that was authoritative yet still generated personal outcomes.

3.5.2 Forum Theatre Low fidelity, flexible simulation Conditions created for personal critique In Forum Theatre individuals participate in structured, enacted scenarios to learn about and critique a situation. The aim is not to produce solutions, like in Rosario Habitat, but create meaningful debate. Forum theatre creates participatory enactments. Actors present a short play where the protagonist must deal with a powerful character not letting them achieve a goal. After one representation, anyone in the public can become a ‘Spec-actor’. That is, taking the place of the protagonist and proposing, through improvised acting, a solution to the scenario. “The game is spect-actors—trying to find a new solution, trying to change the world—against actors—trying to hold them back, to force them to accept the world as it is.” --Augustus Boal cited by (Lerner 2014).

Forum theatre uses the exploratory nature of games to unpack an issue. Bodies and the initial scenario form game mechanics. Game dynamics (run time behaviour) are created through the emergent interaction between participant and actors. What is created is a simulation; a safe space where participants test out ideas and see immediate, situated responses. As problems dealt are complex, solutions generated are often incomplete. The simulation (ie the enacted scene) can be run several times, each play offering a chance for new perspectives (Frasca 2001a). For the purposes of PocketPedal, this example demonstrates the link between low fidelity and flexibility that is readily available through human improvisation. Such simulations avoid simply satisfying pre-known conditions established by the designer (Binder 1999) Through ad lib dialogue, a simulation can be created that is contingent and highly adaptive to participant response. The fluidity of human interaction both accommodates and challenges personal interpretation of an issue.

3.5.3 McDonald’s game High fidelity, rigid simulation Conditions created to depict large scale complexity A similar process to ‘spec-acting’ is attempted digitally in the McDonald’s Videogame, a web-based protest game designed by the Italian game studio La Molleindusria. In the game, a player controls all elements of the global fast food chain: deciding whether to engage in illegal deforestation to improve soy yields, using hormones to increase beef production, creating manipulative health campaigns to induce demand. Such tactics become increasingly necessary to keep the business afloat as land is over-farmed and health organisations provoked. Through a cycle of choosing corporate strategy and dealing with subsequent consequences, a player becomes aware of the necessity of corruption in the global fast food industry. Rather than simply informing a player about McDonald’s numerous human rights and environmental breaches, players test out the interconnectedness of the disparate parts of McDonald’s production machine. For PocketPedal, the power of virtual representation (immersion) in making complexity manageable for participants is desired. Through a videogame, the interconnectedness of scenes in a vast, global-scale assemblage were made accessible to the player. Such complexity (recreating the deforestation process, management of a store’s employees, etc) would be difficult to recreate in more abstract participatory processes as props are less defined. The rigid framework of the high fidelity simulation means, however, that outcomes are predetermined and known. Players always have to use ‘bad’ corporate tactics. Unlike the flexibility of improvisation, the game logic offers no way to challenge this model and discover things unintended by the designer. Play here simply encourages individuals to engage in further corruption rather than inspiring participants to critique assumptions and disrupt.

3.5.4 Lessons learned for Pocket Pedal In the context of this thesis, these three case studies demonstrate how a designer can shape simulation outcomes through the parameters of fidelity, flexibility, authority and immersion. Parameters influence each other (ie. an immersive simulation is usually less flexible) meaning there are trade-offs in simulation design. With effort, some of these effects can be mitigated. For example, sandbox games like Minecraft are immersive and flexible through the creation of even more rules defining the game’s malleability. This thesis proposes that an easier method for designers (perhaps less technically capable at making such complex simulations) is to embed higher fidelity (rigid, immersive, good at describing complex scenarios) simulations in lower fidelity (flexible, contingent, more innovative outcomes) activities. These activities themselves can be games, allowing multiple ‘levels’ of simulation to complement each other. This is an effective strategy for creating immersive yet personal simulations. Games, however, need to be designed to allow this nesting to occur. The next section will discuss the ‘levels’ of simulation occurring in the Pocket Pedal workshop, and the optimisation needed for embedding the higher fidelity game into more flexible design activities.

3.6 The playful and the simulated As discussed throughout this thesis, games are simulations, meaning they allow a player to experimentally interact with a dynamic system (Woods 2004). Pocket Pedal uses higher fidelity simulation (seen in the McDonald Game) embedded in codesign to create outcomes unforseen by the designer (seen in Forum Theatre and Rosario Habitat).

3.6.1 First level simulation: mock up Pocket Pedal uses simulation for participatory goals on two levels. The first level of simulation occurs in participant interaction within the game world. Using virtual mock-ups of a bike, hazards and world (refer Pocket Pedal gaming book), participants will be able to explore, in the safety and convenience of a workshop setting, the experience of cycling in a complex urban environment. Playing Pocket Pedal on this level is an attempt at equalising stakeholder knowledge, a tool for creating a common frame (Refer Section 2.1) for participants from various backgrounds and experiences.

3.6.2 Second level simulation: conscious-raising The second level embeds the cycling simulation in codesign. This involves encouraging participants not to accept the game at face value but to critique it. Though appearing rational, all simulations are non-objective as value judgements are made in a designer’s choice of what parts of reality are simplified. In the urban simulator Sim City, raising taxes always leads to riots rather than increasing productivity and social cohesion (Bogost 2006). These value judgments are sometimes designed with the specific intent to influence a player’s worldview, demonstrated most overtly by propaganda games such as America’s Army. Simulations like these portray geopolitical conflicts in a way that justifies and celebrates US involvement (Allen 2011) without players necessarily being aware the game’s ulterior motive. As Sherry Turkle writes, provoking players to analyse and deconstruct design assumptions made in a simulation facilitates participants to question their own ideological assumptions: “It would take as its goal the development of simulations that actually help players challenge the model’s built-in assumptions. This new criticism would try to use simulation as a means of consciousness-raising” -Sherry Turkle in Life On Screen. Identify in the Age of the Internet, in (Frasca 2001b)

Incorporating player critique expands a game beyond a designer’s initial desired outcomes. Rather than having set goals like those found in the McDonald’s game (learning that fast food requires corruption), outcomes unknown to the designer (the debate aroused in Forum Theatre) can be generated. But how can a simulation be made to encourage critique? Videogame theorist Gonzalo Frasca believes that immersion (Refer 3.3) restricts this conscious-

raising in a player (Frasca 2001b)most video-game characters didnot reflect our everyday life for the simple reason that most of them weretrolls, aliens, and monsters. However, this has changed since the introductionof The Sims (Wright 2000. He identifies with German playwright Bertolt Brecht’s criticism of Aristotelian theatre, where an audience is immersed in a play without an opportunity to take a step back and think critically about what is happening onstage. Pocket Pedal, however, positions immersion as a useful tool in gaming. In a workshop setting, players need help suspending their disbelief in order to experience the phenomenological aspects of cycling in the safety of a room (Refer 1.2). An immersive game world aids the creation of a ‘magic circle’, a design space where participants can explore possibilities without worrying about consequences in the real world (Refer 2.2).

3.6.3 Simulation and authority Immersion alone does not limit critique. Rather, simulations themselves convey conditions of authority (Refer 3.3). Unlike games, the non-immersive experiences of traffic simulations are often uncritically considered ‘objective’ depictions of reality. This is true even when such models are revealed to rely on many arbitrary assumptions (refer Dr John Goldberg’s criticism of Translink’s continual use of inflated traffic modelling in NSW road projects (Goldberg n.d.)). Divorced from accuracy, it seems the autotelic nature of games (playing a game simply for its own sake) itself transmits subjectivity. Within games, immersion too can be designed to express differing levels of authority. Virtual Warrane, a virtual experience of the Gadigal people of Sydney Cove before the First Fleet, projects authenticity (Fig x). Authority is conveyed through the game’s realistic visualisation of landscape and people. Players cannot assess the validity of the designers’ research, but rather are conditioned to accept it through the game’s confident and serious portrayal of its pre-European world.

3.6.4 Playful simulations Pocket Pedal, on the other hand, is designed as a playful cycling experience. Reality is not the desired outcome of the game, and this is expressed to the player. The virtual riding environment is exaggerated, stylised and simplified, projecting to participants that the cycling experience is non-real, designed and open to being challenged This allow a player to remain at the critical distance advocated by Frasca (Refer 3.5.2) while still being immersed in, and having confidence in, the riding experience. The game can be thought of as a playful simulation, a non-authoritative immersive experience. A playful simulation aims to expose the value judgements made in a game as non-natural (that is, decided by the designer) and fallible. Framing participant interaction as play (Refer 2.2.2 play) avoids conditioning participants to reach specific and serious end goals and instead prompts personal interpretation (Pelletier & Kneebone 2015). The parameters that are often hidden from the player in the black box of a simulation are highlighted as artificial through exaggerated, non-realistic representation. Through the non-intimidating atmosphere it evokes, a playful simulation encourages critique in assumptions made in its construction. At the same time, these simulations still project the confidence needed for participants to explore ideas in its immersive experience.

AUTHORITATIVE SIMULATION Virtual Warrane uses a realistic depiction of Port Jackson to convey authority in its research of pre-European Warrane life.

PLAYFUL SIMULATION Pocket Pedal, on the hand, conveys the artificialness of world it creates to players by emphasising ‘gameness’. This is a strategy to provoke participants to challenge assumptions made in Pocket Pedal’s depiction of existing St Kilda Road conditions.

3.7 Participatory design as metagame Some participatory designers believe defined (non-abstract) props like Pocket Pedal work to narrow participant response. They argue opportunities for personal interpretation is limited when participants are exposed to defined design intent (Brandt et al. 2008). Human improvisation is much more flexible than the discrete rules of videogames (Refer 3.5.3). Yet defined game worlds have their use in the workshop (Refer 3.4). An immersive experience is needed to create a framework for interrogating the complexity of urban cycling environments (Refer Section 1). Frasca believes games that can be modified by the player more readily reflect personal interpretation. He argues this ‘modability’ allows a player to challenge a designer’s conception of the game (Frasca 2001a). This flexibility through modding, however, relies on technical confidence most non-gamers lack. Rather than framing a video game as an independent unit, this thesis considers Pocket Pedal a high fidelity artefact (an immersive assemblage of all elements of the game medium) embedded in a codesign process. Low-fi workshop activities are flexible enough to accommodate a diverse set of understandings without needing the technical skills required to force adaptability on a high-tech simulation. The collaborative and informed debate generated by playful simulations is an input designers can ‘run’ through more flexible and personal codesign activities. This is considering the metagame, a game’s relationship with its surrounding external context (Salen & Zimmerman 2004). The Pocket Pedal workshop’s more abstract and flexible metagame allows a broader range of interpretations to be made than simply playing Pocket Pedal alone.

LEE

trish

Most mornings, Lee gets up at 5am for his regular 20km Bayside ride, testing out his brand new $2000 sportsbike.

Trish studies commerce at Melbourne Uni. She’s loving the vintage steel bike she bought in Collingwood last month.

St Kilda road is his ‘normal life’ commute. Cyclists are slow, so Lee often rides in the car lane.

Cycling up St Kilda road can be dangerous at times, but Trish tries to enjoy the ride!

mArk

A ‘creative type’, Mark works part-time in the city, starting his days a little later than most Often late, Mark rides a little recklessly to make up for lost time. How else are you going to claim space on the road unless you cycle a little bit aggressively?

TERRY

Terry doesn’t see herself as a proper ‘cyclist’: those wear lycra and ride fast! Safety conscious, Terry makes sure to always wear hi-vis on her ride up St Kilda Road.

‘CHARACTER CARD’ PROPS CREATED FROM POCKET PEDAL GAME

3.8 Games as insertable artefacts How can the virtual world of PocketPedal be transformed into a readily ‘insertable’ artefact for the codesign process? Smartphones were chosen as the target platform for Pocket Pedal. This platform was identified as being advantageous for use in workshop activities: Smartphones are familiar. Smartphones are everyday objects. With a penetration rate of 90% in Australia (cite), unlike game consoles and even computers, almost all participants are familiar with touch devices. This ubiquity has already expanded gaming. Services like Apple’s App Store have majorly contributing to the explosive growth of non-traditional gaming demographics (ESA 2015). Smartphones are easy to embed Smartphones are portable and easy to source. Activities don’t have to be arranged around a specific space (for example, a gaming console or screen). Rather, phones can be discretely inserted into participatory activities both indoors and outdoors. Many units can be sourced for an activity, allowing game experience to be personal with participants divided amongst numerous devices. Advantages to a constrained scope Due to the limited nature of the device, smartphone games have a design language separate from PC or console games, again advantageous to a workshop format: - Their reduced complexity means smartphone games are feasible for independent developers (and academics) to create. Limited processing power, screen size and player attention mean games not only are suited, but thrive, when scope is limited. Such games are expected by even a game-literature audience to have lower quality (but still attractive) graphics and simpler mechanics, suited for non-real playful simulations. - Unlike traditional gaming, play on smartphones is designed to be flexible. Games must facilitate short duration play-time, being set aside, and then being resumed later (Daniel Eriksson, Johan Peitz 2005)June 16th - 20th, 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (http://www.gamesconference.org/digra2005/overview.php. This type of play is not reliant on defined time-slots and can easily be integrated into workshop activities. - Layers of abstraction (such as game menus, virtual control sticks, etc) are removed to reduce clutter on a phone’s small screen. Objects are often manipulated by direct touch rather than through controllers (Kim & Lee 2015). The new design paradigm for smartphone gaming is more legible to a non-gaming audience unversed in traditional gaming conventions. Both as physical artefacts and the design consequences they entail, smartphones and smartphone games blend computing/the virtual into ordinary life. The following section details how Pocket Pedal is embedded into the codesign Pocket Pedal workshop.

3.9 Next Steps: embedding Pocket Pedal into a cycling workshop Games are useful artefacts for designers. The self-discovery of playing a game is well suited for collaboration and engagement. Through the parameters of simulation (fidelity, flexibility, immersion and authority) designers can create the conditions for player interaction. However, what is most important is the metagame: how playing games can create spaces that support activities needed for change in complex ecologies (creating a common frame, collaborative exploration, expanding design space). The conditions of the metagame must also be designed. Game artefacts need to be optimised for nesting in codesign, both physically (the game platform) and virtually (the simulation). Playful mobile simulations are one such strategy, encouraging critique and debate that can easily be used by designers in the participatory process. A workshop was run to measure the impacts of using games as playful simulations embedded in codesign. The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Pocket Pedal workshopâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inserted the Pocket Pedal game in a codesign process involving stakeholders affected by cycling on St Kilda Road, Melbourne (refer Project Outline p.). Rather than simply asking the diverse set of participants what their needs were, the workshop employed a series of design games based around Pocket Pedal to generate a more informed and interesting discussion. The next section describes workshop results, both as individual codesign activities and as an overall participatory process.

Pocket PEdal as ArtI FACT

SIMPLE CONCEPT: Travel in X direction as far as possible. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get hit

EFFECTIVE GRAPHICS: Blocky grapthics engaging, perform well on low powered mobile devices and metricise world (each horizontal band of road and grass is one hop and one point). NO CLUTTER: Player control by swipes (up, down, left, right). No buttons cluttering screen. Controls add complexity and can be intimidating to non-gaming audiences.

PRECEDENT:CROSSY ROAD CREATED BY TWO GUYS IN THEIR 20’s, ONE GUY IN HIS 30’s REACH 10+ MILLION PLATFORM SMARTPHONE

ABOut Pocket Pedal is an iPhone game playfully simulating the riding conditions on St Kilda Road. The player, on a bike, must navigate safely to the city. BIKE HEALTH How safe is you riding? Bike health reflects this. Compliance with road rules, staying in the bike lane, and navigating obstacles successfully increases bike health. Riding outside the bike lane and colliding with traffic decreases bike health.

HAZARDS Colliding with traffic decreases your bike health; per the collision’s severity. On low bike health, impacting an obstacle will cause you to crash, ending your game.

YOUR SCORE The safer your riding is, the higher your score will be. Your rider gains points for every 10 metres sucessfuly cycled towards the city. The number of points gained per 10 metre increment depends on your bike health. On full bike health, you’ll gain 10 points. Lower health means you gain less points. Riding dangerously until your bike health is empty 0 means you stop accruing points.

THE PLAYER BIKE LANE Try to stay in the bike lane.Here, your bike health will slowly recharge to full. This means you’ll gain more points and have enough health to survive a crash or two. Being in the bike lane has its own dangers: make sure you watch out for those cars doors!

This cyclist is you. You’re a hipster girl; a lyrca bro; or a reckless dude in his mid twenties. Tap to pedal, tap each side of the screen to turn.

101

103

ALBERT ROAD Many cars suddenly turn left across bikelane to turn down Albert road

HIGH RATES OF DOORING Narrow bike lanes throughout route force cyclists into close KINGS WAY LANE CHANGE: Bike lane ends; bike riders must cross a lane of traffic, then merge with traffic lane to enter bike box

SHRINE The narrow bike lane positioned on a blind turn ensures this portion of the route has a high

DOUBLE PARKED TAXIS Outside hotels near Domain Interchange force riders onto the road

VICTORIA BARRACKS NATIONAL GALLERY OF VICTORIA

THE MELBOURNIAN

ARTS CENTRE

VICTORIAN SCHOOL OF THE ARTS

FLINDERS ST STATION PRINCESS BRIDGE

VCA LANE CHANGE Outside VCA, cyclists forced to cross two lanes of traffic to stay in bike lane (crazy)

NGV BUSSES Tour busses outside NGV park in bike lane, force cyclists onto road.

105

general run

UNPROTECTED BIKELANES do not offer any protection for cyclists from passing vehicles

DEPTH OF FIELD (BLUR) Simulates the loss of visual acuity of far away objects experienced by a

general run

UBER Double parked uber, cyclist forced out of bike lane

TAXI Double parked taxi in lane, cyclist forced to enter traffic lane

OPEN DOOR Open doors become hazards to cyclists when cars park to the left of the bike lane with no buffer zone

OVERSIZED VEHICLE Truck parked in car space egresses onto bike lane

kings way bypass

BIKE LANE ENDS Bike lane replaced by left hand turning lane for traffic

TIME-SPACE DIFFERNTIAL Bikes are slower than cars, appear to ‘hold up traffic’ as cyclists forced to ride in front of cars

BIKE BOX ON RIGHT-SIDE TRAFFIC LANE NO BIKE LANE Cyclists must merge with traffic

To facilitate left hand turning for motorists, bike riders must ride in the ‘overtaking’ traffic lane, surrounded themselves on all sides by cars.

