Co-Design

: N G I S E D CO

USER Y C A R C O M E D R E N G I S E D R O ?

E C N A N I M O D

--------------- ----

--------- --

- -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - -

------------

R E S U N O S REFLECTIONTIONS IN INTERPRETA CO-DESIGN PAPER: N IO T C E L F E R INDIVIDUAL S CO-DESIGN VOLVING USER NDING AND IN UNDERSTA roup 4) (BFIB-E2010, G kot Naveen L. Bagal

Larsen Morten Winther 261086-mwla ther.dk www.mortenwin rs: 9.771

No. of characte

---- -

----

USER Y C A R C O M E D R E N G I S E D R O ?

E C N A N I M O D

------------ ---- ---

--------- --

- -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - -

------------

INTRODUCTION In this paper, I will reflect upon how we as designers ensure that the collected data will be used representatively and that we select and highlight the, from users’ perspective, most important findings.

This will be seen in the light of the work done in our co-design course at the IT University of Copenhagen, where we worked with the sports-facilitating social network site Arena365.

My group looked into how Arena365 could approach the business-to-business market, by examining the communication flow and social activities at Humac (Group report). During the semester we conducted a number of co-design-oriented methods in order to gain insight into possible touch points for Arena365. From each of these methods we emphasised certain findings, while other parts were left out. How did we qualify our decisions and how was our approach to the field influencing our research results?

3

---- --

CO-DESIGN AND (IT’S) METHODOLOGY As Sanders and Stappers (2008) map out, new layers have been introduced to the design area over the past six decades going from an expert-driven, through a user-centred, to a co-creation design approach. In this paper co-design is understood as “[…] the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process” (ibid, p. 13). Crabtree (1998) argues that it is essential to ‘take a closer look’ into people’s actual practises, in order to create, not only the right designs, but also to target the right problems (ibid, p. 61). This expanded knowledge on actual user behaviour can be gained from adapting methodical enquiries from ethnography (and ethnomethodology) (ibid, pp. 62).

The methodology of ethnography is based on a range of qualitative methods. In our research with Humac we used observations, interview, diary studies, and a video card game (workshop) (Group 4, 2010). To get an understanding of the social reality of the users we need to analyze and interpret the qualitative data obtained through these methods (Dourish, 2007). No matter how hard we try it is not possible to understand all complexities of people and their lives (Winthereik, Malmborg, and Andersen, 2009, p. 8); thus, the understanding of users will always be a reductionistic one. Without the possibility of generating a holistic understanding of the users, how do we as designers reflect upon this in our further research and design process? How do we avoid the dread of tunnel vision?

SORTING THE DATA – A HANDS ON EXPERIENCE I consider our workshop, as a co-design method due to it’s potential for the users to come up with actual conceptual ideas, as opposed to the three other methods in our research process. Instead, these methods were used to obtain a basic understanding of the target group, by examining e.g. the communication flow in organizing the company soccer team or their everyday individual sport activities (Interview and diary studies, Group 4, 2010).

The methods elucidated different aspects of our research questions (Ibid, p. 4), but were also used to inspire further areas to look into. This could be termed as a hermeneutic process, where each method would iteratively contribute to the aggregated understanding of the users.

In the workshop, the actual co-creation was done in a brainstorming session, where the participants were asked to come up with a concept for them to use when organizing social

4

activities (Group report). Crabtree (1998, p. 61) claims, that “experimental techniques like all techniques of participatory design, are predicated in their employment on what users’ consider relevant”. However, I will add that not only what users, but indeed also designers, find relevant will influence the techniques. The framework of the study is created by the designers; thus, leading the answers and data in specific directions. In the diary studies we asked certain questions. This was of course to enlighten particular areas of our research, but none the less it narrowed the possible user contribution. In the workshop we gave the users a set of inspirational cards, which could possibly affect the participants’ mindsets, and in worst case this would be reflected in, not what the users find relevant, but what they associate with certain inspirational input. To minimize this effect, we decided not only to have functionalities and technologies represented in the cards, but also to include more undefined abstractions like e.g. a picture of carrier pigeon to prevent creativity to be killed.

