EI Final Report: Mood-Cook-Book Mees Daalder - 4228979 - Studio Blue - R. Bendor, S. Kistemaker
0
Index
1. Introduction 2. Chosen context 3. Context explorations 4. Design goal 5. Interaction vision 6. Further explorations 7. Design direction 8. Prototyping explorations 9. Final concept 10. Final testing 11. Conclusion
4 5 6 11 12 14 18 19 25 30 34
Word count: 3762
1
Introduction
This report describes the process that lead to the ‘Mood-Cook-Book’. It takes you through the different cycles within this project, and shows relevant research that was done resulting it the final concept. First, the chosen context within which will be designed is given. Research that was done within this field is then covered, followed by the set Design Goal and the Interaction Vision that were used as a foundation for this project. After, further explorations regarding the DG and the IV are presented. The findings from these lead to an initial design direction that is discussed. 4
This direction was then investigated further through the use of prototyping explorations, resulting in a more eleborated concept. In order to validate this design, a prototype was built and user tests were held. The conclusions are discussed and a final conclusion on this project is presented, in which I reflect upon my process during this course.
2
Chosen Context
After exploring different possible situations in a brainstorm session, a choice was made on which context further research would be done: home-cooks preparing dinner
5
(figure 1). This was based on personal interest, accessability and the fact that a lot of interesting interactions take place in this context.
Figure 1: Context of home-cooks preparing dinner
3
Context Explorations
Finding a target group
Within the chosen context of homecooks, many different possible users exist. In order to specify the intended users, an exploration was done in the form of a group brainstorm-session (figure 2) to answer the question: Which target group would be most interesting to work with during EI? Based on personal interest in cooking and good accessibility, the target group of ‘amateur student home-cooks that don’t enjoy cooking, cooking for their own’ was chosen. This resulted in the initial design goal:
“I want amateur student home-cooks that don’t like cooking, to enjoy the process of cooking for their own more.” 6
Figure 2: Results brainstorm session users
Choosing an interaction
To choose a specific interaction, a group brainstorm session was held (figure 3) and timelines were handed out (speedbox - Workbooks: choosing an interaction)to answer the question: Which interactions play a role in the chosen context? This gave a better view on the context, but did not result in an interesting interaction to continue with. To get to this, a workbook (figure 4) was developed in order to answer the following research questions: What do people find most important about their cooking? What parts of the cooking-process do people like best and least?
Figure 3: Results brainstorm session situation 7
Figure 4: Workbook
(physical example can be found in my speedbox)
The interviews that were held after retrieving the booklets provided more in depth information about these questions. From this, an interesting contradiction was found. Whilst people that didn’t like cooking, did not like searching for new recipes, the people that were really into cooking felt like this was the best part of it. Getting creative and trying new recipes was their favorite thing. It was decided to continue with this interaction, resulting in the following “I want to motivate amateur student homedesign goal: cooks that don’t like cooking, to try to make
new recipes.”
8
(Not) making a new recipe
Next, research was done in order to answer the question: Which factors influence the choice not to make a new recipe for dinner?
Group interviews were held on a table filled with cookbooks. The subjects were asked to search for a new recipe, whilst being interviewed about the reasons for their choices.
The results (figure 5) were then used to specify the intended effect: making people more confident about their cooking skills. For this specific factor, not many products are currently available and it is an inspiring challenge to me.
“I want to make student home-cooks that don´t like cooking, more confident about their own cooking skills when choosing a new recipe.�
Figure 5: Found reasons for not making new recipes 9
Finalizing Design Goal
When presenting the design goal I got some useful feedback from my fellow students. Some parts of the DG were unclear. I wanted to make the users more confident in their cooking skills; But what did this mean? And why this? And what were the means to get to this exactly? I realized that where it all boiled down to was trying to make the process of cooking more fun for the user, instead of making them more confident about their cooking skills. After this realisation I changed the ‘result’ part of my DG accordingly. I still wanted new recipes to play a part in this and phrased the ‘means’ more clearly into ‘through the use of new recipes’. By incorporating these the final DG for this project was set (seen in chapter 4), and further explorations could be done.
10
4
Design Goal “My Design Goal is...
making cooking more enjoyable for student home-cooks that don’t like cooking, through the use of making new recipes.` 11
5
Interaction Vision
Through previous research the current interaction qualities of making new recipes were determined. These can be described as follows: Obligated Insecure Uncertain The intended qualities of the interaction between the user and the to be designed product however, are diffrent: Playful Natural Secure
Playful: Biking without hands is an activity that brings the child back up in me. Natural: Having biked from when I was young, it has become an extension of me. I don’t have to think about the cycling, it just happens automatically. Secure: I feel secure because of previous experiences I had on the bike. Also, knowing that whenever I lose balance, I can always grab the safety of my handlebar.
