Month: October 2018

The Work This Week:

The most significant aspect of this week was our halves presentation on Monday, which can be viewed here.

Preliminary feedback is that our presentation was strong, but some of our answers to questions asked were vague, which led us to thinking about nailing down our prototype, and scope, as soon as possible.

As part of this process, we are hoping to have a fully completed prototype by next week, which combines the PC + iPad interactions, utilizes the “where are you from?” question, and then displays the associative visualizations.  This is then something that we can test during ETC Playtest Day on Saturday November 3rd, and also show to our client for feedback.

For our prototype, we focused on combining the frontend and backend elements into one (for now, we are testing with using CMU-based typography instead of the map for better efficiency):

• Different pixel sizes were tested, as well as how to get the x,y positions (nodes) from each one

• A JSON file was then written of all the position data

• Code was run to test if the users have similar information (i.e. where are you from)

• A new node graph was created based on the nodal information of the similar users

Additionally, we switched to angular because it can support html, which helps us develop more easily with web designers

Going Forward:

Meanwhile, we have also begun the process of installing our prototype into the ETC lobby to test with visitors, especially prospective students coming to the ETC.  We’re hopeful to get this physical space ready around the same time that the prototype is done.

Also, we have reached out to our client to see if we can test with SimpleBooth technology, and it looks like we may be able to test it out in our space in the Tepper Building.

Our next client meeting will be held next week.  Additionally, we are in the process of scheduling meetings with Chris Klug to discuss lighting and Jesse Schell to discuss design; we also are trying to schedule a time to visit Deep Local as well.  Until next week!

 

The Work This Week:

This week was spent preparing for halves presentations.  We also had our third client meeting on Monday, and also got the chance to run our first playtests as well.

Client Meeting:

Presentation

We presented the work we’ve done over the past several weeks to our client,  represented by Beth Wiser and Brian James, along with Associate Vice President Sophie Elias.  We got very productive feedback for where to go going forward.

Firstly, in our presentation, we talked about using high-quality cameras along with the tablet display, and our client advised us that it’s not necessarily critical to have high-quality photos and that we should use the iPad (along with the stand) so that we only have to interact with one device.

This also will help going forward with regards to the fact that we have two different experiences going simultaneously in our current design: (1) the input experience, and (2) the visual interaction with the data.  Our client advised us to look for ways to combine them together, and having only one input device is a step in that direction.

It was also suggested that we try to display our visuals on just one wall instead of two.  This is partly so that there is room for other material in the space, but this will also help with (a) synthesizing the experience, and (b) allowing us to move the display to the side wall, which has dimmer lighting that is more likely to work with projections.

We also talked about curating the questions for the visitors and how to work in the different kinds of audiences who will be using our installation.  Firstly, our client suggested that our third question (after “where are you from?” and “what are you interested in?”) be something social and something related to fun, extracurricular life at CMU and Pittsburgh.

Then, we discussed about whether or not to have a Starting Question based on who is interacting?  Is it a prospective student, a current student, an alumnus, or another kind of guest.  With regards to alumni, we want to be able to see the famous, successful alumni that allows students to imagine what they can see.  From there, we wondered if it’s ok to have the names of these alumni as part of the exhibit, even though for students and other guests, we want to allow them to be anonymous.  This will be a big question moving forward, especially because we will be looking to pre-populate the database with alumni.  What kind of permission do we need to have to do this?  Capturing this information can be discussed through the alumni network.

Lastly, it was suggested to bring the ability of choosing different CMU backdrops back into the exhibit to enhance the visual experience.  Ideas for this might be to allow visitors digitally to choose a background after they take their selfie.  We were informed about the technology of SimpleBooth to look into for ideas on this:

From here, we developed a new floorplan on how to use our space:

Additionally, we created a new mockup of what our installation may look like:

Playtesting and Meeting with Jess Hammer:

We playtested our wireframe (below) on a tablet with several students during the week, testing to make sure that the user flow is followable and understandable, which it was.

General feedback from playtesters was that:

• It was straightforward.
• Most of them read the “inappropriate” warning
• Few would read the terms & conditions.
• Seeing a map of where everyone was from was cool
• One playtester said that it “took the right parts of other apps that I knew + I knew how to go about it.”
• They said they’d move closer to the wall when prompted to.