Although we were researching the potential of Arena365, we were aware of not directly examining how the hardcore functionalities of the website would fit the target group.

Instead, we focused on the more soft aspects of the field Arena365 is targeting, without ever mentioning the actual product to the users. This hopefully led to more explorative and open investigations, but at the same time it is of the important to remember that we were working with an already developed concept; hence, affecting our approach to the methods used. Our framing of the methods were characterized by drawing components from Arena365 and rival companies, such as Endomondo, and disguisedly exposing these to the participants. This casing of our research perspective limits the possibilities of not looking into the main core of the concept (Winthereik, Malmborg, and Andersen, 2009, p.

6).

As Constantine (2001, p. 5) argues ethnography generates extensive amounts of data; hence, making it difficult to know what to emphasize and what to leave out. Our way of analyzing the data did not remedy this predicament. Out of practical conditions we split into pairs and analyzed each method, and presented their findings to the rest of the group.

Because of this, the entire group did not get a thorough grasp of the entire data landscape, but only a shallow knowledge of the key findings. All methods, except the workshop, were used as a common allusion of the user group among the group members. Without the sufficient knowledge of the interpretations from each method, our further discussions would be based on different user-assumptions, rather than on a unified comprehension of the target group; thus, establishing diverse argumentations.

To create an overview we gathered all data in a mental model, based on Young’s (2008) proposal of affinity diagrams. Our mental model differs from Young’s by focusing not only on user behaviour, but also their requests and needs. We altered the model in order to fit our research questions, which were much more aimed at communicational and motivational

5

factors, rather than behavioural patterns. But these modifications resulted in implications in the preparation of the model. Looking at what people want, rather than what they do, requires a more interpretive approach. The boiling down of data was done by extracting findings from each method, and then collaboratively in the group combining these into larger entities. This process was based on our perception of the importance of each category. The only way this would be a success, was if our ground knowledge, gained from each individual method, had created a somewhat realistic picture of the target group.

The representation of the target group will influence our view of the users (Winthereik, Malmborg, and Andersen, 2009). We had no possibility or access to select a representative segment of the Humac employees. This, of course, entails further uncertainties on the validation of our data collection, but none the less it is the conditions, under which the research has been done.

CONCLUDING REMARKS While the qualities of co-design have not been the scope of this paper, Sanders and Stappers (2008, p. 5) points towards embracing all people as creative. User creativity exists on several levels, but involved users are capable on deciding on design choices, in a way that professional designers are not, seeing how it is impossible to gain full insight to all complexities in their everyday lives.

A way of getting a more fulfilling understanding and to minimizing the bias from both participants and designers, is to conduct multiple iterations of the same methods with different user samples; thus, creating a more realistic image of the target group, and not only emphasizing individual values. However, doing the same method more than once was not possible in our project with Arena365.

But how do we as designers implement this into our everyday design practise? How do we bear in mind the needs of the users, at the same time as we are inventing the technologies of tomorrow? I expect these questions to form the basis of my oral presentation in January.

6

LITERATURE Constantine, L., 2001. Beyond User-Centered Design and User Experience: Designing for User Performance, [online] Available at: <http://foruse.com/ articles/beyond.pdf> [Accessed 4 December 2010].

Crabtree, A., 1998. Ethnography in Participatory Design. In: Computer Professionals Social Responsibility, Participatory Design Conference. Seattle, Washington, 12-14 November 1998.

Dourish, P., 2007. Responsibilities and Implications: Further Thoughts on Ethnography and Design. In DUX07, Designing for User experiences. Chicago, 5-7 November 2007.

Sanders, E. and Stappers, P., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of Design. CoDesign, [online] Available at: <http://www.maketools.com/ articles-papers/CoCreation_Sanders_Stappers_08_preprint.pdf> [Accessed 4 December 2010].

Winthereik, J.C.T, Malmborg, L., and Andersen, T.B., 2009. Living Labs as a Methodological Approach to Universal Access in Senior Design. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Young, I., 2008. What and Why? The Advantages of a Mental Model. In: Young, I., ed. 2008 Mental Models: Aligning the Design Strategy with Human Behavior. New York: Rosenfeld Media, pp. 1-39.