Seminar 1 reflections

I think the example with the underwater PC is a great example of the interaction design process. Many obvious problems – such as the fact that the PC is literally out of its element, are quite easy to predict and to solve. However, I don’t think that the bubble issue would come up early on in interviews or questionnaires, unless the product developers actively search for hidden problems that only reveal themselves in the right context, such as difficult working conditions or even emergencies. It’s very easy to get caught up in providing a service or a product to a group that hasn’t had access to one in the past, without putting enough thought into why it may be so in the first place. It’s not just about the idea that divers CAN use PCs too, it’s also about designing it in such a way that they WANT to.

I also recognized a lot about the distinction between low and high fidelity prototyping, and I think that it’s important that every prototype presentation or testing decision should be coupled to specific questions. Otherwise, you can lose clarity in defining the requirements, and human psychology or politics start to get bigger roles than they deserve in the process. In keeping this discussion from going out of hand, guidelines and standards are useful both for defining a good scope as well as staying within it.

Prototyping and field testing, as well as evaluation, even after shipping, are crucial in understanding the true requirements. This doesn’t need to be simple, as was proven with the wooden Palm Pilot mockup that Jeff Hawkin walked around with. I’m sure his findings lead to many improvements in making the Palm Pilot into something that people would want to carry around – both in terms of its dimensions but also in more abstract aspects, such as how others around you react to you when you’re staring into a small screen (or a wooden piece for that matter). Judging by how people are hypnotized by their phones today, I guess this wasn’t a very big hurdle to climb. It was probably even a selling point – the owners could enjoy curiosity and attention from others instead of being judged.

I think the chapters do a very good job of showing that it’s the real world results that count, and that the interaction design requires an open mind and solid homework.  

Q:what can you do to keep an open mind when developing a product?