Pre-seminar reflection 5

1. How can media technologies be evaluated?

Since media technologies is such a broad term and envelops everything from advertising to product design, it’s hard to come up with an absolute truth of how to evaluate it. However, starting from the read paper by Rehman, Sun, Liu, and Li (2008), one method of evaluating could be to do so performing tests on a mockup of a telephone (which in this case was used to simulate a football’s whereabouts on a soccer field). Thus, performing user-tests on media technological products is a way of evaluating that type of media technology. Furthermore, the authors speak of certain parameters which are to be measured to generate data on how well a particular product performs what is needed: effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Using these parameters is a specific way of evaluating a certain product through a quantitative method, through which the authors can extrapolate statistical data which can be used to draw larger conclusions.

2. What role will prototypes play in research?

Since prototypes generate a large amount of the data that is to be evaluated in media technology through user tests, they are of great importance. In this particular project the authors used the prototype of a mobile phone with a built-in vibration system connected through a PSB board to induce the feeling of a ball being kicked when the ball was kicked on a real field. Thus, had there not been a prototype one couldn’t have conducted any research which was to be based on user interaction with a device of that kind.

3. Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?

Developing a POC prototype can help you, at an early stage, figure out whether or not the intended prototype fills its intended purpose successfully or if it lacks in any department. Thus, developing such a prototype can quickly help you realize any flaws in design or technology in the prototyped product.

4. What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

In the nature of prototypes rests that it is developed at an early stage in order to distance the final product from both technical and design related problems. Thus, a prototype generally contains certain faults and bugs, which is a natural part of its existence since it’s entire life-cycle is intended for flushing out problems so that the end result doesn’t contain any faults whatsoever. Also, the advantage of having a prototype do this is that it can be changed based on feedback during the iterative design process.

5. How can design research be communicated/presented?

Design research can of course be presented in the form of papers containing vast amounts of empirical information. However, a possibly more interesting way of communicating the research is through presenting its prototype - either through an actual high-fidelity device, or through a low-fi paper-based model of the intended device (even though the first example probably resonates the best with users).

6. What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

Empirical data’s definition is based on Kant’s concept of a posteriori knowledge, i.e. “knowledge learned from the senses”. According to this definition, in the article by Fernaeus and Tholander (2006) the empirical data is the data retrieved from their qualitative method. The qualitative data gathered is the recorded observations by the authors of the users when they utilize their prototype. Thus, the empirical data is the recorded children’s usage of the interface.

The Lundström article from 2014 uses many different methods which yield empirical data. First off, the article introduces a State of the Art Analysis to map out the existing landscape of power consumption visualization in electric vehicles - and people’s attitudes towards these. After this, they go through an entire iterative design process which yields empirical data - that in turn yields works as basis for their final prototype.

7. Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

I would argue that it can be considered knowledge contribution since practical design work at some points creates some form of cognitive or creative information based on the creator’s knowledge. However, it would be considered rather strange to conduct design work without implementing feedback from user studies, since the entire notion of design is based on users interacting with the object developed. Also, even though the design process doesn’t include user feedback doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t of importance for future design studies on the subject - it might still be of use, even though one can’t extrapolate empirical data from that particular project.

8. Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

One could imagine that design within research is more aimed at answering a certain research question, whereas design in general (e.g. for commercial purpose) is more intended to create value with the consumer through aesthetically pleasing design and usability. However, both of these extremes can of course overlap and most probably do that on most occasions.

9. Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?

Yes of course. Technologically based research must be replicable due to its constant development. Also, in order for following design projects on the same topic to not become redundant, information on time/historical setting, designer skills, tools, etc must be accounted for.

10. Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

The design driven research often has to be based on qualitative measurements, which means that the method must be thoroughly worked through (more so than many quantitative methods) in order for the results to be interesting. That may be a reason as to why design research has so many framework methods such as wizard-of-oz as opposed to other fields of research.