OUTSIDE VCA AND NGV

BIKE LANE CROSSES TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC To again facilitate cars turning right, the St Kilda Road bike lane crosses two lanes of traffic near the NGV

arts precinct

BUSSES OUTSIDE NGV Oversized tour busses outside NGV egress on bike lane, often forcing cyclists into traffic

fingers

TAP

+10 force

middle of screen to pedal

SWIPE LEFT to cheat (move 1.5 units left) SWIPE DOWN to break

1.5 t t ea lef h c its un

TAP LEFT & RIGHT OF THE PLAYER to turn. The closer to the screen edge, the sharper the turn

0 /10

/2 00

20º turn 60º turn 40º turn

SWIPE UP to enter hi vis mode, the ‘easy’ setting for the right. Hi Vis mode lets the player go

hazards VAN Spawn chance: 10% Location: Parked, Characteristics: Oversized vehicle Dynamics: has chance to open door on rider TAXI Spawn chance: 5% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: Regular size vehicle Dynamics: Rider must navigate around taxi, forced to enter traffic lane

PINK CAR Spawn chance: 50% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: A regular driver; not wanting to speed or veer into the bike lane.

BLUE CAR Spawn chance: 20% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: An overly cautious driver, will stop well before a cyclist and refuse to drive until coast is clear.

ORANGE CAR Spawn chance: 20% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: Regular size vehicle Dynamics: A slack driver, will occasionally veer into bike lane.

ANGRY 4WD Spawn chance: 10% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: An aggressive driver. Will speed and veer into bike lane. Will not stop for cyclists!

UBER Spawn chance: 5% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: Regular size vehicle Dynamics: Rider must navigate around Uber, forced to enter traffic lane

OVERSIZED TRUCK Spawn chance: 5% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: A large truck. Does not fit into regular sized parking space and spills out onto bike lane.

119

riders REGULAR RIDERS Bike riding is diverse. Cycling St Kilda Road, however, is not. Females comprise only around 2530% of St Kilda Road bike riders.

HIGH VIS MODE One strategy riders employ to try to protect themselves is wearing hi vis. In the game, swiping UP turns Hi Vis Mode on. When you’re wearing Hi Vis, cycling is easy. You’ll simply ride through traffic like a ghost and cannot crash.

121

123

infrastructure

BIKE LANE St Kilda Road’s bike infrastructure is shocking. Bike lanes are unprotected, and often end when they are needed most. As there is no buffer zone between rider and parked cars on narrow bike path, cycling in the lane puts riders at risk of being doored. However, cyclists cannot ride in the (arguably safer!) traffic lane. To recreate this dilemma in game, only in the bikelane does a player increase bike health This forces a player to face the constant danger of an unseen car door opening. To help nongamers play, swiping left ‘cheats’ and moves the player back to the bike lane.

BIKE BOXES Bike boxes, or ‘advanced stop lanes’, provide a space for cyclists at intersections. These spaces, demarked as painted green rectangles, allow bike riders to be situated in front of traffic at red lights. At an intersection, motorists expect cyclists to be in the bike box, and will often honk when riders are not (for examle, taking up a left hand turn lane instead). St Kilda Road, however, has some bike boxes positioned in the right-side lane. This means cyclists often must risk crossing a car lane and merging with traffic in order to reach one. In Pocket Pedal, to simulate the ‘advantages’ of entering a bike box (in terms of safety and social pressure), bike health increases to full when one is entered. It is risky, however, to reach some; just like real life. 125

scale

RENDER The St Kilda Road of Pocket Pedal is not a simple recreation of the existing route. The world instead is quantified into a series of discrete bits and pixels, transforming the messiness of reality into a readily approachable game.

SCALE The rider, cars and the wider built environment are each drawn at a different scale relative to each other. This ensures the relationship between body (cyclist), behavior (traffic) and infrastructure (the world) experienced in cycling is not â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;drowned outâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; simply by differences in physical size. 127

icons of st kilda road

129

BUILDINGS TRANSLATED IN GAME

131

3 2 1

8 7

5 6

10 9

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

win condtions

155

crash conditions

157

public float maxSteeringAngle; // maximum steer angle the wheel can

public float angle; //x position of tap public float angleCalc; //adjusted x position of tap public float angleSafe; //safe zone for straight tap

public Vector3 tap; //addForce vector applied to player on tap public float speed; //Y position of tap public float speedCalc; //adjusted y position of tap

public GameObject parentPlayer;

public bool goingStraight; public float turnLimit;

public float rotateAngle;

//public Rigidbody collisionrigid;

//public float power; //public float prevPower; //public float powerset;

have

private int bikeTrackLayer; public Transform target; public float teleSpeed;

public GameObject powerup; public GameObject powerdown;

// Rotation we should blend towards. //private Quaternion _targetRotation = Quaternion.Euler(0,270,0);

void Update () { //set autoRotate direction _targetRotation = Quaternion.Euler(rotateVector);

if (charSelect == 3) { char3.SetActive (true); Normalmesh = char3; HVmesh = HVMamil; Debug.Log ("char 3"); }

if (charSelect == 2) { char2.SetActive (true); Normalmesh = char2; HVmesh = HVGirl; Debug.Log ("char 2"); }

0);

Euler(0, 240, 0);

Euler(0, 270, 0);

cameraFocus.transform.rotation = Quaternion.

}

if (rotateNumber == 4) { rotateVector = new Vector3 (0, 280.9f,

if (rotateNumber == 3) { rotateVector = new Vector3 (0, 240, 0); }

if (rotateNumber == 2) { rotateVector = new Vector3 (0, 249, 0); }

}

if (rotateNumber == 1) { rotateVector = new Vector3 (0, 259.1f, 0); cameraFocus.transform.rotation = Quaternion.

}

if (rotateNumber == 0) { rotateVector = new Vector3 (0, 270, 0); //cameraFocus.transform.rotation = Quaternion. RotateTowards (transform.rotation, _targetRotation, turningRate * Time. deltaTime);

}

AUTO ROTATES player to forward position to aid non-gamers play

public bool hasCollider;

//autoRotate public float turningRate = 30f; private Quaternion _targetRotation;

// Maximum turn rate in degrees per second.

private float rightWheelSpeedRef; private float leftWheelSpeedRef; private Rigidbody rb;

CHARACTER SELECT: (boy, girl, lycra hero)

//Car Touch script private Vector3 fp; //First finger position private Vector3 lp; //Last finger position public float dragDistance; //Distance needed for a swipe to

//public float maxMotorTorque; // maximum torque the motor can apply

to wheel

public List<AxleInfo> axleInfos; // the information about each individual axle

public class CarTutorial : MonoBehaviour { public bool raycastcheck;

using UnityEngine; using System.Collections; using System.Collections.Generic; using UnityEngine.UI; //using System;

movement

159

Debug.Log ("char 1");

if (charSelect == 1) { char1.SetActive (true); Normalmesh = char1; HVmesh = HVBoy;

}

charSelect = Random.Range (1, 4); Debug.Log (charSelect);

hasCollider = true;

angle = 0.5f; rb = GetComponent<Rigidbody> (); prevTime = Time.time; bikeTrackLayer = 1 << 15; raycastcheck = false;

void Start () { canReload = false;

public bool canReload = true;

public GameObject HVmesh; public GameObject Normalmesh;

public GameObject HVBoy; public GameObject HVGirl; public GameObject HVMamil;

public float charSelect;

//character select public GameObject char1; public GameObject char2; public GameObject char3;

public bool moveRight;

public float prevTime; //visual wheel meshes

new Vector3 jump;

//diagnostics public float speedRate;

public Vector3 rotateVector; public int rotateNumber; public GameObject cameraFocus;

//AutoRotate direction

//Vector3 impulse;

//Quaternion.identity; //Quaternion.identity;

GET TOUCH SCREEN COORDS to translate playerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical taps into virtual world

//get x co-ord of tap angle = (touch.position.x/Screen.

if (touch.phase == TouchPhase.Moved) { lp = touch.position; } if (touch.phase == TouchPhase.Ended) { //IGNORE UNTIL 'MOVE DOWN CODE'

}

foreach (Touch touch in Input.touches) { if (touch.phase == TouchPhase.Began) { fp = touch.position; lp = touch.position;

("raycastFalse", 5);

raycastcheck = true;

CancelInvoke ("raycastFalse");

LEFT CODE HERE

move

Invoke("resetMoveRight", 0.2f);

moveRight = true;

} else {

}

Invoke

//MOVE

//Left

{

//First check which axis if (Mathf.Abs(lp.x - fp.x) > Mathf.Abs(lp.y - fp.y)) { //If the horizontal movement is greater than the vertical movement... if (lp.x>fp.x) //If the movement was to the right { //Right move //MOVE RIGHT CODE HERE

//First check if it's a swipe if (Mathf.Abs(lp.x - fp.x) > dragDistance || Mathf.Abs(lp.y - fp.y) > dragDistance) { //It's a drag //Now check what direction the drag was

width);

//touch stuff

DOWN CODE HERE

SWIPE UP turns on HIGH VIS mode, colliders for traffic layers turned off, letting player move through cars

Debug.Log ("CAN touch this!");

Invoke ("resetPowerSound", 1);

HVmesh.SetActive (false);

Normalmesh.SetActive (true);

powerup.SetActive (false);

powerdown.SetActive (true);

hasCollider = true;

gameObject.layer = 9;

(hasCollider == false)

Debug.Log ("can't touch this!");

Invoke ("resetPowerSound", 1);

hasCollider = false;

HVmesh.SetActive (true);

Normalmesh.SetActive (false);

powerup.SetActive (true);

powerdown.SetActive (false);

gameObject.layer = 17;

(hasCollider == true)

UP CODE HERE

is greater than the horizontal movement //If the movement was up

}

{

//Up move //MOVE

if (lp.y>fp.y)

else { //the vertical movement

}

speedRate = rb.velocity.magnitude;

//tap = new Vector3 (0, 0, (speedCalc * turnLimit));

if (goingStraight == true) { turnLimit = 1; }

if (speed == 0) { speedCalc = 0; }

Vector3 position; Quaternion rotation;

Transform visualWheel = collider.transform.GetChild(0);

// finds the corresponding visual wheel // correctly applies the transform public void ApplyLocalPositionToVisuals(WheelCollider collider) { if (collider.transform.childCount == 0) { return; }

}

} else { //Down move //MOVE

{

if (angle < (0.5f - angleSafe)) { angleCalc = -(1 - (angle/(0.5f - angleSafe))); //convert range from 0 - 0.3 to -1 to 0 } //angleCalc = (angle - 0.5f) * 2; goingStraight = false; }

else if ((angle < (0.5f - angleSafe)) || (angle > (0.5f +

if (angle > (0.5f + angleSafe)) { angleCalc = (angle - (0.5f + angleSafe)) / (1 - (0.5f + angleSafe)); //convert range from 0.7 to 1 to 0 to 1 }

angleSafe)))

{

}

//safe tap in centre of screen zone if ((angle >= (0.5f - angleSafe)) && (angle <= (0.5f +

}

{ angleCalc = 0; transform.rotation = Quaternion.RotateTowards (transform.rotation, _targetRotation, turningRate * Time.deltaTime); goingStraight = true; }

angleSafe)))

else if

}

{

TAP in the middle of the screen to move player forward, tap left or right sections of screen to rotate front wheel. The further away from the centre of the screen (and closer to the left/right edges of the phone) the tap is, the sharper the playerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s turn.

speedCalc = speed; Log ("down swipe");

Debug.

speed =

Invoke

//angle

}

if (speed > 0.285f) { speedCalc = 1 - speed; }

}

.05f);

LoadLevel("104 debug 2");

//Invoke ("forceReset",

}

if (canReload == true) { Application.

This code is the physics of a tap.

}

On a bike, a person naturally regulates turning as per their speed to avoid flipping a bike. This code emulates this behavior; ensuring a player doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t loose control of the bike at fast speeds.

rb.AddRelativeForce (new Vector3 (0, 0, speedCalc * 5000 * turnLimit), ForceMode.Impulse);

else if (speedRate < 4) { turnLimit = 1; }

turnLimit = 0.2f; }

if (goingStraight == false) { if (speedRate > 4) {

if (speed > 0 && speed <= 0.285f) { speedCalc = 1; }

speed = (touch.position.y/Screen.height);

CancelInvoke ("straightAngle"); //angle = (touch.position.x/Screen.width); Invoke ("straightAngle", .5f);

else { //It's a tap //TAP CODE HERE

Invoke ("forceReset", .05f);

rb.AddRelativeForce (new Vector3 (0, 0, speedCalc * 5000 * turnLimit), ForceMode.Impulse);

-.8f;

("straightAngle", .5f);

= (touch.position.x/Screen.width);

CancelInvoke ("straightAngle");

if (hit.collider == true) { Debug.Log (hit.point);

enabled = true;

}

{

raycastcheck = false; gameObject.layer = 9; gameObject.GetComponent<Collider>().

if (hit.point == transform.position || hit1.

}

if (moveRight == true)

}

point == transform.position)

else if (hit1.collider == true) { speed = 10; float step = speed * Time.deltaTime; gameObject.layer = 17; transform.position = Vector3. MoveTowards(transform.position, new Vector3 (hit1.point.x, hit1.point.y, hit1.point.z), step);

speed = 10; float step = speed * Time.deltaTime; gameObject.layer = 17; transform.position = Vector3. MoveTowards(transform.position, new Vector3 (hit.point.x, hit.point.y, hit. point.z), step); }

if (Physics.Raycast (transform.position, transform.TransformDirection (Vector3.right), out hit1, Mathf.Infinity, bikeTrackLayer)) { Debug.Log ("Ray Drawn"); Debug.DrawRay (transform.position, transform.TransformDirection (Vector3.right) * 30f, Color.red); }

if (Physics.Raycast (transform.position, transform.TransformDirection (Vector3.left), out hit, Mathf.Infinity, bikeTrackLayer)) { Debug.Log ("Ray Drawn"); Debug.DrawRay (transform.position, transform.TransformDirection (Vector3.left) * 30f, Color.red); }

void FixedUpdate () { //handling raycasts toward bikepath if (raycastcheck == true) { RaycastHit hit; RaycastHit hit1; Debug.Log ("Condition for raycast met");

visualWheel.transform.position = position; visualWheel.transform.rotation = rotation;

collider.GetWorldPose(out position, out rotation);

}

One a left swip, this code sends out a ray to find the bike lane, then automitically moves the player back to the bike lane.

161

axleInfo.rightWheel.steerAngle =

ApplyLocalPositionToVisuals(axleInfo.

//void forceReset () //{ // speed = 0; //}

//void PowerDecelerate () //{ //foreach (AxleInfo axleInfo in axleInfos)

}

void straightAngle () { Debug.Log ("anglecallcllclclclcl"); angle = 0.5f;

void tapPower () { //power = power + powerset; //print ("power set to" + power); }

}

ApplyLocalPositionToVisuals(axleInfo.

//axleInfo.leftWheel.motorTorque = motor; //axleInfo.rightWheel.motorTorque = motor; //}

//if (axleInfo.motor) {

}

foreach (AxleInfo axleInfo in axleInfos) { if (axleInfo.steering) { axleInfo.leftWheel.steerAngle =

//float motor = maxMotorTorque * power; float steering = maxSteeringAngle * angleCalc; //rb.AddRelativeForce (tap * 800, ForceMode.Impulse);

}

leftWheel); rightWheel);

steering; steering;

//Examine the touch inputs

{ speed = 10; float step = speed * Time.deltaTime; transform.position = Vector3.MoveTowards (transform.position, new Vector3 (transform.position.x, transform.position.y, transform.position.z + 1), step); }

void canReloadmethod () { canReload = true; }

//} //}

}

{

public WheelCollider leftWheel; public WheelCollider rightWheel; public bool motor; // is this wheel attached to motor? public bool steering; // does this wheel apply steer angle?

[System.Serializable] public class AxleInfo

}

//if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "right") //{ //rotateNumber = 0; //Debug.Log ("enter right");

//void OnTriggerExit(Collider rotateCheck) //{ //if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "left") //{ // rotateNumber = 0; //Debug.Log ("enter left"); //}

void raycastFalse () { raycastcheck = false; }

}

void resetMoveRight () { moveRight = false;

}

movement

power = 0;

}

Invoke ("canReloadmethod", 2);

void OnTriggerEnter (Collider win) { if (win.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "winTrigger")

//not used private void SetBlendedEulerAngles(Vector3 angles) { _targetRotation = Quaternion.Euler(angles); }

// //}

//}

if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "left") { rotateNumber = 1; Debug.Log ("enter left"); }

if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "left1") { rotateNumber = 2; Debug.Log ("enter left"); }

if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "left2") { rotateNumber = 3; Debug.Log ("enter left"); }

if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "right") { rotateNumber = 4; Debug.Log ("enter right"); }

void resetPowerSound() { powerup.SetActive (false); powerdown.SetActive (false);

}

void OnTriggerStay(Collider rotateCheck) { if (rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == "straight") { rotateNumber = 0; Debug.Log ("enter left"); }

//if (axleInfo.motor && axleInfo.leftWheel.motorTorque > 0 && axleInfo.rightWheel.motorTorque > 0) // { // axleInfo.leftWheel.brakeTorque = axleInfo.leftWheel. motorTorque; // axleInfo.rightWheel.brakeTorque = axleInfo.rightWheel. motorTorque;

163

using UnityEngine; using System.Collections; public class SpawnInSpace : MonoBehaviour {

//double parked cars public GameObject taxi; public GameObject uber;

//special vehicles public GameObject truck;

//probabilities public int parkedCarRand; //what type of car? private int doubleparkedCarRand; //what type of double parked car?

public float doubledistCurb; //double parked kerbside distance public float distCurb; //parked kerbside distance

}

// Update is called once per frame void Update () {

//distCurbMin = -0.75f; //distCurbMax = 0.5f;

// Use this for initialization void Start () { isCar = false; Boundary = GameObject.Find (“Boundary”); spaceCoordsx = gameObject.transform.position.x; spaceCoordsy = gameObject.transform.position.y; spaceCoordsz = gameObject.transform.position.z; spaceRotation = gameObject.transform.rotation;

private int noCar;

public float distCurbMin; public float distCurbMax; public float spaceCoordsx; public float spaceCoordsy; public float spaceCoordsz; public Quaternion spaceRotation; public bool isCar;

Finally, there’s a chance for a double parked vehicle (uber or taxi) to spawn adjacent to the parked vehicle, but only if the parked car is not already egressing into the bike lane.

public float extradistCurb; //chance for extra kerbside distance (regular car parked poorly) private int extraCarRand; //chance for extra kerbside distance

//parked cars public GameObject parkedCarA; public GameObject parkedCarB; public GameObject parkedCarC; public GameObject parkedCarD; public GameObject parkedCarE; public GameObject parkedCarF;

This spread’s code deals with parked cards. Follow each call out to see how the game generates random stationary hazards for the player.

public GameObject Boundary; public Object newCar; public GameObject parkedCar;

Otherwise, spawning of parked cars is from the ‘regular set’.