These qualities were then captured in an image (figure 6, I realize this activity does not feel the same for everybody, but it really helped me getting a grip on the intended qualities of the product). In this picture of a person riding a bike without hands, the qualities are covered as follows: 12
Figure 6: Interaction Vision 13
6
Further Explorations
Understanding IV qualities
Now that the DG and IV were set, further research within this scope was done. First, a deeper understanding of the desired qualities and other related subjects were gained through the use of How To’s (figure 7) together with my fellow group members (speedbox How To’s): How to.... remove the barrier to make a new recipe? make an interaction feel more secure? make someone feel more confident? make cooking more fun? make an interaction feel more joyous?
Figure 7: HKJ’s
A lot of solutions came up that were related to the principle of gamification (rewards, competition, etc.). Next, further research on this topic was done. 14
Gamification
The principle of gamification (figure 8) was looked into with this question in mind: How can gamifiction be applied in a way that it makes cooking more enjoyable? The importance of flow was found: matching your skill level to your assignments. This phenomena highly influences how a game is experienced. Also, the element of competition was researched in an IP workshop (speedbox - Cooking competition). However, it did not yield any findings that I found worthy to implement in my design proposal or do further explorations on.
Figure 8: Gamification
15
Guided cooking
In another IP workshop, it was tested what the effect of guidance was in the cooking process (figure 9), another element that came up during the How To’s session: What effect does being guided during cooking new recipes have on your confidence? Does being guided make the process of cooking more enjoyable? A fellow student was asked to make Eggs Benedict for the first time (a recipe that I have made countless times) by giving him a recipe. He could ask any question during the process. The participant liked the guidance within the process. It made him more confident about the cooking process, resulting in a more enjoyable process. Also, he indicated that this was exactly the recipe he felt like making at that time, because he had wanted to make it before but its complexity scared him off. Figure 9: Images from design intervention
Factors choosing a recipe
Because my goal was to make cooking more fun through new recipes, research was done on what factors are important when searching one (figure 10). How do the target users search for new recipes? What are the most important factors when the target group searches for a new recipe? Participants were asked to search for new recipes using the different available sources; mobile, laptop and cook books. While doing so, they were interviewed (speedbox Transcript choosing a recipe). It was found that most people used their mobile phones as a source of new recipes. The most important factors that played a role were the presence of images of the dish, the amount of different ingredients and how clear the recipe was. They also said they were often overwhelmed by all of the choices they were presented with. Figure 10: Searching a recipe 17
7
Design Direction
Based on all of the explorations that were done in the earlier stages of this project, a design direction was found. This was done during a feedback session where previous findings were discussed. In this conversation, the direction of cooking recipes that fit your mood emerged, where every mood would have its specific recipes that fit them; from mashing potatoes when you’re angry, to finely chopping vegetabels when relaxed.
Then, I also realized that this is also something the participant from the guided cooking IP workshop indicated: ´He really felt like cooking this recipe at that time.´. Your circumstances influence what a fitting recipe is at that time: yet there are no products that let you search a recipe based on these. At this stage it is time to further explore this chosen direction to eleborate on the current design.
Making the process of cooking more enjoyable through: making recipes that fit your current mood. 18
8
Prototyping Explorations
Testing viability design direction Before I continued with the chosen design direction, its viability was tested: Are certain parts of the cooking process more enjoyable when in a ‘fitting’ mood? Participants were asked to make quacemole twice; once while being relaxed, and once whilst annoyed (speedbox - Design direction viability test). The process of making guacemole consists of different cooking techniques; from finely chopping onion and tomato, to squeezing lemon and mashing avocado.
Figure 11: Relaxed dicing
Participants would start in a relaxed mood (figure 11, after group members’ workshop: lying on a couch listening to calm music), and make the recipe. Afterwards, they were asked to play an impossible game and listen to their least favorite music. This made them annoyed (figure 12). After, they
19
Figure 12: Annoyed mashing
were asked to make the same recipe again. It was concluded that people indeed did enjoy those cooking techniques that fit their mood better. This meant that the chosen design direction was viable, and further research could be done on how to embody it.
Factors to base recipes on
The next step in eleborating the design direction was answering the following question: Which factors influence to what extend a recipe fits a certain mood? To answer this question, interviews were held with not only target users, but also chefs from the restaurant I used to work in. Besides the already tested difference in cooking techniques, other factors were determined as well, visualized in figure 13.
Figure 13: Findings factors that influence what mood it fits
20
Where do they choose recipes?