With regards to questions, playtesters said that anonymity, seeing famous alumni, answering social questions all would work for them, and that they’d be interested in seeing the mosaic grow into a CMU symbol.  They also advised that we keep our questions specific (i.e. we should ask “What discipline are you interested in?” rather than “What are you interested in?”) and impersonal so that they wouldn’t feel uncomfortable with regards to privacy.

At the end of the week, we met with Jess Hammer to discuss playtesting, as well as the question of our experience feeling like two experiences in one.  With the former, she suggested that testing wireframes and prototypes is fine for now, but that going forward we should try to test with groups as close to our target audience as possible.  CMU first year students (who have fresh memories of their college tour experience) and prospective students coming to the ETC would be her suggestions.

With the latter question, we discussed adding transitions between the tablet experience and the display experience (i.e. arrow comes up and points to the wall after you take the picture) to guide the guest’s eye and make this seamless.  We could also think about lighting with regards to guiding the guest (i.e. a part of the display could turn on after the guest is done with the tablet).  Going forward, she said to monitor the use of Kinect closely, because it could get messy with one guest at the kiosk, one at the wall, or with group usage.  Our exhibit must work for the most complicated case.

Halves Presentation Preparation:

In terms of design, we completed our backend prototype, making sure that the algorithm to sort and store photos into categories worked.

We also continued our work on the visualization of our frontend experience and the nodal animation that goes with it.

Both of these designs are key components of our halves presentation, which will be held Monday of next week.

Going Forward:

In addition to presenting at halves and getting feedback on our current iteration, we will begin playtesting more and also begin combining our frontend and backend experiences together.  Iteration will be key moving forward.

 

 

 

The Work This Week:

With our client meeting scheduled for next Monday 10/15, the work this week consisted of continual development on our mosaic prototype.  We also spoke with a handful of SMEs to gain further knowledge moving forward, and conducted some field research in the Tepper Building.

Continual Prototype Development:

We continued work on the selfie mosaic idea, in which visitors will be able to interact with a map, and then as you zoom in the pictures become interconnected pixels.  The map itself has now been updated so that each pixel is a picture.  The brightness of each pixel from the background image is analyzed, as well as the average brightness of the image, and then array of multiple images is displayed where the brightness is mapped to pixel size.

We are still looking to find a way to sort images by brightness and locate them to the right pixel.

Also, we have developed an overview of the possible screens that visitors will see through the experience.

Talks with Anthony Daniels and John Dessler:

Anthony Daniels gave us some wonderful advice on lighting design and on some of the interactive elements we could have going forward.

On lighting, he suggested that we put gel filters behind the lamps that are in the space.  These gel filters would not change the color of the lights, but they would dim them down, giving them a light grey color, and thus making them less harsh for visitors taking photos.

Then, with regards to the pillar, he suggested to put a plastic, or felt, collar onto the pillar.  This collar could be CMU-themed and wouldn’t really hurt the pillar structurally.  Then, we could hang a rotatable arm/wire across the space between the pillar and the wall to allow for as many directions from freedom as possible for camera movement, making the installation accessible for those with disabilities.  This is something that we will discuss with our client next week.

An alternative to this suggestion would be developing a stand, with adjustable height, that would stand in front of the pillar, facing the side wall, and hold the camera.

Speaking of the photography device, Anthony suggested that we stick with one means of taking photos – be that the tablet, a camera, or a webcam.  Once we start adding more devices to the installation, it requires more maintenance and runs the risk of confusing less technologically savvy visitors.  Having only one device also encourages people to take photos in collaboration with friends, which is a demographic that we noticed as persistent in our space (see “Field Research at Tepper”)

On the Projectors vs. Flat Screens debate, Anthony suggested using projectors, because “We’re so used to seeing flat screens.  They look very much like product placement.  Projectors will look more original.”  If we do use projectors, we will probably end up repainting the wall of our space, and Anthony suggested that we paint it so that the original color (which would be maintained on the left side of the wall with the pictures already left) “melts” in with our new color.