if (doubleparkedCarRand == 1 &&

}

//Debug.Log (“Entered”);

//Debug.Log (parkedCarRand);

void OnTriggerExit(Collider Boundary) { if (Boundary.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag ==

}

{ newCar = Instantiate (uber, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb + doubledistCurb), spaceRotation); //Debug.Log (“Double Park”); }

distCurb <= .6f)

//then chance for double parked car doubleparkedCarRand = Random.Range (0, 14); if (doubleparkedCarRand == 0 && distCurb <= .6f) //don’t spawn double parked car is kerb distance is too big { newCar = Instantiate (taxi, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb + doubledistCurb), spaceRotation); //Debug.Log (“Double Park”); }

else if (parkedCarRand == 5 && isCar == false) { parkedCar = parkedCarE; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true; } else if (parkedCarRand == 6 && isCar == false) { parkedCar = parkedCarF; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true; }

} else if (parkedCarRand == 4 && isCar == false) { parkedCar = parkedCarD; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true; }

} else if (parkedCarRand == 3 && isCar == false) { parkedCar = parkedCarC; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true;

hazards

//car is regular, parked normally

}

if (extraCarRand == 0) { distCurb = Random.Range (2,

//then chance for poorly parked car

//spawn is regular else if (noCar >= 2) { parkedCarRand = Random.Range (2, 7); extraCarRand = Random.Range (0, 10);

} else if (parkedCarRand == 2 && isCar == false) { parkedCar = parkedCarB; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true;

if (parkedCarRand == 1 && isCar == false) { parkedCar = parkedCarA; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true;

else { distCurb = (Random.Range (distCurbMin, distCurbMax))/5; //distance from kerbside }

3);

Then there’s a chance for a car to be poorly parked; egressing into bike lane

//spawn is truck else if (noCar == 1 && isCar == false) { distCurb = (Random.Range (distCurbMin, distCurbMax))/5; //distance from kerbside parkedCar = truck; newCar = Instantiate (parkedCar, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz + distCurb), spaceRotation); isCar = true; }

//car space is free if (noCar == 0 && isCar == false) { isCar = false; }

void OnTriggerEnter(Collider Boundary) { //initial chance for rarer event if (Boundary.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == “SpawnRadius”) { noCar = Random.Range (0, 10);

DestroyObject (newCar); isCar = false;

Debug.Log (“Exited”);

}

if (isCar == true) {

}

DontRepeat = false; //if true no chance for animation

void Start () { anim = gameObject.GetComponent<Animator> (); //get

}

{

DoorRand = Random.Range (0, 10);

if (DontRepeat == false) //chance of dooring

else { anim.SetBool (“Play”, true); DontRepeat = true; }

if (DoorRand == 0) { anim.SetBool (“Play”, false); // animation plays when Play boolean is false DontRepeat = true; }

{ only when DontRepeat = false

if(DoorBoundary.GetComponent<Collider>().tag ==

void OnTriggerEnter(Collider DoorBoundary) {

“DoorRadius”)

}

//attempt at disabling dooring when there is a double parked car void OnTiggerEnter(Collider DoubleParkProtect) { if (DoubleParkProtect.GetComponent<Collider>().tag == “DoorProtect”) { DontRepeat = true; //Debug.Log (“Double Parked car detected”);

animator

private int DoorRand; //if 0 play animation public bool Play; //if false play animation public bool DontRepeat; //don’t get another random number after first Random.Range (only once chance for animation) public GameObject car;

When a player goes near a parked car, this code using UnityEngine; snippet is triggered: a 1 in using System.Collections; 10 chance that the parked public class ParkedDoor3 : MonoBehaviour { car will open its door Animator anim;

}

“SpawnRadius”) {

First there’s a chance for ‘rare’ objects to spawn, such as blank car spaces or oversized trucks and vans

165

UnityEngine; System.Collections; System.Collections.Generic; UnityEngine.UI;

When a player leaves the bike lane, bike health ‘multiplier’ decreases by 0.1 every 1.8 seconds.

In the bike lane, bike health increases by .2 every 1.8 seconds.

//diagnostics public float speedRate; public float collisionForce; public float collisionImpulse; public Vector3 collisionNormalVector;

public Text speedDisplay; public Text collisionDisplay; public Text collisionImpulseDisplay; public Text normalVectorDisplay;

public int injuryRange;

public Rigidbody rb;

public bool canDamage;

public float dotCollision;

public Rigidbody trigger;

public GameObject lifeSound;

public GameObject musicObject; public GameObject healthSoundObj;

private int pointsEarned; //points earned per tick private int count; //score public int multiplier; //multiplier used private float multiplierdecimal;

private GameObject pieChart; //private Image pieChartImage; public float pieChartFill;

//instantiated flying point positions public float spaceCoordsx; public float spaceCoordsy; public float spaceCoordsz; public float prevPlayerx;

public Object point; //instantiated flying point public float prevTime;

public Text textMultiplier;

public class ScoringSystem : MonoBehaviour { public bool onPath; //public bool ifCyclePath; //is Player on bike path? //public GameObject meshMultiplier; //originally ‘PathWarning’ mesh multiplier factor public float spawnTime; public Image warningText; //originally ‘PathText’, GUI ‘get back on bike lane’ public Text CountScore; //GUI score public GameObject earnPointob; //GUI points parent public GameObject earnPointChild; // childed so animation is relative to player

using using using using

}

multiplier = 10;

multiplierTasks ();

}

} else { }

multiplier = 0;

if (onPath == false) { if (multiplier > 0) { multiplier = multiplier - 1; //set

}

} else { }

if (onPath == true) { if (multiplier < 10) { multiplier = multiplier + 2; //set

speedDisplay.text = speedRate.ToString (“0.0”);

//Debug.Log (prevTime); prevTime = Time.time;

if (onPath == false) //events off bikepath { //InvokeRepeating(“minusMultiplier”, 1, 20); //meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive (true);

if (onPath == true) //events on bikepath { //InvokeRepeating(“addMultiplier”, 1, 1); //meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive (false); //hide multiplier mesh warningText.gameObject.SetActive (false); // hide GUI get back to bike lane }

multiplier

if (prevTime <= Time.time - 1.8f) //events every second {

spaceCoordsx = gameObject.transform.position.x; spaceCoordsy = gameObject.transform.position.y; spaceCoordsz = gameObject.transform.position.z;

speedRate = rb.velocity.magnitude;

pieChart = GameObject.Find(“FillingObject”);

// Update is called once per frame void Update () {

}

scoring

rb = GetComponent<Rigidbody> ();

prevTime = Time.time;

winBool = false;

spaceCoordsx = gameObject.transform.position.x;

// Use this for initialization void Start () {

public bool winBool;

public string injury; public string crashType;

public GameObject winPieUnder; public GameObject winPieChart; public GameObject winImageScore; public GameObject winMultiplierImage;

On collusion with a vehicle, the larger the force of impact, the more points and the bike health ‘multiplier’ are reduced.

count = 0; //score is 0 multiplier = 10; pointsEarned = 10;

//pieChart.GetComponent<Image> ().FillAmount =

warningText.gameObject.SetActive (false); //hide GUI get

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive (false); //hide

167

canDamage = true;

speedDisplay.text = “0”;

SetCountScore (); //Set the score function SetMultiplier (); //Set the multiplier function prevPlayerx = spaceCoordsx;//stating that player has travelled x metres since this position, at beginning of game is zero

multiplier mesh back to bike lane multiplierdecimal;

//textMultiplier.SetActive (false); //textMultiplier.GetComponent<TextMesh> ().text = multiplierdecimal.ToString () + “x”; //textMultiplier.text = multiplierdecimal.ToString () + “x”; textMultiplier.text = multiplierdecimal.ToString ();

Text congrats; Text winScore; Image pinkScreen; Text ridingStyle;

If multiplier = 1, player earns 10 points that tick. If multiplier = 0.5, player earns 5 points.

public public public public

public int pickUp;

Every 40 units, a player gains points. Points are calculated based on the bike health ‘multiplier’: 1 meaning full bike health.

warningText.gameObject.SetActive (true); //hide

//detect leaving bike lane

calculate points earned

}

if (count - 30 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

}

if (count - 30 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -30; //

if (multiplier -1 < 0) { multiplier = 0; }

if (speedRate > 5 && dotCollision <= 10 ) { if (multiplier - 1 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier; }

}

if (speedRate > 10) { if (multiplier - 1 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier; }

void OnTriggerEnter(Collider ScoreTrigger) { if ((ScoreTrigger.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == “TrafficCar”) && canDamage == true) { Debug.Log (“TRIGGER COLLIDE!!”);

}

prevPlayerx = spaceCoordsx;

}

count = count + pointsEarned; //calculate score SetMultiplier (); //display points earned SetCountScore (); //display score

pointsEarned = 1 * multiplier; //calculate

points earned

if (spaceCoordsx < prevPlayerx - 40) //events every 10 steps { spawnPoint ();

}

//show multiplier mesh GUI get back to bike lane

2”);

calculate points earned

If bike health = 0, it is gameover

}

if (count - 20 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

}

if (count - 10 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

canDamage = false; Invoke (“cancelcanDamage”, 2);

//}

//if (multiplierdecimal == 0) //{ //Application.LoadLevel(“104 debug

count = count + pointsEarned; //calculate score SetMultiplier (); //display points earned SetCountScore (); //display score spawnPoint ();

}

if (count - 10 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -10; //

if (multiplier - 1 < 0) { multiplier = 0; }

if (speedRate > 0 && dotCollision <= 5 ) { if (multiplier - 1 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier; }

}

if (ScoreTrigger.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag ==

}

if (count - 20 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -20; //

}

if (multiplier - 1 < 0) { multiplier = 0; }

Vector3 normal = contact.normal; Vector3 velocity = collision.relativeVelocity; dotCollision = Vector3.Dot(normal, velocity);

foreach (ContactPoint contact in collision.contacts) {

{

calculate points earned

if (count - 50 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

}

if (count - 50 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -50; //

if (multiplier -7 < 0) { multiplier = 0; }

}

if (multiplier - 7 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier -

if (dotCollision > 20) {

Debug.Log (“Collide with traffic!”);

if ((collision.rigidbody.tag == “TrafficCar”) && canDamage

collisionDisplay.text = collisionForce.ToString (“0.0”); collisionImpulseDisplay.text = “Im “ + collisionImpulse.

CancelInvoke (“clearAnalytics”); collisionForce = dotCollision; collisionImpulse = collision.impulse.magnitude;

}

calculate points earned

== true)

ToString (“0.0”);

collisionNormalVector = contact.normal; normalVectorDisplay.text = collisionNormalVector.ToString (); //Debug.Log(“Collision Impulse is” + Collision. impulse)

print(contact.thisCollider.name + “ hit “ + contact.otherCollider.name); Debug.DrawRay(contact.point, contact.normal, Color.white); Debug.Log(“masses are” + collision.rigidbody. mass + rb.mass + “normal angles are” + contact.normal);

scoring

}

Debug.Log (“You win!”); youWin ();

}

Invoke (“resetlifeSound”, 1);

SetCountScore (); //display score spawnPoint (); multiplierTasks ();

count = count + pointsEarned; //calculate score

multiplier = 10; SetMultiplier (); //display points earned showMultipler (); pointsEarned = 20; pickUp = pickUp + 1;

if (ScoreTrigger.gameObject.CompareTag (“pickUp”)) { ScoreTrigger.gameObject.SetActive (false); lifeSound.gameObject.SetActive (true);

}

{

}

onPath = true; //Invoke(“destroyPoint”, 1);

Debug.Log(collision.relativeVelocity.magnitude +

void OnCollisionEnter(Collision collision) {

“COLLIDE”);

//detect entering bike lane void OnTriggerExit(Collider BikePathCollider) { if (BikePathCollider.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == “BikePath”) { onPath = false; //Debug.Log (“Off bike lane”); //Invoke(“destroyPoint”, 1); } }

void OnTriggerStay(Collider BikePathCollider) { if (BikePathCollider.GetComponent<Collider> ().tag == “BikePath”) {

“winTrigger”)

Running over a bike box returns a player’s bike health to full, and gives a rider 20 points

169

calculate points earned

}

if (count - 40 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

}

if (count - 40 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -40; //

if (multiplier -7 < 0) { multiplier = 0; }

}

if (multiplier - 7 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier -

}

if (count - 20 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

}

if (count - 20 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -20; //

if (multiplier -3 < 0) { multiplier = 0; }

}

if (multiplier - 1 < 0)

}

if (dotCollision > 0 && dotCollision < 5 ) { if (multiplier - 1 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier -

}

if (dotCollision > 5 && dotCollision <= 10 ) { if (multiplier - 3 >= 0) { multiplier = multiplier -

}

if (dotCollision > 10 && dotCollision <= 20 ) {

calculate points earned

}

2”);

}

if (multiplierdecimal == 0) { youCrash (); //Application.LoadLevel(“104 debug

count = count + pointsEarned; //calculate score SetMultiplier (); //display points earned SetCountScore (); //display score spawnPoint (); multiplierTasks ();

}

if (count - 10 < 0) { pointsEarned = -count; //

}

void SetCountScore () //Display GUI score { CountScore.text = count.ToString (); }

//if (collision.relativeVelocity.magnitude > 10) //{ //Debug.Log(“Big collision!”); //}

Invoke (“cancelcanDamage”, 2);

canDamage = false;

Invoke (“clearAnalytics”, 5);

}

multiplier = 0;

if (count - 10 >= 0) { pointsEarned = -10; //

{ }

void spawnPoint () //Spawn flying point { spawnTime = Time.time; point = Instantiate (earnPointob, new Vector3 (spaceCoordsx, spaceCoordsy, spaceCoordsz), Quaternion.AngleAxis(270, Vector3.up)) as GameObject; Destroy (point, 1); }

}

calculate points earned

winBool = true;

if (collisionNormalVector.x <= -.1f) { crashType = “been hit from behind!”; }

if (collisionNormalVector.x > .1f) { crashType = “FRONTAL SMASH!”; }

winScore.text = “RAW SCORE “ + count.ToString

if (winBool == false) {

if (injuryRange == 0);

if (speedRate >= 1 && speedRate <= 5) {

congrats.text = “OUCH! “ + crashType;

if (dotCollision < 1) { injury = “JUST A SCRAPE!”; }

injuryRange = Random.Range (0, 3);

if (collisionNormalVector.z > .3f || collisionNormalVector.z < -.3f ) { crashType = “gotten sideswiped!”; }

Invoke (“resetLevel”, 10);

}

if (pickUp > 3) { ridingStyle.text = “RIDING STYLE:

winPieUnder.SetActive (false); winPieChart.SetActive (false); winImageScore.SetActive (false); warningText.gameObject.SetActive (false);

}

void youCrash () { pinkScreen.gameObject.SetActive (true);

();

}

GREAT!”;

scoring

void SetMultiplier () //set flying point value

LOUSY!”;

OK!”;

}

if (pickUp >= 1 && pickUp <= 3) { ridingStyle.text = “RIDING STYLE:

injury;

if (pickUp == 0) { ridingStyle.text = “RIDING STYLE:

winScore.text = “RAW SCORE “ + count.ToString

();

congrats.text = “YOU MADE IT TO THE CITY!”;

if (winBool == false) { pinkScreen.gameObject.SetActive (true);

}

void cancelcanDamage () { canDamage = true; }

void clearAnalytics () { collisionDisplay.text = (“ “); collisionImpulseDisplay.text = (“ “); normalVectorDisplay.text = (“ “); }

//collisions stuff

//}

textMultiplier.text = multiplierdecimal.

MIRROR!”;

void youWin () {

}

ToString () + “x”;

void showMultipler () { //if (multiplier == 10) //{ // textMultiplier.SetActive(false); //} //else //{ //textMultiplier.SetActive(true); multiplierdecimal = (float)multiplier / 10; //textMultiplier.GetComponent<TextMesh> ().text = multiplierdecimal.ToString () + “x”;

{ earnPointChild.GetComponent<TextMesh> ().text = pointsEarned.ToString (); //multiplier.ToString (); }

171

injury = “A LIGHT SCRAPE!”;

}

if (injuryRange == 2); { injury = “A BROKEN

if (injuryRange == 1); { injury = “A BROKEN BIKE!”; }

{ }

if (injuryRange == 2); { injury = “A BROKEN TOE!”; }

if (injuryRange == 1); { injury = “A BROKEN LEG!”; }

if (injuryRange == 0); { injury = “A BROKEN ARM!”; }

if (injuryRange == 2); { injury = “A SAD FAMILY!!!”; }

if (injuryRange == 1); { injury = “A WRECKED BIKE!”; }

if (injuryRange == 0); { injury = “A BROKEN NECK”; }

Invoke (“resetLevel”, 7);

ridingStyle.text = “You ended up with ... “ +

}

if (dotCollision > 10) {

}

if (dotCollision >= 1 && dotCollision <= 10) {

}

WORK SHOP

4 Pocket Pedal Workshop The culmination of this thesis involved running a codesign workshop amongst stakeholders impacted by cycling on St Kilda Road. In Section 1, cycling was established as an ecology of fast and complex elements involving many opposing stakeholders. Section 2 identified codesign strategies to manage such environments, namely creating common frames for exploration. In Section 3, the design of the playful cycling simulation Pocket Pedal was described. Pocket Pedal and several lower fidelity simulations were designed as artefacts to be embedded in codesign for productive metagame creation. In the Pocket Pedal workshop, these artefacts were situated and tested to see if games could amplify the codesign process, namely helping stakeholders (and designers) explore the ecology of cycling.

Stakeholders Participants were diverse, coming from many backgrounds with different understandings of cycling. Stakeholders included cyclists, drivers, transit users, a planner from the local council and two health professionals (a trauma surgeon working at The Alfred, a nearby hospital, and a radiologist).

Workshop Outline: To test the use of metagame and embeddable game artefacts, workshop codesign activities trialled Pocket Pedal in various levels of ‘completeness’. Some activities situated the game as a stand-alone, discrete artefact that was ‘run’ through cardboard-based games.. Others broke the game down into elements and augmented these with lower fidelity props and activities. Later workshop activities situated participants outside the simulation and encouraged them to critique it and develop new ideas. Inserting Pocket Pedal in workshop activities had the higher goal of making a collaborative, engaged environment for discussion and idea generation. Such discussion is expected to bleed through discrete workshop activities. Recognising this, the entire workshop was filmed so these spontaneous reactions, debates and ideas can be captured and used.