An important part of the product that still had to be decided was in which form it would come (physical, digital?). The location where the target group chooses their recipe is an important factor in deciding this. In order to get to know this, interviews were held and previous gathered data was looked back on. Where does the target group decide what recipe they will make? Figure 14 shows the four most important places where this happens, where the different sizes represent the proportions between them.
Figure 14: Most common places where students choose their recipe 21
Physical or digital form?
With the previous conclusions in mind, further research could be done on this question:
In what form (some type of physical or digital product) will my product be available?
In order to answer this question previous research was looked back upon, and the different pros and cons of the different forms were researched (figure 15). When mapping these different pros and cons over the interactions that my product will be involved in, it showed that the different interactions both preferred another form of the product (e.g. application when searching a recipe while away from home, getting an overview of the whole recipe before cooking at home). It was decided that a combination of a physical book and a digital application was the best solution to continue the design process with. Also, this choice gives a lot of freedom concerning the method of indicating the users’ mood.
22
Figure 15: Pros and cons application form over a physical cook-book
Choosig your mood
Now that the form the products comes in was decided, research was done on the method of deciding what kind of recipe fits the users’ mood at that time (speedbox Choosing your mood). How will the user indicate what their current mood is? First, participants were asked to pick one of Thayer’s 12 moods before they decided what recipe they would cook that night (figure 16). It was found that they often felt in between moods, and they could now not indicate to what degree they felt a certain mood. Also, wanting to base a recipe on this, participants indicated there were missing axis. Figure 16: Thayers mood-plane: initial division moods
23
Based on these findings, a new mood choosing system was designed (figure 17). This quesionnaire included two questions related to Thaler´s plane method (How energetic are you? & How positive do you feel?). The other two followed from the interviews held: How adventurous do you feel? & How patient are you currently?. In order for the participants to be able to answer the questions to their likings (and feel ‘In control’), sliders were used instead of yes or no questions. Three of the participants from the previous research were asked if they could now express their mood better. They indicated that it indeed enabled them to do so.
Figure 17: Choosing your mood: final design 24
Final Concept
9
In this chapter, the final concept that is the result of multiple iterations is presented: the MoodCook-Book (figure 18). The Mood-Cook-Book is a combination between an application and physical cook book (p. 22) that provides the user recipes based on their current mood (p. 18). The user’s mood is determined after filling in 4 diffent questions on the application (p. 24). The product then uses these answers to determine a single recipe that fits their mood (this takes away the feeling of being overwhelmed when searching for a recipe: p. 17). This recipe is based on different factors that make up a recipe (p. 20). These factors range from cooking techniques to smell, from sound to time.
Interaction & Experience
The different interactions that are involved are shown in the usescenario (figure 19). Figure 20 zooms in on the different interactions within the application part of the product. In these interactions, the previously set qualities can be recognized. When filling in the questions, the user can express himself and knows the product will provide a fitting recipe (secure). Also, the interaction feels natural: the provided recipe and its components you are going to cook fit with how you feel. You already know this when you see the recipe titles: these have references to your current mood (e.g. ‘Out of the ordinary pineapple oven dish.’ & ‘Easy, surprising winter pasta with kale.’). Using the product makes the process of cooking more enjoyable. It is not the cook-book you’re used to, so you feel eager to engage in a new and fun cooking experience (playful). 25
Aesthetic expression, Materials, Appearance & Technology The aesthetic expression is in line with the ‘playful’ quality, while remaining clear. This is done by using bright colours (also makes it more notable in a bookstore) and handwritten (yet readable) fonts. This style also shows that cooking can be fun (enjoyable) and does not have to be an obligation.
To enhance the transition between the app and book, they both have the same styling applied to them. The book has a hard cover and thick paper. This makes it durable and gives it a robust feeling (secure). Also, the images that are used for the recipes are related to their moods (vibrant photos for ‘happy’ recipes, more robust for ‘bored’). The application has to be coded, implementing an algorithm that -based on filled in answers-, can determine which recipe out of its database fits best. The product will be for sale in book stores. Whenever you buy the book you get a code with which you can download the application.
26
Figure 18: Final concept
Figure 19: Scenario
27
Figure 20: App flow
28
A video was made to clarify the different interactions with the final concept (figure 21).
It was based on the experiences of one of the final testing participants.
Figure 21: Still from the video 29
The video can be seen on my Projectcamp.us project page.
10
Final Testing
In order to test my final design proposal against the set design goal and the desired qualities, a user test was held using the prototype (found in speedbox). The most important questions that I wanted to answer were: Does the use of the Mood Cook Book make cooking more fun for the intended user group? Is the interaction perceived as ‘in control’, ‘natural’ and ‘playful’? How was the synergy between the application and the book? When the basic outlines of the research were set, a prototype was made and a pilot test was held (speedbox - Final Test, Pilot).
