Theme 5 - Researching some design

Xplore that mobile game

According to the paper, media technologies are best evaluated on a in the metrics of usability experience. This umbrella term encompasses three main aspects, the effectiveness of the technology’s main purpose, the efficiency with which it completes said task and finally the level of satisfaction that the intended user feel.

The prototype is obviously a central piece in achieving a meaningful result for any new technology. Without a practical test-version, there is no way to know if it will actually work in the end.

Although the prototype is of outmost importance to see if a given technology might be viable, a proof of concept, as referred to in the lecture, can be essential in order to even get to the prototype. While not specifically stated to be the case for this paper, such a proof is more often than not the reason any technological research is even initiated. In the competitive environment of science, whether academic or corporate, there is always a measure of prioritization. In order to convince your peers why your specific project is worth the investment, a proof of concept is key.

By definition, a prototype is an incomplete product. While this might not necessarily define exact limitations, it will point towards certain characteristics. A prototype needs to contain the major, or key, features that the final version is intended to have. By testing and showcasing the core aspects of the proposed product, you can achieve both practical experiments and a realistic view for people outside the project.

There are many ways possibilities when it comes to presenting design research, the first one that comes to mind is the method of Design Fiction. Although Design Fiction can mean many things, certainly the definition differs depending on who you ask, I'll give you my idea (which indeed co-relates quite a lot with all that was said during the lecture); 

Design Fiction is the idea that by creating a fictional representation of your product, through an appropriate medium, you are able to showcase exactly how it is intended to work upon completion. I think this is already happening as our "science-pitches" are getting more advanced, and when you fight for funds to your research, you are always looking for ways to convince people of your idea.

The qualities of practical design

Question 1: Of course it can be seen as knowledge contribution! Now, one might argue that in order to make such a statement one must first define knowledge, and this might indeed be true. However, in a broader and I dear say more practical (hurr hurr) sense, it will indeed contribute.

By applying an idea, in these cases through an actual prototype on a set focus group, practical design allows us to illustrate possibilities. Now I will be the first to admit that such an illustration is conformed within a very specific frame of limitation, i.e. just because something is possible it might not necessarily be feasible.

Question 2: Well, once again it all comes down to your definition of design. For some people, design is just a way of presenting something, a shell if you like, aiming to look appealing in some way. Others, see design as a statement, or choice of style while for another group, me included, design also incorporates a thought/sense of purpose.     

If you fall into the last of the above mentioned groups, well then there really is no difference. Design within a research project must always have a well motivated and defined purpose, even though that purpose is to make something look beautiful.

Question 3 (and 4): To be completely honest, I think this is the wrong question, or at least it is phrased in a way such that the answer becomes rather vague.


Question - Is it replicable?

Answer - Yes of course, just do the same thing all over again  

Is this tech domain in any way different then other such domains in this regard? Not really, however it might be harder to pull of the exact same thing. What does it mean, to "do the same thing again"? Then there is another follow-up question aimed at clarifying the previous one with a more specific context, and while that question is indeed interesting it is also damaged by its lackluster predecessor.

(Now, if the question is to be made interesting, because I realise that the reader might wonder if a I can come up with a better question myself)

Well, I will give it a shot, how about: How can we handle the inevitable differences, within aspects such as time/historical setting and the skill of the designers, when trying to cement conclusions from previous studies by replicating their process?

And in one big swoop we managed to encompass the fourth question as well, this wall of text really did the trick! Now, how about the answer? Well lemme´givit´ a try!

I think that the key point in this case, is the goal of the design, if we are aiming for the same goal, and keep to the same set of parameters, the design itself can differ immensely and still provide similar results or at least strengthen the same conclusion.

To give some examples of what I mean: Our vehicles and our fuel may change, but we will still be interested in having a low consumption and thus we will be aiming to create ways of informing the driver in that regard. Likewise, we our taste for design might change over time, but we will always want to have appealing design. Our language may change, but we will always be interested in a design that makes things clear.

Now, my point to this is that results from such studies may very well become useless over time, the conclusions drawn from such studies will probably hold a lot longer, and thus stay both relevant and useful for the next study in line.

Speaking about useful, a towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitch hiker can have!