177

Activity 1: Backwards Interview Game (minimal use of artefacts, minimal use of Pocket Pedal) HI FIDLITY ARTEFACTS: Images of virtual world LOW FIDELITY ARTEFACTS: Paper scoring cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Competition The Backwards Interview Game attempted to develop a shared design frame (Refer Section 2.1) in workshop participants. That is, recognition that urban cycling involves stakeholders from many backgrounds (namely cyclists, motorists and transit users). Participants were exposed to a shared ‘site’ through images of the Pocket Pedal game. The ‘game’ was broken into three activities: scene identification (Activity 1A), stakeholder identification (Activity 1B), and the Backwards Interview Game itself (Activity 1C).

PRINCESS BRIDGE

NGV NORTH

NGV SOUTH

KINGS WAY BYPASS

179

THE MELBOURNIAN

DOMAIN INTERCHANGE

VICTORIA BARRACKS

ARTS CENTRE

181

Activity 1A Scene Identification RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Is the virtual environment created in Pocket Pedal recognisable as the St Kilda Road cycling environment? Can scoring as a tool for cross-stakeholder engagement? AIMS • •

Ease participants into active participation See how recognisable game simulation is to the real world

PROPS: Laptop, postcard images of key areas of virtual world

METHOD Postcard images of virtual cycling environment shown to participants. Participants must locate each postcard in the real world. After all postcards have been shown, correct locations are read out. Participants receive one point per correct location.

DATA Off the cuff comments: We won’t have you on our trivial pursuit team Is that an animal in the background? That pink thing? [my response: No, they are trees] What are those pink things – trees? They look like roses on this side – they’re pretty. Ah, I know what it is – the Melbournian! [response: of course!] Spirit of cooperation What’s the box on the head? Ned Kelly? Cute designs [me: for scale a person is this high] respondent: ah, I know!

183

185

DISCUSSION Participant recognition of the ‘gamified’ route was accurate, with correct identification of locations occurring around 70% of the time. Unanticipated was the emergent collaborative nature of the exercise: participants wanted to group together and collectively identify each scene. Skyline icons such as the Arts Spire and the Flinder’s Street Station dome were most effective at conveying place, more so than infrastructure features such as the idiosyncratic lane changes associated with the route. Less well known landmarks such as the Melbournian and the Barracks still proved recognisable. Scale was an issue, with some participants unsure how large virtual objects were. Participants enjoyed the challenge of working out each postcard. Awarding points meant participants had a vested interested in identifying scenes, even though these points were completely arbitrary and not used gain. Unlike the immediacy of a photograph, the reduced, stylised virtual representation forced participants to assess each part of the scene for clues, eventually leading to a scene’s identification. The activity was effective method for introducing the virtual cycling environment and prompting individuals to become active participants in workshop activities.

187

eVERy yEaR

uBLIc nSPoRT

PRETTy UrAte!

pOiNts here

I wish there was more...

Things that don’t make sense on the road are...

When I’m on the road, I’m most worried about...

ACtivitY 1.3

Have you participated in a design workshop before?

How frequently do you go up St Kilda Road?

Are you happy being described like this? Anything missing?

Why did you put yourself in this category?

ALmoST EVERyDay

dRIVIng

comPLETE BuLLSHIT

ALmoST EVERy wEEK

cycLIng

everY MONth

eVERy yEaR

PuBLIc TRanSPoRT

IT’S PRETTy ACCUrAte!

namE

DRIVER / cycLIST / oTHER

namE

The thing I most enjoy being on the road is...

/ oTHER

C ALMOST EVERY WEEK

ALMOST EVERY DAY

ALMOST EVERY MONTH

LESS THEN EVERY MONTH

D PT

PT D

C CYCLE D DRIVE PT PUBLIC TRANSIT

HOW OFTEN DO YOU TRAVEL UP ST KILDA ROAD

Activity 1B Stakeholder identification RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the habitual opinions and preconceptions amongst people linked to the issue of cycling? AIMS • •

Explore background experiences that participants are bringing to the workshop Create a baseline profile of participants to calibrate effect of workshop design activities.

METHOD • •

Participants asked to identify themselves as cyclist, driver or other by sticking coloured post-it note ‘badges’ on themselves Participants are asked a series of questions regarding their background, familiarity with St Kilda Road, conception of road-space and activism.

DATA Off-the-cuff comments: Can you be both? I’m probably other as well What if you’re both? My current role? Cyclist or other? Survey question: ‘Why did you choose this category?’ ‘I’m just a person going places’ ‘Living on St Kilda Road, PT = faster, drive = weekends’ ‘I use all modes, but would cycle more if I was more confident in my safety.’ ‘Ride bike often, drive sometimes, catch tram often.’ ‘Ride to uni 3 times a week and do not own a car’

DISCUSSION Participation was evenly distributed between more cycling and more motorist individuals. Workshop members came from a diverse set of backgrounds, including health, planning and activism, and included both younger and older participants. Some participants had experience in video games, most did not. All participants bar one felt uncomfortable associating themselves as a single ‘type’. Issues of legitimacy (not being a ‘real cyclist’) and the multi-modal nature of an individual’s travel were raised. Instead, participants chose multiple badges to reflect their identity, taking multiple same coloured postits when one stakeholder group was more strongly part of their identity.

Driver [Danielle]

Driver / Cyclist [John C]

Driver / Other [Peter]

Driver / Other [Nadhika]

Driver / Other / Other [Niro]

Other / Other / Cyclist [Sam]

Cyclist / Other [Pietra]

Cyclist / Other [Freda]

Cyclist / Other [John B]

Cyclist [Alexa]

The feeling of freedom (and breezes and sunshine) Getting to see the day and experience the weather Speed, security, going at your own pace Non congested, scenic drives, [short] time it takes to get to destination Not getting killed or injured, arriving at my destination

q2 Cyclists, road safety, impatient drivers. car dooring. Dooring by cars when in the bike lane

DRIVER

CYCLIST

OTHER

Activity 1C Backwards Interview Game RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a knowledge gap between people linked to the issue of cycling?

AIMS · Investigate if part of problem with urban cycling is the lack of interaction between stakeholders · Assess cross stakeholder knowledge / empathy

METHOD · Individuals form pairs of differing stakeholders. Pairs record a ‘backwards interview,’ where Participant A (being filmed) must guess Participant B’s (filming) answers to the previous questionnaire based on their stakeholder identification. o The thing I like most about being on the road is... o On the road I’m most worried about… o On the road the things that don’t make sense are… o I wish there was more… · Participant B awards Participant A one point per correct answer.

DATA

SCORES

3.5 / 4 3/4

3/4 2.5 / 4

3.5 / 4 1.5 /4

DISCUSSION The shared frame of the Backwards Interview Game was effective at ‘breaking the ice’ amongst participants, giving them confidence to ask questions and engage in conversation. This meant further workshop activities were done in a group that were familiar with each other, rather than as a group of unintroduced strangers. The backwards nature of the interview (participants were not answering questions themselves, but rather guessing the answers of their partner) encouraged back-and-forth conversation and collaboration. Participant A would guess Participant B’s answer to a particular question, prompting Participant B to give a hint, which would then lead A to modify her answer. The novelty of the activity, and this continual updating of responses, kept conversation engaging rather than being stilted, as what happens in many breaking-the-ice-through-interview participatory games. Scoring ‘points’ gave both participants (interviewer and interviewee) defined but informal roles, encouraging participants to focus on the activity at hand. Comparing interview ‘scores’ in a wider workshop discussion at the end of the activity was a quick and effective method for sharing and discussing these one-on-one interviews with the entire workshop group.

193

Activity 2: Journey Game (low fidelity artefacts, minimal use of Pocket Pedal) HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: --LOW FIDLIETY ARTIFACTS: Setting, Character and Moment cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules, Outcomes The Journey Game was the first activity to test if simulation can be used productively in cycling stakeholders. The cardboard simulation was lowfidelity, flexible and non-immersive. The game aimed to facilitate participants in collectively exploring cycling conditions and expose them to infrastructural precedents (refer Section 2.2). Cycling was broken down into a series of cardboard props (Setting, Character and Moment cards), from which participants construct cycling journeys. Before playing the Journey Game, participants were exposed to a conventional method of cycling analysis: GoPro cycling footage of St Kilda road. Analysis of this footage was compared to outcomes generated through participant interaction with the cardboard simulation.

195

Activity 2A: Codesign with traditional Go Pro footage RESEARCH QUESTIONS Can traditional forms of activism be productively used in codesign situations? How productive is audio-visual rhetoric in cycling codesign situations? AIMS There is lots of data available in urban cycling situations. Can techniques be rethought and reintegrated for better results?

METHOD Each group received a device with footage ‘the Climbing Cyclist’ journey of St Kilda road [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hleXB6oXAJ8]. Groups are asked to list elements of video: Enjoyment, Annoyance, Danger. Participants report back findings to the wider workshop group.

DISCUSSION Activity 2A aimed to assess how participants responded to ‘raw’ cycling representation. Participants were asked to analyse a helmet mounted GoPro film of a cyclist travelling up St Kilda Road. As discussed in Section 1.2, cycling must be thought in terms of time-space, a combination of geography (urban space / infrastructure) and time (behaviour / traveling) (Lugo 2010). Individuals were required to note elements of the ride under categories enjoyment, danger and annoyance.

197

Many participants struggled to assess the footage, as things happened quickly: ‘Watching the video was very fast and hard to take in all the factors at play.’ ‘For me, the video was clearer in that the landmarks were easier to define. It was educational for me to see how a fast rider rides. But things were still happening too quickly for me to 'analyse'.’ Cycling conditions are not only fast, they are also complex, meaning they are an assemblage of interrelated elements (Lugo 2010). Many participants felt that they could not ‘break up’ the continuous, fast frame of footage into elements to be listed: ‘It’s kind of continual, isn’t it? It’s just continual drip drip annoyance. It’s not one particular, it’s all the time.’ The difficulty assessing the fastness and complexity of riding was reflected in participant responses: Enjoyment [DRIVER] not being on the two wheeled death trap [CYCLIST] no enjoymentw [CYCLIST] no [CYCLIST] no [DRIVER] leaves and shade, wind and fresh air, tram bells [DRIVER] fresh air, sunshine, fast, minimal enjoyment [CYCLIST] car waiting to turn, sunshine A significant correlation between stakeholder type and response to the Enjoyment category was found. All cyclists bar one listed only no/ no enjoyment under this category. The exception was the only participant who had identified themselves as a pure cyclist (not a hybrid), an experienced St Kilda road rider. An emergent trend in motorist participants was the likelihood of listing positive elements such as fresh air and sunshine . This may indicate a knowledge gap existing between individuals with personal experience cycling the route and individuals that have never ridden the route. The next segment of the activity, Activity 2B, exposed participants to the Journey Game proper. The Journey Game tested using simulation to create a more manageable framework of cycling for participants than raw footage.

ENJOYMENT? not being on the two wheeled death trap no enjoyment no no leaves and shade, wind and fresh air, tram bells fresh air, sunshine, fast, DANGER? parked cars, narrow lane, delivery truck, car across bikelanes donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how cyclists will react to situations, overlap (veering) of drivers on lanes cars swerving into me, car door opening, sun in eyes ANNOYANCE? thick truck in bike lane, person overtaking on wrong-side [left hand side], car in bike lane multiple times pedestrians, blue car, taxis constantly being alert to danger slow on a turning lane, stress pedestrians darting across road, cars on bike path pedestrian other bikes

199

201

Activity 2B: Journey Game RESEARCH QUESTIONS Can traditional forms of design activism be redesigned, with minimal means, to improve their use in codesign situations? Is low fidelity element-based chunking a productive simulation for participants? AIM • • •

Test the effectiveness of a low fidelity simulation that can be quickly made by a designer Break down cycling conditions into discrete ‘manageable’ elements for participants to conceptualise and analyse Provoke an expand imagination of cycling in participants: different geographies, infrastructure, characters and scenarios.

PROPS Character Card Descriptions Lee (MAMIL) Lee gets up at 5am most morning for his regular 20km Bayside ride, testing out his brand new $2000 sportsbike. St Kilda road is his ‘normal life’ commute. Cyclists are slow, so Lee often rides in the car lane. Trish (Young female, upright bike) Trish studies commerce at Melbourne Uni. She’s loving the vintage steel bike she bought in Collingwood last month. Cycling up St Kilda road can be dangerous at times, but Trish tries to enjoy the ride! Mark (Young male, reckless) Mark’s just graduated from RMIT. A ‘creative type’, he works part-time in the city, with his days starting a little later than most. Often late, he rides a little recklessly to make up for lost time. How else are you going to claim space on the road unless you cycle a little bit aggressively? Jane (Middle aged female) Jane doesn’t see herself as a proper ‘cyclist’: those wear lycra and ride fast! Safety conscious, Jane makes sure to always wear hi-vis on her ride up St

203

Kilda Road. Scenario Cards • Dangerous ride • Leisurely ride • Everyday ride • Rushed ride Moment cards Stills from footage of cycling journeys from around the world were printed on cards. Locations included St Kilda Road, London, Sao Paolo, Copenhagen. Images of keywords These ‘moments’ were augmented with separate cards depicting images of scenarios, people and places found by Google searches terms (fantasy ride, bunch ride, stolen bike, dangerous ride, Copenhagen ride, children riding, family ride).

METHOD • • • • • •

Participants divide into small groups. Each group receives a character card and a scenario card Moment cards are spread around a large, communal table. Groups must construct a cycling journey from a sequence of these cards Character x scenario cards form the ‘rules’ of the cardboard cycling simulation Participants create a journey for their character by string together a sequence of moment cards that satisfies their scenario These journeys are presented to the group. Participants document journey by taking a photo of string of cards they create.

DATA Off the cuff Fancy that as a fantasy? Here’s another fantasy - I think we need a bit more reality. That’s creative – we could make a little… Is that Copenhagen – that must be Copenhagen? Do you have any photographs of the bikes with tires removed, chains removed, just the skeleton? Ah yeah, that’s a bit of reality. So we can start out with the dream…

trish

Trish studies commerce at Melbourne Uni. Sheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s loving the vintage steel bike she bought in Collingwood last month. Cycling up St Kilda road can be dangerous at times, but Trish tries to enjoy the ride!

205

LEE

Most mornings, Lee gets up at 5am for his regular 20km Bayside ride, testing out his brand new $2000 sportsbike. St Kilda road is his â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;normal lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; commute. Cyclists are slow, so Lee often rides in the car lane.

mArk

A â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;creative typeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Mark works part-time in the city, starting his days a little later than most Often late, Mark rides a little recklessly to make up for lost time. How else are you going to claim space on the road unless you cycle a little bit aggressively?

207

TERRY

Terry doesn’t see herself as a proper ‘cyclist’: those wear lycra and ride fast! Safety conscious, Terry makes sure to always wear hi-vis on her ride up St Kilda Road.

LEE

ENJOYABLE RIDE

LEE

RUSHED RIDE LEE

DANGEROUS RIDE

LEE

LEISURELY RIDE

209

ST KILDA ROAD

COPENHAGEN

LONDON

CYCLIST ON BENCH

DUTCH CYCLIST

CYCLIST TAKING BREAK

BIKE PARKING

STOLEN BIKE

CRAZY BIKE

SAO PAULO

RECKLESS CYCLIST

MAMIL RIDE

LYCRA BAYSIDE RIDE

CYCLIST RUNNING RED

CYCLIST BREAKING LAW

211

Mark x Rushed ride [Cyclist] [Other / Other / Driver] So in our photos we have Mark represented by Cyclists in a race. Heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s probably going to make some questionable decisions that will probably cause his demise. [Group used a moment card of sculptural bike parking photo to represent a crash].

213

Lee x Dangerous ride [Driver / Other ] [Driver] Heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s very experienced and likes to take risk. Lee likes to overtake cyclists, so he rides in the car lane, thus a dangerous ride. This picture shows Lee veering out of the bike lane, taking a few risks because thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s some obstacles in his path.

Again here he’s riding in the car lane, as the bike lane’s occupied by a large vehicle. This again is to show the speed he’s going for his dangerous ride. And then he crashes. [Group uses a moment card of a disassembled bike to conveying crash].

215

Mark x enjoyable ride [Other / Other / Cyclist] [Cyclist / Other] Mark’s creative, but he’s a bit aggressive. He takes risks because he’s in a hurry. You can see him here with the cyclists, he goes against that line, not riding too well. And here he crosses the white line to pass people. But he also likes to have a good time, because it’s an enjoyable ride. So there he is, with his girlfriend, she’s got her legs off the pedal and her arm around him- they’re having a ball – enjoyment.

Q. Is that St Kilda Rad? A. Oh I see, it’s on the edge of St Kilda Road. No it’s on the Tan, and they finished their ride without dying.

217

Mark x Rushed ride [Cyclist / Other] [Driver / Other] We’ve got Mark and he’s really annoyed because someone’s made him wear this really stupid outfit and he’s rushing to Uniqlo to get a totally new outfit. It’s winter, because of the trees. He’s going faster than that motorbike, and soon he’s in Fed Square – how come there are no taxis in that lane? And he doesn’t even blink twice when he’s got this huge bus veering into him.

But the happy thing is suddenly he’s in Copenhagen, and he’s at this cool coffee space where he can do his work and ride his bike at the same time. Q. Where about is this ride? Part of it’s in Copenhagen and the rest of its in St Kilda Road Q. Why isn’t that St Kilda Road? We’ve never seen [bike parking] like that on St Kilda Road - that’s not only bike parking, it’s interactive… 219

Trish x Leisurely Ride [Cyclist / Other] Trish is out there on her vintage bike, about to have a sunny, leisurely ride. In her mind she’s got a picture of the kids and its all joyful and easy, and relaxed. And she gets on St Kilda Road and she’s got those nice trees and she’s going up between the grass and its very relaxing. Then this bus comes along and pulls out in front of her - it’s a bit of a problem because the bus is 40 feet long – so she swerves and pulls back. As she pulls back she almost goes into the back of this front-end loader truck. She goes around the bollard and incidentally she notices that the guys who have these large trucks always put their bollards right in the middle of the cycling path so they can occupy both their parking area and the

cycling path. They do this recurrently. Probably because they actually don’t like cyclists so they’re just getting the message across – they’re bigger, you’re smaller. So she keeps going along and there’s another car – it’s a stretch limousine with about six doors and she doesn’t know which of the stretch limo doors will actually door her. Fortunately none of them do open so she gets past that, narrowly avoids a taxi coming round the corner and decides shit I’ve got to have a cup of coffee. When she comes back her bike is stripped. Q. Is this is on St Kilda Road? A: This is on St Kilda road, absolutely. 221

DISCUSSION The Journey Game tested the effectiveness of using a low fidelity simulation to describe cycling environments. The card-based game ‘chunked’ scenemaking elements of urban cycling into cardboard props. The aim was to aid participants in interrogating urban cycling, challenge assumptions, and prompt individuals to expand their imagination. Moment cards translated separate and fast cycling journeys into discrete, ‘stackable’ blocks. These blocks quantized ride-geography and time for participants. Event and Character cards created the rules for a participant’s proposed ride, which then had to be completed at ‘run-time’ by a string of Moment cards. The simulation required minimal technical skills (low fidelity), and was readily extendable by simply printing new scenarios, characters and moments (highly flexible). Moment cards created easier-to-grasp cycling ‘blocks’ for participants, interoperable across videos from different cycling scenes. This was an effective method at introducing participants to novel cycling scenarios and infrastructures. Participants did not passively see precedents but actively had to use them: first selecting, and then creating a narrative of each ‘moment’ for their character and scenario. Narratives often focused on the dangers of cycling. Many journeys ended with images of dismantled bikes, and one even ending with a sculptural bike rack, to signify crash moments. This is an example of ‘modding’ the simulation by participants, as none of these cards depicted crashes. No trends in journeys produced by drivers and cyclists could be identified, unlike the groupings of responses by stakeholder type seen in Activity 2A. Participants successfully met Character and Event conditions, all creating complex narratives reflecting scene, event and character. This ‘levelling out’ of participant responses may have been the result of the group-based nature of the activity. Yet similar journeys were seen both in predominately driver groups and predominately cyclist groups. Another possibility was that element-chunking helped participants analyse the ride in front of them, rather than individuals being overwhelmed by complexity and falling back on preconceived ideas of cycling. Another trend in participant journeys was a disregard for geography. Element-based chunking created a simulation prioritising discrete events rather than a continuous flow. One group transported their rider from St Kilda Road to Copenhagen (refer p.213). Another improvised a change in location of the final part of their ride to a nearby botanical garden at the prompt Is this on St Kilda Road? (refer p.211).