Finally, with regards to our issue of consent and inappropriate photos, he suggested that we have a sign or carving in the space already, so that it doesn’t interrupt the visitor experience, but is clearly visible.  A sign that says, for instance, “Filming here; you consent to this photography and appropriate photos.  Appropriate ones will be removed.”

We also discussed the issue of inappropriate photos with John Dessler.  He said that the simplest way is to have a person watch them (possibly from the nearby kiosk).  The bottom line is that we shouldn’t redesign everything to work around it.  John also supported the idea of using the pillar as a controller of some kind (i.e. using different backdrops or frames on it).

We also discussed about the Burton Morris project done at the ETC (an example of Burton Morris’s work can be seen below).  In the project, there was a bubblegum machine in which the bubbles popped, but then they would stop when you got closer to it.  And you would take pictures of yourself, and then see yourself in the backdrop of the image if got close enough to the exhibit.

The key aspects of this project were that people wouldn’t use it without seeing other people using it, the flash got people’s attention, and the placement of the exhibit made a difference.

This led to our discussion about what can we do to in the idle state of the exhibit to get people into the experience.  John said that once they’re in the experience, it shouldn’t be a problem, but that the initial engagement is the key to everything.

He suggested it to be more ingenious than a simple “screensaver thing on the wall.”  Contrast works, as well as interactivity.  John gave the example of an interactive display where water was coming down to the floor; and then when you walk towards, the water changes when you step on it.  Similar to the Burton Morris project, this initial interactivity is more engaging than a simple screensaver.  The key: having something react to something the visitor is doing.

An alternative would be to showcase photos on the wall, showing someone doing something cool and artistic, to then engage people.  People would try to recognize people they know, and this would be particularly true with famous alumni.

Finally, we discussed what we would like our deliverable to look like, internally at the ETC.  John said that, with a project like this, we need to show proof of something and sell the idea.  He suggested to test our documentation with sample vendors and make sure that the design, and maintenance aspects that might be needed, is clear.

Field Research at Tepper:

Lastly, we spent some time in the Tepper Building this week, asking some students questions about how they use the space, and conducting observational data on people using the space.  A sample sheet of one of these questionnaires we handed it can be found below:

From this research, a few things became clear: students mainly use the space as a quiet spot to study, and they only sometimes glance over to the space we’re working with.  Most students think that our space is for prospective students only and therefore don’t hang out there a whole lot, instead preferring to sit at the tables by the window, or by the stairs.  Most of the students we talked to discussed spending time in the space with friends.

We also spent some time observing prospective students on Friday, during the busiest parts of the tour week.  Students came with their families and sat all around the space while waiting for the tour.  It became clear, by the amount of head-fidgeting, how nervous these prospective students are, and that if we give them something to capture their attention, it will.  Parents seem more interested in talking to the ambassadors and people giving the tour, but a few of them (especially the dads) were seen glancing around and observing the space.  Side note: one of the moms asked a tour guide “do you feel like you’re really in the city here in Pittsburgh?” which might be something we want to look into further with regards to questions.

Once the tour started, there wasn’t a whole lot of time lingering in the space, so the moments when these guests will use our installation will most likely come when they are waiting for the tour to begin.

A few of us will spend some time next week actually going on one of these tours to find out more information.

Next Week:

For our client meeting, we are preparing a presentation that will have a measured floorplan layout of the space, as well as a rough budget plan, to ask for feedback on in addition to the work already done.

We will also start preparing for 1/2 presentations, which will be held the week after next.

Lastly, we hope to have our prototype workable enough by next week so that we can playtest it, roughly, with fellow ETC students and gather more data going forward into 1/2 presentations.

 

The Work This Week:

We had two key meetings this week, which will hopefully help narrow down some of our design aspects moving forward.

Student Ambassador Group:

Firstly, we had our meeting with our client’s Student Ambassador group, represented by Sachi Shah and Hamza Qureshi.  Clarification: they are not “the tour guides” but they get the same Questions as on tours.  They also get some more time with students vs. the tour guides because students come early before the tour starts.

According to the ambassadors, students seem to be curious about their intended majors, and they are interested in the statistics that go with it.  The parents, as well, ask a lot of questions about jobs after graduation, and seem to ask more career-based questions than the students.

