Our Blog

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.

The Work This Week:

During week four, we presented our research to CMU and got very positive feedback.

Our Research

Client Discussion:

They were most excited about the interactive guestbook + selfie mosaic idea (as used in Portrait Machine).  The idea that the exhibit is not just about the visitor, but about everyone in a way to evoke connection, is very powerful.  Additionally, they were excited about the ability to build a living archive by collecting these pictures of students, alumni, and everyone else.

They confirmed that prospective students will make up the greatest number of the visitors, although events that alumni are invited to will also feature prominently.

Additionally, they were excited about the idea of using a globe or map to demonstrate global impact (before + after coming to CMU) and using it as subtext for education.  They don’t want the exhibit to be a “watch this video,” “learn about CMU” kind of the thing.  They said that if the learning is a passive add-on (like learning about CMU’s global impact), it creates the connection we’re discussing.

They also posed us interesting questions:

How would we collect student information?

What happens with people who put in fake information?

How do visitors share their photos?

For the first question, we discussed ideas on how to connect students outside themselves in the early stages of the exhibit.  Prospective students might be reluctant to answer survey questions (they will mostly be wondering if they’ll fit , thinking if they’ll be successful, and wondering if they can afford CMU).  So, we thought about collecting data from famous CMU alumni or faculty that students will be able to interact with (in the early stages of the exhibit before there is a lot of student photos in the archive).

Because, as our client pointed out, students often look at alumni success when thinking about a university.  Seeing connected photos of famous alumni will connect them to CMU, and the exhibit, without being intrusive.

For the second question, we talked about making sure that tech will be available to override content.  This will also be useful if specific marketing groups try to hijack it (i.e. trying to use the exhibit for specific research programs).

For the last question, we discussed that we don’t want the exhibit to be linked directly with social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, because this opens the door to potential hacking.  So, for visitors to share their photos, we aim to go with the “email it to yourself” option.

Going forward, they mentioned groups that we could talk to, such as a Group of Student Ambassadors and an Alumni Relations Group, to further learn about what students and other users might want out of the exhibit, which was great to hear.

And, going forward with design, we were told that our budget number was indeed $150,000, and also got some clarifications on our design space.  We cannot drill or adhere to the pillar, so it will be great if we can find a way to work it into our design.  Same with the new color of the wall – it would be great if we could work with the new color, but we can repaint it if needed, because they don’t want to stifle ideas.

When we met with our advisers later in the week, we confirmed most of the positive feedback that our client was excited about, agreeing that we shouldn’t try to build around the pillar, and that we should start prototyping with the selfie mosaic idea, as that idea has gotten the best response so far.

Brainstorming the Visitor Journey:

Afterward, we got to work on thinking about which platforms to pursue, how to visualize our content, and the specific step-by-step journey we want our visitors to be taking.

For platforms, we want to think more about projection mapping, because it is clean, uses all the space, is less expensive, and hopefully will work the pillar naturally into a potential design.  However, due to the fact that our space is not a dimly lit room, we’re worried about lighting as well as user interface.  We believe that interfacing with a motion-detecting technology such as Kinect along with projection mapped content will be fine, but that would need to be playtested to confirm.

Additionally, we know that we can always use big TVs if projection mapping doesn’t work.

For visualization, we thought about how and where we want to use the map.  Do we want the opening screen that visitors approach to be an oscillating screensaver between a map and an example selfie?  Do we want visitors to be able to interact with a map to indicate where they are from?  Should we have a physical, tangible globe as part of the exhibit, maybe sitting next to the pillar?

To answer these ideas, we focused on brainstorming the user/visitor journey, knowing that visualization can be based on augmenting those steps once they are in place:

1. Visitors approach the installation and are asked if they want to take a photo
2. If the visitor says no, the exhibit refreshes to the main opening screen
3. If the visitor says yes, then once this consent is in place, the first question (i.e. “Where are you from?”) will be posed for the visitor to answer.
4. The visitor then takes their picture.  They can do this multiple times until they capture the exact photo they want.
5. The first selfie mosaic (based on the first question) is then displayed.  So, in the case of “Where are you from?” and the visitor answers “Pittsburgh,” then all other prior visitors from Pittsburgh will be displayed here in mosaic form.  Having a preliminary mosaic is designed to keep the visitor engaged as to what the exhibit can offer in terms of establishing connection with other visitors.
6. The visitor is then asked if they want to answer more survey questions.
7. At this point, the visitor can answer as many randomized questions as they like, such as “What are you interested in?” or “Where do you want to live for your career?” and see themselves in as many mosaics as they want.
8. Lastly, visitors have the option to email the photos to themselves.  They can either email the photo just of them, or email the different mosaic they saw.
9. We need to think more about places to make accommodations for visitors with disabilities as part of the A.D.A.  This will also tie into how we visualize these steps going forward.