Participants seemed to use moment cards for scene setting [ie. there is a bus] rather than a deeper level of analysis [ie. the kerb forces the cyclist into the bus]. Participant responses grew more considered after the prompt Is this on St Kilda Road? Future Journey Games should employ more prompts such as these, encouraging participants to analyse (and then have a chance to update) artefacts they present. The Journey Game demonstrates the flexibility of low-fidelity. Precedents were drawn from over the world with minimal effort. Rules could be updated mid-game to achieve better outcomes, such as prompting participants for further analysis in their journey with the question Is this on St Kilda Road? Low levels of immersion and authority, however, meant participants engaged in less detailed analysis. There was little incentive for players to pay close attention to the process. The next activity used Pocket Pedal as a high fidelity artefact in an attempt to provoke a deeper level of analysis in participants. workshop demonstrated the knowledge a designer can gain around an issue from running codesign games.

223

Activity 3: Participatory Navigation (Pocket Pedal integrated with low fidelity artefacts) HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Pocket Pedal Simulation LOW FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Brain cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules, Conflicts, Immersion, Real-time Outcomes Participatory Navigation introduced workshop participants to the Pocket Pedal game. An individual controlled Pocket Pedal on a large screen as directed by the workshop audience. Like Forum Theatre, audience members were not passive but active participants. Through this method of indirect play, non-gaming participants could interact with the simulation without feeling intimidated. Participatory Navigation nested Pocket Pedal in a wider game. The immersive but rigid electronic simulation was embedded in a low-fidelity cardboard game, allowing both immersion and improvisation.

225

227

229

RESEARCH QUESTIONS Can a combination of high fidelity and low fidelity games extend codesign situations? Can performance chunking be used for collaborative codesign cycling situations? Does performance chunking more accurately reflect urban cycling experiences than element chunking? AIM • • •

To test the Pocket Pedal game in a structured play framework To trial procedural chunking as a way of interrogating existing conditions Simulate the sensory overload associated with cycling

METHOD On projector, Pocket Pedal is introduced and played on a large screen by an individual (the ‘cyclist’) in front of the group (the ‘brain’). Brain audience members each receive a Brain card describing a task they must do. Each tasks partially controls the cyclist. At run-time, the ‘cyclist’ must play Pocket Pedal at the instructions of their audience ‘brain’.

DATA ‘Oh you’re a lycra person – alright, speed up!’ ‘A 145 points to beat!’ ‘This is a very dangerous stretch – I think that’s the conclusion’ ‘I got you in a door! Oh no, I didn’t see that!’ ‘That’s obviously the ex husband’

NAVIGATION BRAIN Your task is to direct me. Yell out ‘LEFT’ , ‘RIGHT’, ‘STOP’, ‘GO’ when needed

SPEED BRAIN Your task is to let me know how fast I should be going. Yell out FASTER or SLOWER when needed

PARKED CRR BRAIN You’ll be looking out for double parked cars. Yell out PARKED CAR when I need to avoid one. Note down how many double parked cars you see when I’m playing:

DOORING BRAIN Your task is to watch out for dooring. Yell out CAR DOOR when you see one. Jot down how many doors you see below:

231

DISCUSSION Participatory Navigation exposed participants to the high fidelity game Pocket Pedal for the first time. Participants come from a range of backgrounds, some with little experience in video games. This part of the workshop acquainted participants to Pocket Pedal, slowly giving individuals greater control over the game. The activity combined two games. The first was Pocket Pedal itself, an immersive simulation of cycling St Kilda Road. This was then nested in the lower fidelity but more flexible Participatory Navigation game. Through this combination of a high fidelity artefacts (Pocket Pedal) embedded in low fidelity artefacts (Brain cards detailing a specific cycling ‘process’), a new mode of cycling analysis was introduced to participants.

Simulation through performance chunking The previous Moment Card activities created a cycling framework through element-based chunking. This is a serial process of dividing a ride into sequential cycling ‘blocks’ that can be stacked on top of each other for analysis: setting, character, moment. The Pocket Pedal simulation quantizes cycling though a process of performance chunking. Performance chunking makes cycling blocks out of processes and rules: the performances a cyclist must undertake simultaneously on a ride. Rather than framing a ride as a series of sequential cycling events, processes of cycling are highlighted: hazards, speed, frustration, road rules. The benefits of chunking remain; namely breaking down complexity into manageable pieces to be analysed. The difference is that performance chunking is done in parallel. Cycling blocks are not placed ‘on top’ of each other, rather blocks are placed side by side and occur simultaneously.

ANGRY CYCLIST BRAIN Your task it to yell out when a vehicle does anything that’d annoy a cyclist. Note these down:

RISK BRAIN Your task is to keep me alive. Yell out ‘BACK TO THE BIKEPATH!’ when you think my health circle is too low.

ANGRY DRIVER BRAIN Your task it to yell out when I do anything that would anger a motorist. Write these down:

NEAR MISS BRAIN Your task is to note any near misses I encounter. Write these down.

233

Nesting Through Brain cards, specific performance chunks of cycling could be highlighted to participants, emphasising elements of the cognitive load of riding. This is the second ‘game’ in the activity: the focused analysis and group negotiation that must be done when riding is divided into a series of tasks distributed amongst the group ‘Brain’. Navigation and Speed Brain cards ‘control’ the player. Individuals in charge of these cards direct the player’s movement and speed. Double Parked Car and Dooring Brains are hazard identifier tasks, alerting the group to danger on the road. Other participants have behaviour modifier tasks, influencing not the player but other ‘Brains’ themselves. Risky Behaviour Brain sets the risk level of a ride; Navigation and Speed brains modulating their direction to match this decided level of risk. Feedback indicated that breaking down tasks formed a useful conceptual framework for analysis for some: I felt more confident analysing the game when we had one task assigned to us (ie Navigation). Watching the video was very fast and hard to take in all the factors at play. I found the video, with just the forward looking lens - harder to analyse [than playing Pocket Pedal]. The speed at which the cyclist was going didn’t help

Flexibility through social interaction Nesting Pocket Pedal into the flexibility of group play made the simulation more personal. The decision of one participant had consequences on rest of the Brain. If the Speed brain decided to go faster, the task of the Dooring brain became more difficult An unanticipated behaviour arising through this interaction was the collective moderation of participants. The group Brain had a vested interest in ‘winning’ (getting the cyclist to the city) and would collectively override less successful instructions, ‘bleeding’ commands across discrete tasks: [Speed Brain] ‘Go faster!’ [Group] ‘No!!’ Like in Forum Theatre, dialogues is an inherently flexible activity, as people respond to each other contingently. A game that incorporates improvisation, negotiation and mediation into the very rules of its simulatio is much more successful at generating outcomes unknown to the designer.

235

FASTER! COME ON! NO NO NO NO NO NO YOUR REFLEXES ARE TERRIBLE!

STOP!!! STOP!!!!!!

WHAT’S THAT BLOODY CAR DOING THERE? OH NO! AWWW!

DOOR!

RIGHT!

237

MY RIDING STYLE WAS GREAT!

GO GO GO YEAH!!!

FIFTY FIVE? WHAT IS THAT?

FASTER FASTER FASTER!

FIFTY FIVE? HOW DID YOU ONLY GET THAT SCORE?

239

Consequences Participant analysis was not done in a vacuum but rather had immediate consequences: wrong instructions leading to the player crashing. An emerging theme was the visceral response participants felt around riding due to the immediate feedback from the game: When actually riding you have a protective bubble of hope - that you hope that the cars and trucks will avoid you. The game removes this comforting assumption and brings home the face that the riders are so vulnerable on St Kilda Road By playing the game I experienced viciously the feeling of cycling on St Kilda Road. Unlike in previous event-based chunking activities, participants here were very aware of the continual flow of cycling: It made me realise just how many snap decisions cyclist have to make and the sheer volume of hazards they face on the road. It is not something you consider as a driver I think I was mostly aware of the particular features of St Kilda Road - for cyclists and drivers. What I hadnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t noticed as much was the regularity and intensity of which these hazards can occur - and all at the same time. Immediate consequences to player interaction give participants a vested interest in paying close attention to the cycling scenario. However, too great consequences negatively effect participant contribution, as players may fear they will cause the group to fail. The playfulness of Pocket Pedal ensured a close reading of the situation (through consequences) yet still encouraged participants to explore. Interaction was always framed as play; trying new things and failing just part of enjoying the game.In Participatory Navigation, interaction with the simulation was indirect, with cycling tasks distributed through the group. The next phase of the workshop had participants playing the game individually to assess the effectiveness of Pocket Pedal as discrete artefact.

241

ANGRY DRIVER BRAIN 1. Why is this cyclist allowed on the road in the first place! 2. Out of the bike lane! 3. Too slow, get moving 4. Get over 5. Out of bike lane 6. Between the lanes of cars! NEAR MISS BRAIN Into car when going around parked Dito Too far across and into third lane and car door Dito Car went close Close to car when car parked over lane Crash into truck when gone back into lane Through a truck

ANGRY CYLIST BRAIN Out of bike lane Car side swipe No bike lane Door Car parked in lane Construction Door No lane Bus in lane Bloody car in lane Canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t these cars see me? Left turning car hit me Dored = dead Another door I will haunt this bus!

243

Activity 4: Individual Play (Pocket Pedal as discrete artefact) HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Pocket Pedal LOW FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Assessment Cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules, Conflicts, Immersion, Real-time Outcomes, Competition AIM Individual Play tested the use of Pocket Pedal as a discrete artefact in codesign. The artefact was assessed to see if a defined simulation could create a personal and collaborative environment in its own right, rather than needing to rely on supporting low-fi processes.

RESEARCH QUESTION Can codesign be extended through discrete higher-fidelity digital games? Can participants negotiate an assemblage of performance chunking by themselves? METHOD Participants form small groups, each with a smartphone. Group members take turns playing Pocket Pedal. Remaining group members assessed a participant’s ride, and offer comments and support.

DATA Off the cuff responses Oh my god, you had such an easy run through the NGV! I hit a truck, I was going too fast I think, There are a lot of dangers for cyclists out there in Melbourne today – such as cars parked on the bike lane, which stop you regenerating your health! Unpredictability and people not following the rules. You’ve had hardly any near misses - You’re as good as this as sodoku! My score is awesome! It’s ridiculous. 228!

245

DISCUSSION A lab for testing ideas The gradual introduction to Pocket Pedal through Participatory Navigation prepped participants for their personal virtual ride. When playing individually, players had to manage tasks simultaneously: travelling through urban road space, identifying infrastructure, hazard detection, avoidance, risk assessment, monitoring vehicles. Pocket Pedal required participants to negotiate an assemblage of procedural cycling blocks. Participants appreciated the flexibility of individual play, allowing riders to explore and test out ideas in a safe environment: [the game is an opportunity] to test whether we can safely and efficiently share the road as now, or whether it is necessary to have fully separated bike lanes. The video was more horrifying because it was a real person. The game allows for multiple experiences.

Mechanics Game mechanics provided the framework to ensure participants were not overwhelmed. A score, increasing every ten metres, rewarded participants for sound urban cycling through the implantation of ‘bike health’. The amount of cycling points accrued per ‘tick’ was determined by a rider’s bike health state. Higher health gave more points. There are a lot of dangers for cyclists out there in Melbourne today – such as cars parked on the bike lane, which stop you regenerating your health! Bike health decreased when a player stepped outside a bike lane, or was involved in a crash. Bike health would regenerate when a rider was correctly inside a bike lane, and immediately go back to full if a player passed over a bike box (the recommended area, painted green, where a cyclist should enter an intersection). Visual and audio warnings were used to guide players back to safety. Leaving the bike lane triggered a large animated warning to fill the bottom part of a participant’s screen. Background music pitch was tied to a player’s health: the lower a player’s health, the more sombre the music. Many players found the challenge of achieving a high score enjoyable: Really surprised at how addictive and fun it is. It’s actually like a game. You stray off the path, you’re in trouble - you’re like ‘oh my god, I need to get back on the path!’ The scoring system forced a player to confront and interact with the cycling infrastructure of the route. St Kilda road’s key infrastructural issues, bike lane proximity to parked cars and opening car doors, and the dangerous location of bike boxes, had to be negotiated. Sudden disappearances of the bike lane [on St Kilda Road] became more noticeable due to scoring system

247

A player ‘lost’ when they collided with a vehicle on low health. The force of the crash was calculated, with the collision normal vector (frontal smash, from behind, sideswipe) and likely injury sustained (broken toe, broken arm, broken neck, etc) presented to the player alongside their score. A player ‘won’ when they successfully navigated to the city. Their score was presented, alongside an assessment of their riding depending on how many bike boxes they passed.

Stakeholder discussion The assessment of ‘winning’ and ‘loosing’ created an atmosphere of healthy competition in participants: each ride gave players a metric to compare: My score is awesome! It’s ridiculous. 228! As a ‘driver’ playing a cyclist role it was fun. I do not play computer games so most of my time was a desperate attempt to get my bike back into the bike lane. The fun was comparing my results with things - especially with my wife. Wanting to do well meant participants had to analyse the virtual environment closely. Many driver participants felt the game was an effective way for them to consider urban road space from a new perspective: As I am not a cyclist, I was not aware of the numerous traffic hazards in the area and the lack of space they have available to ride safely. It puts drivers and people who use public transport in a cyclist’s shoes and I think makes every player think “wow, I had no idea it was like this for cyclists” Playing the game made it kind of glaringly obvious that cyclists have so many other factors / considerations they need to be aware of. Playing the game created a framework for participants to start filling in knowledge gaps between stakeholder types: I was surprised by elements that road drivers find difficult - like the ambiguity of where [cyclists] are meant to go at the intersection with the NGV. The game was a great leveler, with drivers and cyclists meeting in more neutral ground

249

Abstraction A key design decision was the stylised portrayal of the virtual world. The St Kilda Road of Pocket Pedal is colourful and pixelated, an attempt at diffusing some of the tension in the urban cycling debate through the creation of a playful cycling simulation. Unlike raw cycling footage, elements of cycling were emphasised or deemphasised in the cycling simulation. An exaggerated intensity was created to transform a 30 minute real ride into a three minute pocket experience. Doorings and double-parked cars were made to occur at a high frequency, the cyclist character larger than life: The game is a lot faster and the character is quite large compared to the environment, so the road seems smaller and the cars closer. It kind of amplifies/exaggerates the real experience. The game is not an exact simulation of cycling, so maybe it didn’t seem as threatening or seeming like it had a strong pro-cycling agenda, so drivers were not put off I think as a game, [cyclists and drivers] would definitely have fun as it makes light of the scenario. Some participants, however, found the stylised nature of the game distracting: It was a little too abstract to notice anything concrete. The game for me was too abstract, I had trouble identifying where I was and things happened at too great a speed….[You should work on] identifying the possible dangers at the beginning and maybe having them with distinct features Challenges Some of the non-gaming participants found Pocket Pedal had a significant learning curve: I found that the car was in the way, unexpectedly, and it suddenly shot and flipped over and there was this message - you and a sad family - I thought I was going quite ok. I was going really fast, I was speeding along, but then I had an accident and unfortunately I have a ‘sad family’ at home. If I’d done it before it would have been easier. Doing it for the first time, going out and in and fast was a bit hard. While [younger participants] are used to doing it. I reckon if I got used to it I’d be good. A ‘High Vis Mode’, turning a player bright yellow, attempted to reduce the game’s learning curve for non gaming participants. High Vis Mode turned off collisions between the cyclists and cars, allowing a player to pass through hazards. This feature was less successfully than hoped, as participants most in need were the individuals with the least ability to activate the mode.

Results Made it to the City?

Score

Comment

Yes

Riding style: OK!

Injury: Sad family!

YES

152

Riding style: Great!

YES

228

Riding style: Great!

Injury: Frontal Smash!

Injury: Sad family!

YES

Riding style: Poor!

YES

230

Riding Style: Great!

Scores from recorded rides in the workshop indicated over half of participants successfully â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Pocket Pedal. Only two recorded rides failed. Even amongst non-gaming participants, the majority successfully navigated the assemblage of performance chunks of cycling.

Pocket Pedal as a discrete artefact An artefact must be very robust in order to support participants playing on their own. Unlike in Participatory Navigation, unstructured play had no supporting low-fi processes to make up for gaps in the simulation. Game mechanics alone guided a player, and controls had to be developed that were easy enough for non-gamers to use. Pocket Pedal was, in most senses, robust enough for individual play. When participants could take complete control over a character, they can appropriate it entirely for themselves. Cycling environments participants wanted to experience again could be retried; new strategies deployed. Individual play let participants discover new things and then test out this new knowledge in their next run of the game. The lure of a higher score is tempting: A: Two-twenty-eight. Two hundred and twenty-eight. Just saying. B: [Turns around in shock:] You got a score of 228?? Though participants played individually, through the smartphone medium, play occurred simultaneously. Game mechanics such as scoring and injury type turned the personal attachment generated through individual interaction into tools for collaboration. The final part of the workshop attempted to use this collaborative, expanded design space in participants to generate new ideas.

251

OH, DID YOU JUST BANG INTO OH THE SIDE? NO.... YOU DIDN’T SEE THAT! YOU’RE DEAD... UP IN HEAVEN!