Both parents and students seem to be curious about the social life at CMU, wanting reaffirmation that CMU is a social school and not just a STEM school.  CMU indeed has social events like Buggy, Carnival, and Greek Life, and its departments in Drama, Design, and Fine Arts, to name a few, are some of the strongest in the country.  So disspelling the “asocial STEM school” myth should be a task for our exhibit to do.  Sports is a also a big talking point that helps to do this.

Not many international students are attending tours at this time, so the ambassadors don’t see “how diverse is CMU?” that often from students.  However, they personally often get asked “where are you from?” and are asked to tell their own CMU story.  Also, once the tours start, it seems that the question of “where are you from” provides the bridge for different parent/student groups to intermingle.

“How would I fit in?” is a good question for us to be asking.  The ambassadors said that “Being able to show whose been in your shoes before, and what they’re doing on campus is powerful.  Regardless of where you’re from, you can fit in.”  We then discussed that some aspects of CMU are hard-to-imagine in discussion, so instead maybe we could incorporate them in a screensaver-style opening image that visitors can see when they approach the exhibit.

Also, the ambassadors reiterated that humanizing famous alums is a good idea.  We can show what they did while at CMU, show how they used CMU resources, as this connects them with people coming in.

Finally, in terms of incorporating group selfies into the exhibit, the ambassadors recommended it.   Parents are just as interested as their kids, and it would draw them in.  Also, student/parents are probably gonna have similar questions.  The ambassadors noted that the visiting experience can be intimidating, so students often stick w/ their parents, especially in the beginning of the tour, so we should facilitate a sense of comfort.

On the tours, there is usually one parent / one kid pairing at least.  Sometimes, the ambassadors have seen students coming together as groups, as well as athletes meeting with coaches, but the parent/student pairing is a big one.  Going forward, a few of us are going to enter a tour pretending to be students to try to gleam more information from the experience.  Monday and Friday are the heaviest tour days, with seven tours over the course of the day from 9:30AM to 3:30PM, every hour, and often involve more surface-level questions like “what is the average class size at CMU?”.  The middle of the week has only four tours during a day.

While the prospective student group is not the entire portion of our target audience (we need to be thinking about alumni, donors, and community visitors as well), they make up a large bulk of it, so this meeting was very helpful in terms of thinking about the questions to ask students, and how we might want their experience to look.

Meeting with Kevin Allen:

On Wednesday, we met with professional Entertainment Designer Kevin Allen, talking a lot about how our design visualization might look, as well as the main questions/challenges that have come up in our design so far.

Censorship

• We still need to figure out how to provide a defense against inappropriate photos.  The question is how to keep out inappropriate photos without using a person.  We could have the photo not go live immediately and then have them be checked to make sure they’re ok before going live.

Lighting Design

• We want to make sure that we light people so that we keep them flattering.  As Kevin said “we don’t want any harsh lighting on grandma’s wrinkles.”  In addition to using low light, he discussed that there is room to have colored lighting, as blue light is more flattering than green or red light.

Branding

• We want to have a CMU backdrop that we can use on all the pictures, both for the sake of consistency and for marking purposes.  Kevin told us to think of the Oscars backdrop that attendees use for pictures.

Visual Metaphor

• We talked about want a visual leaping point (i.e. take all of the individual selfies and rearrange them so that it’s a map of the world).  Thinking about how we want people to feel coming up to the guiding image.  This kind of visualization, which Kevin called “Pictures as Pixels,” has been what our designers have been prototyping this week (see This Week’s Design).

Group Selfies

• An algorithm can indeed be written to factor in four people.  We can decide how many people can be in a selfie, and then have some means of taking the selfie that is consistent – this could be using an iPad, or have a remote control that the visitors can’t leave with.
• This provides an opportunity for using backlight.  Kevin mentioned that we could use T marks (like feet at airport security) to help people know exactly where to stand.  If we know how many people are going to be in the selfie (3?  4?), the camera can make adjustments.

Other

• Kevin pointed out that since our deliverable isn’t a fully-delivered installation, there is room for creative ideas within the content.
• Kevin also supported the idea of us pretending to be prospective students and going on a tour.  He advised that we each pick a different major that we’re interested in, so that way we can ask varied questions and find out more varied information.