We brainstormed several questions to ask visitors, agreeing that “Where are you from?” and “What are you interested in?” are the most important questions.  From there, we can ask questions about Pittsburgh life such as “What is your favorite Pittsburgh restaurant” or fun fun questions like “What is your favorite shape?” for visitors to explore.  These are less important, however, than the main ones that will be used to establish the core fellowship between visitors.

Branding:

This week, we also finalized our internal branding materials based on faculty feedback to combine two of our previous drafts.  We think it turned out very well!

Update:

One housekeeping thing.  Two of our team members have conflicts of interest on Friday that, it turns out, are semester-long conflicts of interest.  So, we adjusted our core hours accordingly:

Monday: 10AM – 6:15PM

Wednesday: 11AM – 6:15PM

Friday: 2:30PM – 7PM

Sorry for any inconvenience!

Going Forward:

We also are going to be talking with our client’s research groups next week to get more information about what visitors want to see.  We also have 1/4 walkarounds next week, so we will also get feedback from the ETC faculty to confirm our next direction.

We did a lot this week and we look forward to the next one!

The Work This Week:

Week Three involved us waiting to present our research to our client, as they requested we push back our meeting to Monday next week.  Understandable, because they were busy preparing for the grand opening of the Tepper Building at the end of the week.

In the meantime, we took advantage by continuing to curate our research for our presentation next week.  We narrowed down our ideas from “this is the research we did and here are some of the ideas that came out of it” to “here are three feasible directions we could go with this project.”  The ideas coming to mind so far include projection mapping, physical computing, and interactive display.  We will compile these ideas along with the methods for displaying the selfies (i.e. with backdrops of CMU vs. with images of other students/visitors) and present them to our client next Monday.

We also got a head start on internal branding, coming up with four ideas for our poster that we presented with our faculty advisors.  We will most likely be going forward with the Dots Idea (top-right), trying to blend it with some of the aesthetics from the Lines Idea (bottom-left):

Along with the poster drafts, we compiled a draft our logo as well as our project description.

Going Forward:

Next week, in having our client meeting, we will hopefully nail down a direction going forward.  We will also continue to prep for 1/4s, which will be held at the start of Week 5.

The Work This Week:

This week consisted of continued organization for our semester, as well as solidifying the ideas behind our research.

To ourselves, we presented the Related Works research that we had done over the weekend.  Some examples of these included:

The As We Are Project: Developed in 2017, guests are presented with a 14-foot tall, 3D universal human head model, in the back of which is a photo booth.  Guests can take 3D pictures of themselves, and then their head is displayed in 3D on the giant head.  We liked this project because it elevated the traditional “Selfie” idea into a visually innovative and eye-catching way.  The project also brought to our attention the idea of an “archive” in which guests can see their pictures displayed in the exhibit.

D’light Interactive System: Developed in Seoul, Korea in 2010, it is an interactive system that allows guests to use Kinect or an iPad to input text or images, which is then projection mapped onto the ground and wall.  This project introduced us to the idea of projection mapping as a potential form of interaction.

Dymaxion Spanish Pavillon Expo: Developed in Yeosu, Korea in 2012, guests are presented with a world map made out of LEDs.  This project introduced us to the idea of using LEDs as an abstract form of interaction, as well as the idea that maps connects people by asking them “where are you from.”

Portrait Machine: Developed in Amsterdam in 2009, guests’ pictures are analyzed and organized based on similarities and differences in angle, color, expressions and other groupings.  This project brought us to the idea that we could connect CMU students and other members of the CMU community with each other and the archived faces of people who have used the exhibit.

Museum of Illusions: Developed in Los Angeles in 2018, guests are invited to take selfies of themselves set against optical illusion backgrounds, stretched to create a feeling of depth and dynamism.  This project got us thinking of how we can utilize all three surfaces of our space.

We discussed our research with ourselves and then further discussed it with our advisors.  They liked the idea of using LEDs as a medium, because it is an abstract way of thinking and won’t look dated overtime.  They especially liked the idea of using human faces.

We discussed how in curating connection through CMU backgrounds and guests, it will be fraught with tension because inevitably we will leave something out.  However, if we curate this connection through human-to-human bridges, it is unifying by default as well as universal.  The question of “where are you from” continually can bring people together.

We also discussed, in going forward, that we will want to build a rough prototype of our exhibit, even if it means just using a computer screen and then placing our “picture yourself” interaction in the ETC for guests to experience, because it will give us good user data and will allow us to showcase what we did beyond just research.