OH NO YOU GOT RUN OVER.. THAT’S REALLY BAD WHERE HAS THE BIKE LANE GONE? OH SHIT... THAT WAS A BAD ONE

WHAT DID YOU DO THERE? I’M GETTING THE BONUS POINT [BOXES]. THEY’RE RIGHT IN THE BIKELANE YOU’RE JUST CRUISING NOW!

OH MY GOD MY SCORE IS AWESOME THIS TIME

THIS IS THE BEST I’VE EVER BEEN!

253

[YOU GOT A SCORE OF] 228???

DO YOU [WANT TO] KNOW HOW MANY INJURIES YOU HAD?

228. 228. JUST SAYING

255

Activity 5: Prompt Game (low fidelity artefacts) HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Null LOW FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Site map, Prompt Cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules The Prompt Game let participants step back from previous workshop activities. By taking Prompt cards, participants were encouraged to critique both urban cycling conditions and design assumptions made in Pocket Pedal. RESEARCH QUESTION How have these design methods impacted participant conceptions of existing conditions of St Kilda road? Can such codesign activities create a productive environment for idea generation? AIMS Previous workshop activities aimed to expand the design space of participants by interrogating existing cycling conditions and exposing participants to new ideas. The Prompt Game attempted to use this expanded design space to generate novel solutions and ideas around urban cycling and St Kilda Road.

METHOD Participants were asked to annotate a high quality aerial map of the route. Annotation was done by filling in a series of cards with headings like: I wish this was… It’s dangerous here…

257

I saw this overseas once… Here’s a silly idea… I like… The cards aimed to prompt individuals, creating a supportive framework for idea generation.

DATA Responses: Fantastic combination bike parking and pause station to check one’s computer at work Separate designated bike lane where it was obvious there would be congestion / obstacles [Image of busses outside NGV] ] A seperated lane to safely switch lanes and cars have to wait for you to safely go [Image of Kings way lane change [Image of General SKR run] Bike lane in left lane. Why note have a bike lane down the centre of St Kild a Road, seperated from traffic (Participant underline) [Image of Kings way lane change] Bike traffic lights, refined bike track bike lanes Survey: No. I’ve already spent signifcant time looking at different design options. However, it was good to consolidate. Yes we talked together about the separated route in Coburg that we would like seem applied. The Copenhagen ideas also helped. It did not give me direct ideas but definetely made me think about how much there was to gain from a workshop directly dedicated to coming up with new ways to achieve “harmony: on the road with all the different types of commuters See (4.) I also enjoyd seeing the innovative parking ideas shown in [Activity 2B]. I liked the Norman Foster ideas of elevating the bike lanes. In his case, above the London Underground. I really think the only safe bikelane is a seperated bike lane. The obvius idea is for Copenhagen style bike lanes. I know that there are various issues and design difficulties with this. Perhaps the next game could be to design the bike lanes! I loved the picture of bike riders in Japan(?) Pulled intoa dock type structure with bikes - laptops - the importance of[clarify] and functionally bike racks. yes: connecting the bike lane the whole route; separating cycling from parking AND driving (ie. not placing cycling in between parking/driving lanes) so cars don’t block the route (grade separation?); The workshop did give me a few ideas about designing new ways for cyclists to use the road. The main idea that I had would be some kind of completely separate cycling lane that cars actually cannot use. Similar to a footpath but purely for cyclists to use, with no parked cars etc

259

DISCUSSION Mixed idea generation Emergent from responses from all stakeholder types was the desire for segregated bike infrastructure: Separate designated bike lane where it was obvious there would be congestion and obstacles A separated lane to safely switch lanes and cars have to wait for you to safely go Why not have a bike lane down the centre of St Kilda Road, separated from traffic? Bike traffic lights, refined bike track Bike lanes Idea generation, however, was less successful. Many annotations were simple statements lacking a deeper level of analysis. A major contributing factor was fatigue, as participants had been undertaking workshop activities for several hours. Some responses did draw on previous activities: What about a possible scoring system in real life? Ie. similar to green lights pacing distance between lights? I wish this was… a fantastic combination bike parking and pause station to check one’s computer while riding These responses were the most fine-grained, considering the process of cycling rather than simple statements.

The need for immediate response in simulation One factor limiting idea generation was intimidation: participants felt their ideas were less valid than professional planners: Participant A: ‘is this is just for you….?’ Participant B: ‘not for like, urban planners?’ [laughs] The lack of a feedback system for the proposals and the open ended nature of the activity contributed to the creation of a less productive environment for ideas. Previous activities had defined, limited frameworks with immediate consequences for participant input. Such constraints are conducive to idea generation as participants focus on the artificial rules / boundaries of the activity rather than the consequences of their ideas in the real world. Activity 4 was less effective at facilitating participants to recompile their cycling analysis into specific infrastructural solutions. The activity demonstrated the importance of using consequences and immediate response for future workshop activities.

261

Appreciation of human infrastructure Rather than focus on the specifics of suggesting new built infrastructure, many responses indicated a new appreciation for the behavioural issues around urban cycling: It did not give me direct ideas but definitely made me think about how much there was to gain from … coming up with new ways to achieve harmony on the road with all the different types of commuters This human infrastructure (pedestrian, traffic, and cyclists identities and behaviour) is by nature ephemeral and hardest to define (refer Section 1) This, in turn, makes it difficult to be ‘designed’ by planners and architects. In future activities, creating a more game-like activity for infrastructural proposals should be explored. Important missing elements are using defined rules and game props (forcing participants to focus on the specifics), and implementing an immediate feedback system (creating a safe space for participants to test out ideas). In any case, though participants may not have the expertise to design physical infrastructure, they can make effective contributions to a road’s human infrastructure, key to any successful cycling environment.

263

265

Workshop Discussion The Pocket Pedal workshop demonstrated the knowledge a designer can gain around an issue from running codesign games. Game artefacts are ‘things’ architects can make that prompt users to ‘do’. Making actions physical is easy to conceptualise for a profession that is focused around designing (albeit very large) objects. Through the considered design of simulation, spaces for self-discovery in users can be created. By embedding these artefacts in further activities, this self-discovery is transformed into activist design.

Design frame Each codesign game employed different methods to break down cycling into various conceptual ‘blocks’ for participants to test. Participant responses indicated that this shared design frame allowed stakeholders to reinterpret a familiar environment: I didn’t realise how important it was as a cycling road and that it is also a danger to the cyclists using the road. To me as a driver, it was just another road really, not that different from any other Some road users are focused on their destination so much that other factors aren’t considered. Workshops provide a fuller picture of what is going on and [makes participants] consider all road users involved. The shared design frame allowed knowledge gaps between participants to be highlighted. An emergent theme through workshop activities was the legitimisation of bike riders. Namely, the idea that infrastructure often causes cyclists to behave in an ‘erratic’ manner as seen by motorists: Especially for the motorists who have not ridden a bike since they were kids and see riders as bloody nuisances rather than legitimate road users. It changes their consciousness. It made me realize there is a reason that cyclists sometimes have to ride in what may seem an “erratic” manner. Workshop activities gave a chance for participants to explore all experiences surrounding urban cycling, creating a space where previous conceptions could be left behind.

267

Combining game artefacts The use of rules in design games is important in establishing a defined space participants can engage in. Element based chunking made participants think of cycling in terms sequential blocks of rider, setting and moment. Performance chunking broke cycling down to the various tasks that need to be performed when riding (navigation, hazard identification, speed, etc). Such methods forced participants to move away from the general to look at the specifics of an issue. Each set of rules framed participant interrogation: element chunking exposed participants to a wider set of cycling conditions, performance chunking led to more considered analysis of a single ride. Each simulation also had trade-offs. Element chunking drew focus away from the ‘flow’ of cycling. Performance chunking required a much higher fidelity simulation. The difference in participant ‘output’ per simulation emphasises the important of complementing games with each other for optimal results. Game artefacts are powerful when they are nested. A low fidelity game can expose participants to the diversity of an issue (Journey Game) while a subsequent simulation can let players experience a more limited but much detailed segment of it (Pocket Pedal). A card game ‘controlling’ a videogame makes a limited high fidelity simulation flexible and contingent (Participatory Navigation).

Creating a safer space through feedback mechanisms Feedback for participant input is vital for testing ideas. In the Pocket Pedal cycling simulation, participant direction of the player had immediate consequences: poor judgement would cause the player to crash or lose points. In the Backwards Interview Game, points motivated participants, even when they had no effect on activities. Without immediate response, participants cannot test out ideas in an activity and are more likely to break out of the magic circle. The Prompt Game had the least amount of feedback built in: participants were unsure if their ideas for the St Kilda Road route were ‘good enough’. There was no system for individuals to test out ideas, no ability for participants to respond and update their proposals according to new information learned. These artificial systems of cause and effect in games create a protective space for participants. Players can concentrate on the rules and consequences of the game, rather than focusing on (and become intimidated by) the issue in reality. Upon reflection, ‘Responsiveness’ should be added to the parameters of simulation alongside fidelity, flexibility, authority and immersion.

Using novelty, engagement and play Novelty and engagement should not be underestimated in participatory design activities. Games create informal atmospheres, best for idea creation (Brandt 2006b). Good game mechanics challenge people, focusing participants by investing them in an activity’s success. High scores and points metricise participation, giving individuals a framework in which to compare results and a vector for engaging with each other. The whole workshop was engaging partly because of the use of mixed stimuli - photos, videos and of course the iPhone game….I think this type of lively workshop has great potential for schools, even learners drivers and other groups. Approaching the issue in an unorthodox way enabled the opportunity for novel ideas. There is an emergent quality in play. Participants do not only interrogating a situation with a game, but also explore through engaging with each other. Emergent vectors are comparison (what score did you get?), observation (watching another participant play) and interaction (egging each other on, giving a player advice). Playing a design game creates metadesign synergies, where agents combine to create new outcomes exceeding the sum of their parts (Wood 2008).

Workshop Outcomes Though the workshop did not generate ‘solutions’ to cycling, this is less important. In an ecology as complex as cycling, design needs to play a role managing such spaces rather than simply designing things and leaving. From this perspective, the workshop was successful. Follow up interviews (a week later) revealed playing Pocket Pedal had a measurable influence on how some saw St Kilda Road: [Cyclist]: When riding the same route I was very conscious of how this part looked in the game and the elements that were influencing why this section of the road was particularly bad [Driver]: When I drive up, my focus is getting to the destination quickly without really taking in my surroundings. Playing the game has influenced the way I think in St KIlda Road now. I’m almost hyperaware of anything around me. [Cyclist] [Playing the game] gave the route an identity and differentiated it from all cycling problems. The activities made the issues present, and seem more approachable and tangible to change rather than just the general comment that cycling infrastructure is bad as a whole and therefore too large a problem to fix. Play, it seems, caused a lasting impact in these participants.

269

Future work Many lessons were learnt for future workshops. Participatory Navigation (using a card game to ‘play’ the smartphone game PocketPedal) was a great success and should be further developed. Stakeholder generated rules (for example, ‘write your own brain card’) would be an interesting method for making high fidelity electronic games ‘moddable’ by participants. There was a focus on need-generation and reducing stakeholder ignorance in the workshop. Future workshops should more deeply explore idea creation through games. Additionally, workshops should be run with a more diverse/ conflicting set of stakeholders, as all participants in this instance were friendly and accommodating for the duration of the workshop. Immersive participatory gaming on smartphones is a new frontier. Only recently have mobile devices become powerful enough to run fully 3D worlds made of unoptimised code generated by a novice coder (such as an architecture student). The implications of ubiquitous smartphone power are huge. Smartphones allow virtual simulation to break out of computers and into the pockets of everyone, always connected. Can the productive metagame produced by the workshop setting be replicated without needing the workshop itself? If the workshop process could be replicated online, and Pocket Pedal released to the public, participation would increase exponentially. What could the cumulative effect of tens of thousand of people in Melbourne participating in an electronic codesign process be?

271

Bibliography

Albinsson, L., Forsgren, O. & Lind, M., 2008. Towards a Co-Design Approach for Open Innovation. Designed for Co-designers workshop, 1(5), pp.1–5. Albinsson, L., Forsgren, O. & Lind, M., Towards a Co-Design Approach for Open Innovation. Aldred, R., 2012. Incompetent or too competent? Negotiating everyday cycling identities in a motor dominated society. , (August 2015). Aldred, R., Woodcock, J. & Goodman, A., 2015. Does More Cycling Mean More Diversity in Cycling? Transport Reviews, (August), pp.1–17. Allatt, T.F., Turner, S. & Tarjomi, L., 2013. Reallocation of road space August 2013, Allen, R., 2011. The Unreal Enemy of America’s Army. Games and Culture, 6(1), pp.38–60. Binder, T., 1999. Setting the stage for improvised video scenarios. In CHI ’99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '99. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 230. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. & Hillgren, P.-A., 2012. Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign, 8(2-3), pp.127– 144. Bogost, I., 2007. Persuasive games : the expressive power of videogames / Ian Bogost., Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2007. Bogost, I., 2006. Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism, Brandt, E., 2006a. Designing exploratory design games. In Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design Expanding boundaries in design - PDC ’06. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 57. Brandt, E., 2006b. Designing exploratory design games. Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design Expanding boundaries in design - PDC ’06, 1(September), p.57. Brandt, E., 2007. How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), pp.179–192. Brandt, E., Messeter, J. & Binder, T., 2008. Formatting design dialogues – games and participation. CoDesign, 4(1), pp.51–64. Chaurand, N. & Delhomme, P., 2013. Cyclists and drivers in road interactions: A comparison of perceived crash risk. Accident; analysis and prevention, 50, pp.1176–84. Cossio, M.L.T. et al., 2012. Block’hood: Developing an architectural simulation video game. Uma ética para quantos?, XXXIII(2), pp.81–87. Daniel Eriksson, Johan Peitz, S.B., 2005. Socially Adaptable Games. In DiGRA 2005. DiSalvo, C., 2012. Adversarial design / Carl DiSalvo., Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2012.

ESA, 2015. 2015 Sales, Demographic and Usage Data, Ferrara, J., 2013. Games for Persuasion: Argumentation, Procedurality, and the Lie of Gamification. Games and Culture, 8(4), pp.289–304. Fishman, E., Schepers, P. & Kamphuis, C.B.M., 2015. Dutch Cycling: Quantifying the Health and Related Economic Benefits. American Journal of Public Health, 105(8), pp.e1–e3. Frasca, G., 2001a. Frasca, Gonzalo. 2001. “Videogames of the Oppressed :videogames as a Means for Critical Thinking and Debate.” https://ezp.lib. unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsndl&AN=edsndl.oai.union.ndltd.org.GATECH.oai.s. Frasca, G., 2001b. Rethinking agency and immersion: video games as a means of consciousness-raising. Digital Creativity, 12(3), p.167. Frasca, G., 2003. Simulation versus narrative. The video game theory reader, pp.221–235. Fuller, M. & Matos, S., 2011. FCJ-135 Feral Computing: From Ubiquitous Calculation to Wild Interactions. The Fibreculture Journal, (FCJ-135). Garrard, J., Rose, G. & Lo, S.K., 2008. Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive medicine, 46(1), pp.55–9. Goldberg, J.L., The misallocation of public money for both public and private transport infrastructure. Gössling, S., 2013. Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen, city of cyclists. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, pp.196–206. Gotschi, T., 2011. Costs and benefits of bicycling investments in Portland, Oregon. Journal of physical activity & health, 8 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), pp.S49– S58. Götschi, T., Garrard, J. & Giles-Corti, B., 2015. Cycling as a Part of Daily Life: A Review of Health Perspectives. Transport Reviews, 1647(September), pp.1–27. Halskov, K. & Dalsgård, P., 2006. Inspiration card workshops. Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, pp.2–11. Huizinga, J., 1955. Homo ludens : a study of the play-element in culture., Boston : Beacon Press, 1955. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R., 2004. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI. Johnson, M., 2011. Cyclist safety: an investigation of how cyclists and drivers interact on the roads. Jones, J.C., 1979. Designing designing. Design Studies, 1(1), pp.31–35. Kim, Y.-H. & Lee, J.-H., 2015. Game interface enhancement under smartphone platform focused on touchscreen interaction. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 80, pp.45–61.

273

Lee, A. & March, A., 2010. Recognising the economic role of bikes: sharing parking in Lygon Street, Carlton. Australian Planner, 47(2), pp.85–93. Lerner, J., 2014. Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics. Lugo, A.E., 2010. Planning for Diverse Use / rs : Ethnographic Research on Bikes , Bodies , and Public Space in LA. Kroeber Anthropological Society, 101(1), pp.49–65. O’Connor, D., Nix, J. & Bradshaw, S., 2011. Shopping Travel Behaviour in Dublin City Centre. Proceedings of the Irish Transport Research Network Conference 2011. Oak, J.W. & Bae, J.H., 2014. Development of Smart Multiplatform Game App using UNITY3D Engine for CPR Education. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering VO - 9, (7), p.263. Pelletier, C. & Kneebone, R., 2015. Playful Simulations Rather Than Serious Games: Medical Simulation as a Cultural Practice. Games and Culture, pp.1–25. Popan, C., 2015a. MAMILS, segregation and the carbon “racers”. The British cycling’s journey towards inclusive “body-city-machine” assemblages. In Intellectual Party | Summer Conference, At Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. Popan, C., 2015b. Mobile and interdisciplinary methods . Reporting from the saddle. Ethnography Now: Making, Doing and Selling Ethnography in the 21st Century, At Manchester. Pucher, J., Buehler, R. & Seinen, M., 2011. Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(6), pp.451–475. Ratto, M., 2014. Textual doppelgangers: Critical issues in the story of technology. In M. Ratto & M. Boler, eds. DIY citizenship : critical making and social media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mit Press. Rockwell, G.M. & Kee, K., 2014. The Leisure of Serious Games: A Dialogue. the international journal of computer game research, 11(2). Rojas-Rueda, D. et al., 2011. The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. BMJ, 343(aug04 2), pp.d4521–d4521. Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of play : game design fundamentals., Cambridge, Mass. ; London : MIT Press, c2004. Sanders, R.L., 2015. Perceived traffic risk for cyclists: The impact of near miss and collision experiences. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 75, pp.26–34. Sengers, P. et al., 2005. Reflective Design. 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility, pp.49–58. Steffen P. Walz, S.D. ed., 2015. The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, The MIT Press.

Teschke, K. et al., 2012. Bicycling: Health Risk or Benefit? University of British Columbia Medical Journal, 3(March), pp.6–11. Thackara, J., 2005. In the bubble : designing in a complex world., Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2005. Westerlund, B., 2009. Design Space Exploration : co-operative creation of proposals for desired interactions with future artefacts, Whittemore, a. H., 2014. Phenomenology and City Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(3), pp.301–308. Wood, J., 2008. Changing the Change: A Fractal Framework for Metadesign. Changing the Change Design, Visions, Proposals and Tools, p.8. Woods, S., 2004. Loading the dice: The challenge of serious videogames. Game Studies, 4(1). Wylie, S.A. et al., 2014. Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making is Transforming Environmental Research. The Information Society, 30(2), pp.116–126. Zielke, M. a. et al., 2009. Serious Games for Immersive Cultural Training: Creating a Living World. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29(2), pp.49–60.