Using the results from the pilot the the research plan was adjusted and final testing could begin (speedbox Final Test, Research plan). In the final research, 4 participants: student home-cooks that did not like to cook, participated. They all went through the steps visualized in figure 22 and described below: 1. The prototype materials were delivered at the participants home (the physical cookbook and the application that comes with it). Also, they were briefed about the research and were told what was expected of them. 2. When they were alone and felt ready to choose a recipe, they opened the app. After filling in the questions, they send a screenshot to the researcher (this part was done using the Wizard of Oz technique, there was not enough time to built all of the app’s funcionality).
30
3. Based on the participants’ answers, the researcher picked the recipe that fit their mood best at that time and sent the corresponding recipe number. 4. The participant then clicked this number in their app which showed them their recipe. The design was then used through the complete cooking process. 5. When the participant finished using the product, the researcher came to their home bringing the feedback form with him. 6. During an interview this feedback form was filled in to be able to test if the DG was met, whether the Interaction Qualities were present in the design and what the synergy was between the app and book.
Figure 22: Visualization different research steps 31
Discussion
Of course the research tried to imitate the real world scenario as close as possible, but there are alwasy differences: Everybody was at home when they searched for a recipe. Participants all had different associations with the different IV qualities and find it hard to put a finger on the meaning of them. The numbers are only based on few participants due to the limited time available. The numbers are based on one time use only. Asking a participant to rate an experience before and after use is quite a direct question. They know the designer worked on it for a long time, and tend to take this into account when giving a rating. Because of the scope of this course, these were some of the problems that could not be avoided.
Results & Conclusion
After analyzing the results (speedbox - Final Test, Results) certain conclusions could be made. Does the use of the Mood Cook Book make cooking more fun for the intended user group?
Based on these findings it can be concluded that the proposed design does indeed meet its design goal: it makes the process of cooking more enjoyable.
A few reasons were given that showed that the cooking process became more enjoyable for the participants. The product removed an annoying part of the cooking process: finding the approprate recipe. Now this step was made easier, the process was perceived as more enjoyable. Also, participants pointed out that the cooking techniques that were included in the recipes really fitted the mood they were in, making them more fun. Finally, the participants were asked to rate the enjoyability of their average cooking experience from 1-10, and do the same for the experience they had using the Mood-Cook-Book. Here, an increase can be seen from 4.5 to 7 (figure 23). 32
Figure 23: Average rating enjoyability cooking Is the interaction perceived as ‘in control’, ‘natural’ and ‘playful’? By asking to rate the interaction qualities from 1-5 during the feedback session, it could be concluded to what extend the interaction qualities are present in the final design. Figure 24 shows the average scores given by the participants. To put these number in perspective: the average score of the qualities was 3.25. The rating of the interaction qualities are all above this number.
Although all scores are above average, scores could definetely be higher. Part of this can be explained by the vagueness of the terms for the participants. Also, it may be caused due to the fact that in the second cycle I lost track of the IV and did not use as much as wanted. Overall, one can conclude that the interaction is indeed experienced as ‘Secure’ and ‘Playful’. However, it cannot be said that the interaction is ‘Natural’ after this research.
How was the synergy between the application and the book? Some of the answers given during the test-feedback speak for themselves: `I really liked the fact that I was able to bring my phone to the supermarket, this way I did not have to write a list.´ ‘I like to cook from books, it just gives a better overview of what to make. Also, my phone always goes black and then I have to touch it with nasty hands.´ ´It was very easy to switch between products: the matching page in the book was quickly found.’ From this, it was concluded that both the app and book had their seperate added value to the experience. Also, the transition between the two worked smoothly.
Figure 24: Average rating interaction qualities
In speedbox - Recommendations, findings on possible improvements of the product are discussed.
33
11
Conclusion
Concluding this report, I would like to reflect back on the process I went through in this project.
mind), it became clear that indeed every step of the way did contribute to the final design in its own way.
I used a varied scala of research methods during this course, which provided me with insights and experience in those that I will definetely apply in future projects.
The use of the Design Goal and Interaction Vision helped me define both broad and nuanced characteristics of the envisioned interactions. By putting them on paper, a good foundation of the project was built.
Not only the methods were diverse, also the topics I researched. At times, it was hard to link all of these together, and see their seperate added value. After structuring everything in this report (and
With this foundation, I went through multiple iterations. In these, the focus was on prototyping the interactions. This frequent
34
testing not only ensures your proposed interaction actually works in the real world, but also provides you with fruitful insights that can generate new directions. After this third cycle, I feel like my design proposal does indeed meet the expectations I set at the start of this project. However, given more time, I am certain further iterations could take the design to an even higher level.