We further narrowed down the important parts of our research by experiencing our first Playtest Workshop at the ETC.  We learned that knowing our target audience (CMU students, visitors, alumni, etc.) is a big plus, and that nailing down exactly what about CMU interests them is an important next step.  We also discussed different ways to ideate:

• Content/Story: What is the story of CMU that we want to tell?  Through different backgrounds?  Through different traditions of CMU?  Through the faces of other CMU visitors?
• Selfie/Mosaic: How are we going to capture the “Selfie” idea at its base, and how will we archive it for guests to look at afterward?  Will guests see themselves on a display screen that they can interact with (i.e. with Kinect)?  Will they take a photo that is then archived through a selfie mosaic like the Portrait Machine?
• Interaction/Platform: What will be the core interaction of our experience and what platform will we use for this interaction?  Will it be projection mapping?  Interaction through LEDs?

Finally, we used the Plex Cards given to us to come up with tenets for our experience.  We decided that the idea of Fellowship created through the experience is most important.  And that we are going to use the Simulation/Fantasy of our exhibit to allow guests to Discover/Explore different ways to create this Fellowship between each other.

Through this, guests will also experience the Humor that comes with taking selfies of themselves, the Sensation of interacting with the digital space, the Expression that comes with expressing themselves through photography, and Relaxation by allowing them to spend 5 minutes or so taking a break from whatever they are doing in life.

Going Forward:

We developed a Research Summary presentation over the weekend to hopefully present to our client early next week.  We want to find out their thoughts and opinions about the data we collected, which will help us in further narrowing down our specific ideas that we’ll pitch in a few weeks (i.e. the possible exact prototypes that we’ll make during the semester).

We also want to do further research beyond the internet.  We would like to discuss with our client about collecting user surveys about the interests that prospective, current, and past CMU students have.  We also are discussing the possibility of presenting some of our base ideas to CMU students on main campus, to see which combinations of our Content/Selfie/Interaction appeal to them the most.

Lastly, we discussed further field research that we could do.  We’re currently brainstorming possible locations in Pittsburgh that approach the digital selfie/installation idea to give us tangible data to work with.  And we also are going to curate a list of expert resources (both internal to the ETC and external) whom we can talk to and get suggestions from.

The Project:

The new David Tepper building is about to open at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).  CMU Marketing and Communications will be building a Welcome Center exhibit inside the building, and they want to design an interactive installation that prospective students, current students, alumni, and other visiting members of the CMU community can engage with.  They have approached the ETC to help design a “selfie spot” or digital kiosk that allows these visitors to photograph themselves along with customizable content.  Ideas for this customizable content include backdrops of CMU’s campus, locations in the world that capture the Art and Science hallmark of CMU, or the faces of other CMU students with shared interests.  The team has been tasked with creating an exhibit that showcases an innovative use of technology, but which also captures “the affinity of CMU” in its content.

The Team:

Douglas Luo: He will be a front-end and back-end programmer. He’s developed several games and has a background of computer science.

Matthew Floyd: He will be co-producing the project as well as creative designing.  His background covers many aspects of film, including narrative development and sound design.

Sophie Kim: She will be working as a UI/UX designer and prototyper in this project. Her background is a unique mix of interaction design and computer science.

Sunny Park: She will design and implement the user interaction and installation content as a front-end developer. She has worked on user-centered experiences with a design and programming background.

Wonjae Kim:  He studied Film & TV Production and grew interest in UX Design. He will be working as co-producer and experience designer, focusing on the physical installation and storytelling component of the project.

The Work This Week:

Week One mainly consisted of logistics, organizing our room, setting up roles, and creating an initial direction for the semester.

We recognize that our team roles will be a bit amorphous depending on the specific direction the project takes, but we hammered out basic role assignments based on our backgrounds and interests.  We also figured out the core hours for our project:

Monday: 10AM – 5PM

Wednesday: 12PM – 6PM

Friday: 12PM – 7PM

The biggest event of our first week, however, was meeting with our client for the first time.  CMU Marketing and Communications is represented by Beth Wiser, the Director and head of Visitor Experience, and Brian James, the Creative Director.  Meeting in the space that we will be designing for, we discussed the core interests that we all have for the project.

We talked about how the “affinity for CMU” is a core aspect that needs to be captured in the project and how our target audience includes students, parents, alumni, and donors.  They want something that is marketable, educational, and informational, but something that also “sizzles.”  We discussed that the “Selfie Spot” idea is the base level of design we should target, but that there is opportunity to expand on the idea.  They are excited about designing something technologically innovative, but want to make sure the exhibit is not so technologically complex that it confuses the visitors.  As a final deliverable, they want (at minimum) key documentation and a prototype that their team can build afterward.

At the end of the week, we developed plans for doing further research, over the weekend, on both the Marketing/Branding Guidelines of CMU, and related “Selfie” installations around the world. We will then curate this information with ourselves and our advisors by next Wednesday, and then go from there in setting up our subsequent schedule.