275

urban gaming tooL kit Redesigning the design process for more creative output (from both participants and designers)

The Urban Gaming Toolkit amplifies collaborative design through the creation of games. This toolkit is intended for designers wanting to make a codesign process focused on finding novel opportunities with stakeholders in difficult situations. Engaging through play can generate the unexpected outcomes needed for stalemate conditions.

You have a problem that you cannot just ‘fix’. Where does design come in? Embracing codesign means recognising that architectural and urban issues cannot be solved by individual designers operating in isolation. Cities are complex, involving an overwhelming number of conflicts and unknowns. Rather than ‘fixing’ a problem, designers can help create the productive spaces which support the social activities needed for change. The Urban Gaming Toolkit explores the use of games as collaborative artefacts designers can situate in codesign activities. The toolkit will help you design ‘productive lab space’, letting designers and participants move away from existing conceptions around a problem to creating something new.

279

How can design move me away from existing assumptions? Traditional design techniques such as architectural renders are representational, meaning designers produce a description of traits already known. Games, on the other hand, are based on an alternative structure known as simulation. Simulations allow designers and stakeholders to interact with a dynamic system. By making productive lab spaces with games, problems can be constructed in a way that lets both stakeholders and designers explore and test. Well-designed games move stakeholders away from being passive participants in a design process to active players. Outcomes resulting from the creation of active players may be the production of knowledge or ideas; a reduction of ignorance; or collaboration between previously hostile stakeholders.

How should this toolkit be used? How can designers design the unknown? This toolkit will help you. The Urban Gaming Toolkit will give you strategies for three phases of a workshop: activating, levelling and then need generation. You’ll have to consider the experiences, values and emotions stakeholders will be bringing to the workshop. How can games be made immersive so stakeholders can experience the new perspectives you are showing them, yet still be flexible to encourage players to contribute things themselves? Though you design the artefacts creating a simulation, the experiences participants gain; and the output these artefacts make; are unknown. How will your design process respond effectively to the novel experiences generated from your games? This metagame must also be designed. You’ll need to select your sites; physical (where will the workshop be held?) virtual (what simulations will I create?) and hybrid (what artefacts do I need to design?). You’ll want to record the ‘output’ your lab produces. This output is not made once at the end but rather actively created throughout the workshop. You’ll need effective data generation methods so you can capture this output for future use.

281

What the Urban Gaming Toolkit won't do Don’t expect your workshop participants to come up with immediately implementable ideas through your design games – that’s not their job.

Instead, the Urban Gaming Toolkit creates spaces where you can generate unexpected outcomes, challenging both you and stakeholders. This lets you design change in participants. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s then up to you as a designer to use this change effectively.

283

Challenges and omissions The Urban Gaming Toolkit is a prototype; a limited â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tasteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of how urban gaming can be applied to the design process. The toolkit is to be expanded; modified and critiqued. Due to time constraints, the toolkit was developed through a limited amount of testing (primarily through one workshop event with stakeholders who mostly knew each other). Each time a workshop is run, knowledge is gained not just around the issue to be explored but about the urban gaming codesign process itself. Lessons learnt from running this workshop will be applied to future urban gaming labs; which then generate new strategies for the toolkit. Using games for more focused idea generation, and testing the processes on more diverse stakeholders are areas to be explored in future urban gaming workshops.

285

set up

mind sets

Players, not participants An activated audience is critical for success. Research shows when people are â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;activated,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; they are likely to be bolder, sweep aside inhibitions, challenge the status quo and propose new ideas. Specifically, you want to create these mindsets in participants: Surprise Focus Legitimacy Reflection Competition

Unproductive attitudes: Interactive activities are powerful. However, specific design strategies should be implemented to avoid the following mindsets, which create less productive spaces: Intimidation Conflict Disinterest 289

sites

The physical Where will I hold my workshop? All workshops occur in spaces. Most occur in rooms. When using design games, ensure spaces do more than just accommodate group activates. Run activities in places large enough to be divided into multiple areas; allow plenty of room to bleed activities into each other. This allows multiple activities to be run in parallel. You will use more space than you think. Physical space should facilitate your activities, not fight them. Adequate light and low background noise is crucial for better data capture. Consider comfort in participants: too hot a space and participants will quickly tire and disengage. Refreshments (pizza, beer, etc) are great bribes for concentration. Physical space can also be employed to reengage an audience. Use of multiple spaces, (eg moving rooms, inside and outside) can be an effective strategy to break up activities, giving participants a chance to engage in micro-discussions, reshuffle and refresh themselves.

291

The Virtual What games will I create? Electronic games enable participants to explore any site in the safety and comfort of a workshop setting. Sites where familiarity with the location is unevenly distributed across participants, or sites that are dangerous, or even difficult to access, all can easily be interrogated through games. Gameplay needs to be easily broken up so it is flexible for your activities and for participants. Multiple short periods of play are more suited for use in workshops than long unstructured play/s Many participants will be unfamiliar with games, making it even more important that virtual spaces are made approachable for all. They should not rely on gaming conventions that may be obvious to you, but unclear to a non-gamer. Menus, HUDs (heads up displays) and complex controls should be avoided. To ensure non-gaming participants can actively contribute to activities, have strategies available to assist these participants (Participatory Navigation, Self-Reporting). The interactivity of electronic games means as a designer, you have less control of your artefacts than in representational design. Trial games consistently on a diverse set of people. You will need a constant supply of test players who have never played your game to ensure the experience of playing for the first time (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;getting used to the gameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be an unsurmountable barrier.

Hybrid What artefacts do I need to design? Virtual sites work best when they are considered situated games in physical space. Participants do not â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;playâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; your simulations directly. Rather, they interact with the tangible artefacts you design. Through artefacts, you design the conditions of play. Consider the physical experience of all games. Paper props are easily blown away, or mixed up and lost. Electronic props may intimidate participants.

293

(Simulation)

sim UL AT ION

simulation type

All games are simulations. Simulation is a process of simplifying. A scenario is broken down into a designed set of rules and starting conditions that react to player ‘input’ to producing new things (output). By defining a scenario as a set of rules, participants approach a messy, complex problem through a clear, structured framework of a game. By playing the game, players can experimentally interact with a dynamic system to produce novel experiences. This means though a designer creates the conditions of a simulation, she only indirectly shapes a player’s experience of it. This indirect design is a useful tool for generating unexpected outcomes.

297

Electronic simulations Electronic simulations are videogames. They are often high fidelity, and immersive, describing experiences much more explicitly than cardboard simulation. In the context of this toolkit, electronic simulations are best used when there is a need to explore a site in real-time, or when participant input needs an immediate response. For example, electronic simulations are useful in exploring problems arising through contrasting speeds different stakeholders navigate through an area.

EXAMPLE Performance Chunking Performance chunking is a simulation approach that breaks down a site into the series of tasks, or processes, that operate / are experienced in it. Consider a simulation of cycling. A designer can break down a scenario into the tasks needed to ride: movement, navigation, hazard avoidance, infrastructure detection. By playing the game, players can explore the impacts of these tasks. Performance chunking lets a designer draw attention to the relationships between objects, rather than just the physical objects themselves. Nested Performance Chunking also be used as a participatory technique itself â&#x20AC;&#x201C; (see Participatory Navigation).

Cardboard computing Cardboard computing creates simulation out of physical props. Cardboard simulations can be effective strategies in their own right, rather than being considered mock-ups of future electronic simulations. Card games and board games all run through cardboard computing. Through ‘cardboard’ props, run-time conditions are created (a game’s rules), ‘input’ is processed (how someone plays the game) and ‘output’ generated (the consequences of a player’s action). For the purpose of this toolkit, all non-electronic games are considered ‘cardboard’. In urban gaming, mock interviews, roleplays etc often are augmented with card-based props. Cardboard simulation is less immersive than electronic (cards are a much more abstract representation than a videogame’s world) but are very quick to create and extend.

299

EXAMPLE:Block Chunking Block chunking breaks a scenario down into a series of discrete concept ‘blocks’. These blocks can physically be made through paper cards for players to interact with (see Cards). There are two parts of a block: the element of the situation the block represents, as well as how it can influence other blocks. Continuing the example of cycling, blocks can create a simulation of riding. This framework would include a rider block (a character, for example, Mark), a setting block (a risky ride) and a series of moment blocks on the ride (images of experiences of cycling). Important in block chunking is ensuring concept blocks are interoperable with each other. This lets participants test out new combinations. Various blocks can create the starting conditions of the simulation (‘character’ and ‘ride scenario’ blocks) which players must satisfy with other blocks (a string of ‘moment blocks’ creating a ride meeting these conditions). Block chunking is an effective strategy for unifying a series of separate concepts into a framework where participants can combine them into something new. For example, cycling moments from separate physical locations can be made into personal ‘journeys’ that combine different cycling infrastructure in interesting/novel ways.

301

simulation taxonomy

The following parameters define the conditions of your simulation. Optimising your games with these in mind will create conditions that have the most chance of producing useful results.

303

Fidelity How many defined rules are there in the simulation? This determines a game’s fidelity. While fidelity does not necessarily produce complexity (is chess less complex than Counterstrike?), higher fidelity simulations are usually required for more immersive experiences. Lower fidelity simulations abstract and simplify. The higher the fidelity of a simulation, the more effort its design requires, as the creation of many more rules is necessary.

Flexibility How flexible are the ‘rules’ governing the game to participants at run-time? More rigid games have defined rules that cannot be changed by players. Rigid simulations generate responses mostly known by the designer, while flexible simulations are more open to player interpretation, and so generate a diverse range of potentially unforseen outcomes. Flexibility allows a simulation to be modified at run-time (when a game/simulation is ‘played’). This allows rules to be tweaked if the elements are found too difficult by participants. Rigid simulations cannot be modified, and so cannot be ‘updated’ as easily.

Immersion How much ‘computing’ does a simulation undertake for participants at run-time? Videogames are immersive simulations, where most of the experience of playing one is offloaded to the computer and so does not need to be considered by the player. In codesign games, this ‘offloading’ defines immersion, not how realistic a simulation is. Enacted scenarios are less immersive simulations; participants ‘generate’ runtime conditions themselves. Immersive simulations can be employed to explore complex environments, as the game takes care of much of the complexity for participants. This ‘offloading to the computer’ means immersive simulations are of a higher fidelity and are usually more rigid (rules being less discretionary by participants) unless explicitly designed as flexible (see sandbox games such as Minecraft). Immersive yet flexible simulations require large amounts of time to create as singular games (all the flexible conditions must be described in rules designed before the simulation is run) and are usually outside the scope of design games.

305

Authority Does the gameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design create an experience that empowers participants to challenge assumptions made in the simulationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creation? An example of an authoritative simulation is traffic modelling, frequently used as evidence. Realism in games often conveys authority to participants. In codesign gaming, simulations should be authoritative enough to generate believable outcomes by participants, but still encourage critique and debate.

Responsiveness How responsive is a game to participant input? Immediate consequences to player interaction give participants a vested interest in paying close attention to the game. Responsiveness enables players to focus and run ideas through the rules of the game (simple, fun, achievable), while not being overwhelmed by the complexities and requirements of the real world. Where consequences in a simulation are too high, players may fear failure, and participant contribution is negatively impacted.

307

(Methods)

me th OD S

activat ing

Methods for activivating a workshop audience An activated audience is imporant for any codesign activity. Research shows when people engage with an issue they become â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;activatedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;: becoming bolder, sweeping aside inhibitions, and challenging the status quo. Each game should have the higher goal of making a collaborative, engaged environment for discussion and idea generation.

311

Glimpses People are naturally cautious. In order for participants to productively engage in design games, they need to be warmed up. Your first activities should make participants feel comfortable in the space, readying them for more interesting (and perhaps radical, or confrontational) activities. One method you can use is ‘glimpses’: short, structured introductions to the virtual environments you’ll be using later on. This exposes participants to complexity without forcing them to interact with it. Warm up games can strategically introduce your interactive experience through traditional representational means (images from game, sounds used). Warm up games should have minimal barriers for participation.

EXAMPLE: IDENTIFICATION QUIZ If codesign games represent a real world place participants know, a quiz can be made from in-game screenshots that participants must identify. This establishes a link between the virtual world, real world and the workshop, and begins to create a common workshop frame.

Mock Interviews Use mock interviews as a framework for stakeholders to get to know each other. Mock interviews establish a collaborative framework to be developed between participants from a diverse set of backgrounds. Divide workshop members into small groups and direct participants to ask specific questions about their partner. This gives participants a basis for beginning a conversation with their fellow workshop members.

Vested Interests as collective framing creates conditions for collaboration. Scoring is an easy way to create vested interest. The workshop group can be scored as a collective, or as individuals. This shifts participant focus away from themselves, and towards the introductory activity, through good-natured collaboration and competition.

313

level ling

Methods for leveling stakeholders through simulation Integrating stakeholders with varying backgrounds, values and competencies participatory processes can be difficult. Games can help.

Breaking down complexity Simulation is an effective way to reduce ignorance in stakeholders. Games create a simplified version of reality readily approachable by participants. The interactive nature of simulation means participants can explore the interlinked elements of an issue through a structured framework. Simulations are â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;labsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; where participants can both understand parameters and see consequences at run time. Design issues that need a systems or ecology based approach (assemblages of many interlinked elements) are well suited for simulation.

315

Feedback mechanisms Feedback mechanisms make Magic circles Artificial systems of cause and effect in games create a protective space for participants. Players can concentrate on the rules and consequences of the game, rather than focusing on (and becoming intimidated by) the issue in reality. This is known as the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;magic circleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, a protective space where players are spared the physical consequences of their actions. By making magic circles, designers create safe spaces where participants can test out ideas without worrying about failure. This testing allows participants to engage in selfdiscovery, finding out new things themselves rather than passively being told. This personal learning is effective at challenging preconceived ideas in participants.

Collective framing Play creates collective framing. Through the creation of magic circles, play makes an issue non-serious and seem surmountable. Using play in codesign activities creates a shared frame of reference in participants. Stakeholders become players, only needing to learn the rules of the game to make active contribution (magic circles). Play creates a common language participants can use, letting stakeholders with different backgrounds, values and experiences work productively together.

Competition = Triangulation Competition = TriangulationGames allow opposing stakeholders to engage with each other in a non-confrontational manner. Playful competition in workshop activities lets stakeholders interact with each other in a structured, safe framework. Participant focus can be drawn away from personal gripes with other stakeholders, to engaging with the rules of the game. Designing readily describable results (see Quantified Outcomes) make this play collaborative. Participants triangulate on comparing results of their play, rather than focusing directly on each other. 317

INCOM PLETE GAMING

Methods for Metagaming: creating participant needs through incomplete gaming: Metagaming is the codesign process a game is embedded in. Situating games in a responsive design process allows the novel experiences your games create to be made into a productive process of need generation. Needs arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t simply â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;foundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by a designer. They must be actively imagined and created by stakeholders. Without a process of need creation, stakeholders may simply repeat characteristics of the environment they already know, rather than imagine new things.

319

Games as assemblage Games as part of an assemblage of codesign A single perfect game does not have to achieve everything in a workshop. Instead, use fidelity to your advantage. Simulation can be made with varying degrees of fidelity. Aim to use a combination of low and high fidelity activities/artefacts to efficiently generate desired outcomes. High fidelity games have advantages in terms of the immersive and complex experiences they support. However, designing high fidelity games takes effort and technical skill. Low fidelity games are easy to create and are flexible. Rather than using games as discrete objects to be playtested, embed them in codesign activities. Consider games part of a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;constellationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of artefacts that augment each other. A lower fidelity cardboard computing game (refer Cardboard computing) can make participants aware of the breadth of experiences around an issue. A subsequent higher fidelity electronic game enables participants to explore a segment of it in detail. In further cardboard activities, participants can apply the knowledge they have gained to a broader range of areas.

Nesting Nesting games to create contingent, immersive experiences Nesting extends the concept of embedding game artefacts by ‘inserting’ one game (a high fidelity game, electronic) into another (a lower fidelity game, cardboard). Through nesting, designers and participants can insert new rules for play in the electronic game through a cardboard game. This allows an electronic game to be extended with minimal effort. For example, participants can be directed via instruction cards to play a videogame like a specific person, or with a certain attitude. The electronic game is then made more contingents. New rules can be inserted into the videogame, participant attention can be drawn to particular elements of simulation, all without modifying code. Through nesting, participants can even ‘mod’ the game itself (creating new conditions for play, etc).

321

Participatory Navigation Use Participatory Navigation to collectively play a one player simulation Participatory Navigation nests a videogame (Game One) into a cardboard computing game (Game Two). The ‘player’, a participant more confident in gaming, plays a high fidelity simulation on a large screen. The rest of workshop participants spectate. This is Game One. Game One is then ‘nested’ into a card game, Game Two. Spectators each receive a ‘Brain’ card instructing them in a task they must do. Each task is an element of playing Game One: navigation, speed, setting risk level. The ‘player’ then must play Game One following the instructions of the group ‘Brain’ (Game Two). Participatory Navigation is effective strategy for exposing participants to more difficult simulations.

Metagaming through Playful simulation Use playful simulation as a design method to generate informed debate A playful simulation exposes value judgements made in a game as non-natural (that is, decided by the designer) and fallible. Parameters often hidden from the player in the black box of a simulation are highlighted as artificial through exaggerated, nonrealistic representation. At the same time, these simulations still project the confidence needed for participants to explore ideas in an immersive experience. This critique can be used as a method for exploring an issue without the need for a game that ‘covers’ everything. Further activities – ‘the metagame’ - can use the informed debate generated from playful simulations as input.

323

(Artifacts)

Art IFA CTS

thing props

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Thingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; props are physical parts of a game. These can be made from cardboard with scissors or with sophisticated digital tools.

327

Premade Cards Premade cards are great devices to make a quick framework for a game. They let a designer provoke: exposing participants to new ideas, giving them something to react to and starting conversations. More importantly, cards give designers a tool to make tangible ‘blocks’ of a concept readily approachable. Participants can then interact with these ‘blocks,’ an easy way to create a low fidelity simulation. As these ‘blocks’ are interoperable (cards can easily be placed next to each other), different sets of cards can be combined for more sophisticated analysis. For example, a ‘scenario’ card and a ‘location’ card can establish a game’s starting conditions. Players can ‘play’ the simulation by stringing subsequent ‘event’ cards together to react to these initial conditions. Card based simulations are flexible and easily extended by simply printing more pieces of paper.