This Week’s Design:

As part of our aforementioned design this week, we’ve been developing a visual prototype to hopefully show our clients.  The idea is that, on the macro scale, the mosaic will look like a map and then as you zoom in the pictures become interconnected pixels.  We’re hopefully going to get feedback from our client next week:

Going Forward:

In addition to getting feedback on our visual prototype, we also hope to speak to more SMEs next week to make sure we’re moving in the right direction.

 

The Work This Week:

Early in the week, we confirmed that we’d be meeting our client’s student ambassador research group next week – Monday 10/1 at 11AM.  We also put together a concept art sketch of what our installation might look like.

Afterward, the week ended up focusing almost entirely on 1/4 walkarounds and 1/4 sitdowns, and the feedback we received from faculty.

1/4 Walkarounds and Sitdowns:

Faculty were excited about the core idea of using the installation to facilitate connection between visitors and providing the feeling of “I belong here.” They liked the idea of establishing this connection, especially, between students and alumni.  They also had a multitude of wonderful suggestions for things we should focus on moving forward:

• The questions that we ask visitors to answer about themselves need to be heavily curated to provide a meaningful experience, because “these are the types of exhibits that actually last” [quote by Jesse Schell].  We need to develop questions that can envelope everyone that interacts with the installation.
• When we speak to our client’s student ambassador group, we should ask them direct questions about the types of interactions they have on tours.  What are some types of patterns they’ve seen interacting with prospective students?
• Speaking of target audience, we should nail down not just general demographic, but specific groups.  Because a group of students coming to visit with each other is different from a prospective student seeing the kiosk with a family.  The previous ETC project that tackled material like this, Wall Walkers, ran into a problem in which they tried to reach every demographic and had too many target audiences.
• Also, we discussed the possibility of spending an extended time in the Tepper Building to talk with the students that come through there and see what their wants are.
• Additionally, we need to ask our client of the possibility of taking group selfies, as this helps with throughput and provides its own type of meaningful experience, yet also carries different challenges.  Is it possible to have an installation in which you can take both individual and group selfies?
• We discussed the idea of using facial recognition software on the selfies.  This might help in making sure people don’t take multiple pictures of themselves to stack into the archive.  Yet the most important aspect that facial recognition software might do is making sure people aren’t taking inappropriate photos.  There would have to be a face in the picture for it to be taken.
• Regarding the Platform, people were generally split on whether to go Projector vs. Touchscreen TV.  The former is cheaper and cleaner, yet the latter works better with the light in the space, especially because the exhibit needs to be on during the day and night, and during all four seasons.  A next step for us is to measure the lumens in the space now to see if using a projector is even possible.
• The platform question extends to the direct input we’re going to use.  Kinect has been discussed briefly as a possibility, as well as iPad, DSLR Camera with Symbol, a phone with connection to the exhibit, etc.
• We also discussed the idea of the archive making the shape of a CMU symbol, like the Tartan, in some form.  This led into a discussion of how to include CMU traditions, in some form, into the exhibit.
• In speaking with Carl Rosendahl at sitdowns, we talked a lot about how to incorporate a permission/consent form into the exhibit, especially considering that visitors’ photos will then be used for other visitors to see.  We realized that having two consent forms (one before the photo is taken asking if the visitor wants to take the photo, and another after the photo is taken asking if the visitor is ok having the photo shared) might be a good direction.
• In speaking with Mike Christel at sitdowns, we discussed about how best to answer the question of “why or how am I unique?”  Do we want to provide a flexible time frame (month/week/day) of input so that a student from a specific country can see that he/she was the only student from that country that interacted with the exhibit on a particular week, but was one of many that interacted with it over the course of a month.

We now have a better idea of what to focus on and what questions we need to answer going forward.

Going Forward:

We will be meeting with our client’s research group on Monday, but they’re not the only expert group that we will be consulting with.  Going forward, we will be contacting Jess Hammer, Dave Culyba, and several other faculty that seemed interested in talking more with us.  We also were directed to the Pittsburgh-based company Deep Local, who are also involved in marketing work, as a company we could get some advice from as well.

Plus, we should now be focusing on doing some field research as well, talking with students in the Tepper Building during the day.

We have a lot of questions to think about.  Now let’s begin thinking about how to answer them.