Codesign gaming workshop by ahol

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.

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

THE MELBOURNIAN

DOMAIN INTERCHANGE

VICTORIA BARRACKS

ARTS CENTRE

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!

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.

eVERy yEaR

uBLIc nSPoRT

PRETTy UrAte!

namE

/ oTHER

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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?

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

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

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].

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].

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.

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… 49

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. 51

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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!

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!

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

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

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.

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!

[YOU GOT A SCORE OF] 228???

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

228. 228. JUST SAYING

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

101

appendix workshop RESPONSeS

comparable

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

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 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 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 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, 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.

Yes. People who play the game need to shift their mindsets to different users

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

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

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.

105

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

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

No. I’ve already spent significant time looking at different design options. However, it was good to consolidate.

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

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

Did the workshop give you ideas about design possibilities in relationship to urban cycling? Give examples.

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

107

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

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 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

109

111