Blank Cards Blank cards that participants fill out personalise a cardboard simulation. Participants can write their own conditions/rules that can be inserted into the game. This helps make a contingent simulation that moves away from a designer’s preconceived, initial ideas.

Virtual Virtual props are the objects creating the videogame. Through interacting with these objects, participants ‘experience’ a scenario in real-time. This can be useful for allowing one set of stakeholders to discover what a situation is like for another set of stakeholders, or in describing an environment that is different (speed/time/scales) to the workshop setting.

Smartphones Smartphones are now powerful enough to support immersive game worlds; running even inefficient ones made by amateur coders. The devices are useful for ‘situating’ virtual space in the physical room of a workshop. Phones are plentiful and already familiar to participants, and allow videogames to be inserted into workshop activities with lots of flexibility (Refer 3.8).

Projection By projecting a participant playing a smartphone game onto a larger screen, an individual mobile game can be transformed into a group play activity (Refer Set Two: Participatory Navigation).

329

Do props

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Doâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; props are strategies for interaction you as a designer can deploy in activities. They are the rules and conditions that define the emergent outcomes of playing your game.

331

Quantified outcomes Outcomes emerge from participants playing your game. They are a game’s response to participant input. In electronic simulations, there will be millions of outcomes generated each second. Quantified outcomes are the responses you deem important to show a participant. These occur both during play (ie. scoring and health) and after play. For example, a game may assess a participant’s play as ‘safe’ or ‘dangerous.’ As they are calculated based on a participant interaction, quantified outcomes are personal and engaging. They give participants a method for assessing play, encouraging the trial of novel strategies. The discrete assessment units created allow participants to compare their inputs in a game. Quantified outcomes encourage participants to think about certain aspects of an issue. Through humour and provocation, a designer can design outcomes to prompt participants to recognise how a game has challenged them. This is a useful resource for codesign activities.

Scores Scores are the most basic of quantified outcomes. Scoring is stackable and dynamically adjusted, giving players a real time method of assessing play. The ‘gameness’ inherent in high scores creates a non-confrontational vector for participants to compare and collaborate outcomes.

Warnings Warnings are audio/visual game responses triggered by participant input. Warnings let a simulation guide a player, informing them of the desired method of play. This serves a practical purpose, partially relieving you of having to manage each participant’s interaction with the game. Warnings can be explicit (a flashing graphic appearing on-screen) or implicit (a change in the tone of music, a sound effect). Warnings do not have to be fair or authoritative. A game can force a participant down a particular path and berate them for ending there, demonstrating unfair situations from real life. Warnings do not have to influence gameplay – a sudden overload of them can simulate social pressure, or sensory overload.

333

DATA

Data collection methods influence the data you will generate. There are lots of traditional methods for collecting data in participatory activities, most in the form of questionnaires undertaken after the fact. While these are certainly useful for analysis, surveys can also be limiting. Questionnaires can be too rigid, or vague, for participants to answer insightfully. Responses will also be biased; participants want to give you the answers they think you want to hear. This makes it harder for you to gauge the real effects of your activities.

335

Data is generated Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think of data as being passively collected. Instead, think of it being generated. Your activities are trying to create unexpected outcomes; so too should your data generation. Below are some methods that aim to generate unfiltered, immediate data for you to use. These methods do not replace, but rather augment, more traditional data collection methods.

Record everything Though many of your activities will have individual goals and data collection methods, game artefacts generate debate. Rather then relying on participant reflection as your primary source of data, these immediate and unfiltered reactions, comments and quips are incredibly useful for later analysis. This discussion will bleed through discrete workshop activities. Set up a camera in a corner of the room than can record the entire workshop so these spontaneous reactions, debates and ideas can be captured.

Roving cameras Employ helpers with additional cameras ready to zoom in on interesting moments in activities. Some parts of the workshop will be more useful than other parts. A certain group may produce interesting outcomes in one activity, while a second may have really interesting responses in another. If activities have been planned well, you wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know what will emerge. Getting someone else to be in charge of capturing interesting bits allows you to concentrate on running the workshop. Have a camera/phone at hand ready to record things yourself though. Your helpers take the base-load effort of recording off you, but they may occasionally miss something.

337

Prompt reactions More immediate data can also be gathered by employing helpers to interview participants throughout the workshop. Your activities will be fun and strange; it can be illuminating hearing participant thoughts moments after they have played your games. Prep your helpers before the workshop about the goals of each activity you plan to run. They’ll then be more informed and confident in asking participants questions. Don’t, however, make these interviews too formal. Helpers should encourage immediate, off-the-cuff remarks from participants. Questions like ‘I know, how weird are these activities? I just got roped in’ generate interesting and insightful responses from participants.

Situating reports Filling out reports/surveys should be considered as a strategy for actively creating conditions in activities, rather than just as passive data gathering. Reports can be used to define metagame conditions. One participant can ‘assess’ another participant’s play in a guided structure by filling out a report you have designed. The questionnaire isn’t the end product – rather the collaborative focus and debate generated from this assessment is what is interesting.

Combine your data By merging less-interesting pieces of data together, you can gain insights from data you otherwise might discard. For example, data generated in game such as scores may not be useful on its own, but is very insightful when compared with stakeholder background (ie.seeing how each type of participant plays your game). Think of these â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;synergiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; beforehand so you are ready to collect them.

Follow ups Workshop activities donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t just effect participants on the day. Check in on individuals at a later date to see any longer lasting impacts the workshop may have had on them. Stakeholder participants will have had time to reflect and compare their experience in the workshop with their view on the design problem in reality. Comparing responses from the night to reflections even only a week later can reveal interesting things.

339

now it's up to you

By creating a workshop lab space, you’ve hopefully generated some unexpected outcomes that you didn’t know before. Your workshop participants won’t generate immediately implementable ideas – that’s not their job. Instead, these outcomes can be fed back into your design process (ie. new methods for reducing conflict in stakeholders can be developed, strategies to respond to novel needs that were identified made). One urban gaming workshop won’t be enough. As you’re looking to create the unexpected, you’ll have learnt many things you could do better next time simply having run the workshop. Feed this new knowledge back into your urban games. You now know what parameters need tweaking to make an even more productive space in your next workshop.

341

343

DEV ELOP MENT

ST kilda Junction trial

dynamics

prototyping

render testing

copenhagen Tutorial mode

night mode

comic violence

google cardboard vr mode First person perspective move phone in physical space moves camera in virtual space

appendix workshop RESPONSeS

I found the video, with just the forward looking lens - harder to analyse. The speed at which the cyclist was going didn’t help. The game however was easier to take in, as you could see oncoming cars and detailed features of St Kilda Road. The video was very helpful as it was a ‘real’ experience as experienced by a bike rider, with all the interruptions caused by cars, truck and other cyclists. The game for me was too abstract, I had trouble identifying where I was and things happened at too great a speed to register more than just having to use my wits to avoid the barrage of danger hurtling towards me. However for someone who was used to playing phone games, I can well imagine it would be a different experience. For me, identifying the possible dangers at the beginning and maybe having them with distinct features (eg, when a door opens in front of the cyclist have it always brown), more explanation need about the effect it has and definitions.

I think I was mostly aware of the particular features of St Kilda Road - for cyclists and drivers. What I hadn’t noticed as much was the regularity and intensity of which these hazards can occur and all at the same time.

Yes some, that I could identify especially trucks and cars merge from the left around Toorak Road and the whole proBlem of cars stuck in front of you on the bike track. Perhaps more emphasis could be placed on dangers caused by other cyclists passing by on the left, or passing on the right at great speed.

I thin to accurately answer that you would have to survey frequent drivers of St Kidla Road - or truck drivers. I can really only comment as a frequent cyclist. Have an option from a driver’s point of you. Also pedestrians are another group of users underrepresented in the game.

I think the game definitely communicates messages to drivers - but maybe not as much the other way round. Visibility [of cyclists] is a huge issue as a driver, that could be addressed in the game more. Car speed, double parking on the bike track are some examples of [successful] communication to drivers.

I think it helped them understand the obstacles of the cyclists, but some of the drivers scenarios were overly dramatic and didn’t reflect the cause and affect drivers are also subject to due to the other 2 types of commuters

I think it conveys a much lighter tone of what St Kilda road is like but that is understandable as the real thing is a lot more complicated

Yes, I started to notice the parts of the street that were more hazardous and why.

Yes. People who play the game need to shift their mindsets to different users Yes, we were able to discuss the parts of the road and I was surprised by elements that Road drivers find difficult, like the ambiguity of where they are to go in the intersection with the NGV also.

comparable

Yes. The discontinuous nature of the bike lane and bike boxes. Especially north of Commercial Road

Did you think that the game contributed to the communication between different types of Road users? Give examples.

No not particularly, but after when riding the same route I was very conscious of how this part looked in the game and more elements that were influencing why this section of the road was particularily bad. In particular the part in front of the police station

How would she experience of St. Kilda Road as seen in the video and as a game?

Did the experience of playing the game make you notice features of experiences of St. Kilda Road you have not noticed before? Describe.

The game is clearly more frantic. The controls over the bike in the game are much more sensitive than in the video. The video was more horrifying because it was a real person. The game allows for multiple experiences.

The video experience was much more “real” than the game.

a realistic impression of the toils of both driver and cyclist battling inefficient planning They are both very intense! I think the atmosphere is very similar. game is a lot faster and the character is quite large compared to the environment, so the road seems smaller and the cars closer. so it kind of amplifies/ exaggerates the real experience. 2. I am not really that familiar with St Kilda road but as a driver, the only thing that I can really comment on is that there are a lot of parked cars, which increases the possibility of cyclists getting hit by doors and cars pulling out or parks. Also that there is a divided road on both sides in some areas that mean cars have to change lanes in an unusual way. That may also increase the amount of accidents that occur. The parked cars were certainly featured in the game in a big way, but because the game mainly focused on the leftmost bicycle lane, the divided roads didn’t impact the game that I noticed.

I had never noticed the trees were pink! When actually riding you have a protective bubble of hope - that you hope that the cars and trucks will avoid you. The game removes this comforting assumption and brings home the face that the riders are so vulnerable on St Kilda Road

By playing the game I experienced vicariously the feeling of cycling on St Kilda Rd.I drive there quite often but have only ridden my bike from Park St to the city which does not have the build up of cars as it does from St Kilda Junction to Toorak Rd.The game showed several cars double parked and also several with driver’s seat door open. This made me realize how vulnerable a cyclist could be.

I was made aware of the dangers of bike paths in particular with regard to dooring, and also when the lane temporarily finishes

Not really, it was a little too abstract to notice anything concrete.

yes: sudden disappearance of bike lane became more noticeable due to scoring system (even though I have ridden this route and noticed this before).

Yes, the game did make me aware of features of St. Kilda road that I had not noticed previously. As I am not a cyclist, I was not aware of the numerous traffic hazards in the area and the lack of space they have available to ride safely.

The game certainly does contribute to communication between different road users. It puts drivers and people who use public transport in a cyclist’s shoes and I think makes every player think “wow, I had no idea it was like this for cyclists”. I think this makes players want to hear more about the dangers that befall cyclists on a daily basis and what they can do to drive more safely.

the game was a great leveller, with drivers and cyclists meeting in more neutral ground (the game is not an exact simulation of cycling, so maybe it didn’t seem as threatening/to have a strong pro-cycling agenda** so drivers were not put off).

I think it captured the animosity between bike riders and car drivers.

I think as a mainly driver type person ,I have been made aware of the difficulties encountered by cyclists

I do not think that the game contributed to the communication between different types of road users. It certainly highlighted areas that should be discussed in relation to respect and adherence to road rules between the different road users.

The cars were just impersonal mechanical monsters: blocking bike paths, opening doors, hitting riders from behind. Although I was 80% motorist, (or perhaps because I was), I got the impression that drivers were the bad guys! There was an opportunity to choose settings (-considerate/ educated drivers [non aggressive], -sensible riders) to test whether we can safety and efficiently share the road as now, or whether it is necessary to have fully separated bike lanes

Did the workshop give you ideas about design possibilities in relationship to urban cycling? Give examples. No. I’ve already spent significant time looking at different design options. However, it was good to consolidate. Yes we talked together about the separated route in Coburg that we would like seem applied. The Copenhagen ideas also helped.

It did not give me direct ideas but definetely made me think about how much there was to gain from a workshop directly dedicated to coming up with new ways to achieve “harmony: on the road with all the different types of commuters Both the game and the workshop highlighted the frustration felt and danger posed by parking jutting out on the bike lane - especially with large vehicles. Creating a larger buffer between parked cars, buses and larger vehicles is what I would propose.

See (4.) I also enjoyd seeing the innovative parking ideas shown in [Activity 2B]. I liked the Norman Foster ideas of elevating the bike lanes. In his case, above the London Underground. I really think the only safe bikelane is a seperated bike lane.

Did playing the game influence your opinions about St. Kilda Road as a place of urban life? How?

Yes. In its current form and function it does little to provide for urban life.

It gave the route an identity and differentiated from all cycling problems making the issues present seem more approachable and tangible to change rather than just the general comment that cycling infrastructure is bad as a whole and therefore too large a problem to fix.

It made me realize how poorly planned and under facilitated some of the streets in Melbourne are to todays more updated modes of transport

My general impression is that people try to avoid both driving and cycling up St Kilda road if they can avoid it. When I drive up, my focus is getting to the destination quickly without really taking in my surroundings. Playing the game has influenced the way I think in St Kilda Road now. I’m almost hyperaware of anything around me.

It reinforced my feeling that it definitely is a dangerous experience, but a very important artery for cyclists travelling to the city - of course, only in the south-north direction. It did make me think that so many things could be done to make St Kilda Road safer for cyclists - eg get rid of parked cars, wider bike lanes of course, and the preferential green lights for cyclists. Maybe the game could have emphasised the problem of what happens when everyone stops at the lights - eg where cyclists need to positin themsevels. Currently, markups are confusing , especially when there are lane [clarify] on the left

Definitely. The whole workshop was engaging partly because of the use of mixed stimuli - photos, videos and of course the iPhone game. You need to engage different and more numerous categories of uders as the sample was small. However, I think this type of lively workshop has great potential for schools, even learners drivers and other groups.

Absolutely. As previously mentioned, some road users are focused on their destination so much that other factors aren’t considered. Workshops provide a fuller picture of what is going on and considers all road users involved.

Yes, the more involved and interactive formats such as this workshop help the public/attendees to get a real feel for the message trying to be broadcasted rather than the traditional information dump.

Yes, it encourages understanding between groups of people and therefore more tolerance, appreciation of the need to change and instigates possible solutions.

Yes. As it makes people have to shift their mindset in how they experience St Kilda Road.

Do you think workshops and tools of this type can enhance public consultation in regard to design of urban infrastructure? How?

The obvius idea is for Copenhagen style bike lanes. I know that there are various issues and design difficulties with this. Perhaps the next game could be to design the bike lanes! I loved the picture of bike riders in Japan(?) Pulled intoa dock type structure with bikes - laptops - the importance of[clarify] and functionally bike racks. I believe that cyclists and cars should be separated. An excellent example is St Georges Rd from Fitzroy to Preston. The cycle track is in the centre of the road beside the tram track. There are nature strips and flora separating the double lanes of traffic on either side. I have long thought this is a great idea but would probably be too costly to do in St Kilda Road. yes somehow the paths need to be continuous,and I believe a little wider

(Not really, maybe a skateboarding game highlighting the dangers of skateboarding?)

yes: connecting the bike lane the whole route; separating cycling from parking AND driving (ie. not placing cycling in between parking/driving lanes) so cars donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t block the route (grade separation?); possible scoring system in RL?? (ie. simliar to green lights pacing distance between lights?)

I know that St Kilda Road is a magnificent boulavard - as well as an important commuter route to and from the city. But I was so engrossed in tring to be killed that I did not have time to note the urban design beauties in the game.

The game did not influence my opinions about St Kilda Road as a place of urban life. In fact it just highlighted the fact that it is a very busy and much frequented carriageway.

I know St kilda road is an intersting enviroment,the game did not alterthat impression ,but I consider the game made me aware that planning of bike paths etc need a lot more work

It reinfored the connotations of danger and congestion.

no. the game reinforces st kilda road as a conduit for travel (no stopping and socialising in game play). [real life]

YES YES YES. game will have to be insanely well-developed, but it is definitely refreshing and more engaging to participate in an activity that simulates RL, rather than talking abstractly about situations (inevitably leads to confrontation between stakeholder groups)

Yes, approaching the issue in an unorthodox way enabled the opportunity for novel ideas.

I think this tool is powerful ,particularly in making both cyclists and drivers aware of the common problems of surviving on the road .also I suggest that such gaming tools could be introduced in schools to make our future cyclists and drivers be more aware of the issues and dangers .

I think workshops like this certainly would enhance public opinion in regard to the design of urban infrastructure. Any information that will educate people about the environment that they live in would have to be beneficial.

Yes, especially for the motorists who have not ridden a bike since they were kids and see riders as bloody nuisances rather than legitiamte road users. It changes their conciousness.

4. The game influenced my opinions about St Kilda road in the sense that I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t realise how important it was as a cycling road and that it is also a danger to the cyclists using the road. To me as a driver, it was just another road really, not that different from any other but playing the game introduced me to another viewpoint.

5. The workshop did give me a few ideas about designing new ways for cyclists to use the road. The main idea that I had would be some kind of completely separate cycling lane that cars actually cannot use. Similar to a footpath but purely for cyclists to use, with no parked cars etc. Ideally running parallel to the road and perhaps below or above the road. Even just some kind of bollard to separate the two areas would be sufficient I think. Drivers and cyclists should be able to coexist without accidents in the same space but this is obviously not realistic and I think separating them entirely is the best and safest option. 6. I think workshops and tools of this type are the best way to enhance public consultation for the design of urban infrastructure. It really gets people involved and invites them to form opinions on the subject that they wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have thought about otherwise. These kinds of workshops are really engaging I think and gives people different viewpoints to think about. I really like the hands on approach.

367

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING HORSESHIT LANE CHANGE X 2

DOUBLE PARKED TAXIS PEDESTRIAN XING MULTPLE LIGHTS THIN BIKE LANE BLIND CURVE LANE CHANGE

PEDESTRIAN XING

90째 BIKELANE TURN

BUSSES & HORSE CARRIAGES

LYCRA BROS OVERTAKING

GRADE SEPERATED BIKE PATHS DESIGN HUB REPAIRS BLOCK B.LANE

TRAMSTOP/BIKELANE SWAP MATERIAL HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

CAT CALLING FROM TRAMSTOPS HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS CARS CROSSING BIKELANE 90째 BIKELANE TURN

TAXIS

BOTTLENECK ENTRY

PEDS WAITING FOR TRAM

TRAM SUPERSTOP

369