Having one and a half studios this semester was definitely crazy at times, but I think it was worth it. This class gave us the opportunity to go behind the scenes in a way and see how much work really goes into programming. I wish that there had been opportunities for the design students to learn about coding and maybe gain a very basic ability by the end of the semester (which is kind of what I thought this class would be), but I understand how our time limitations made that pretty impossible. I think it would be awesome if this class developed into a twice-a-week course so that CS and ID students could learn basic skills in each others’ majors to make collaboration and splitting up work on the main project easier.
At first, I really can’t say I was too excited about our final project (Holler) because I was out of town on the day each group chose their topics. However, when I got back, I was glad to be in a group that had a solid problem and a promising idea on how to solve it. I think this was an important project to have since lots of industrial design jobs incorporate UX and UI design, and I personally appreciated it since I didn’t have any kind of UX work in my portfolio before this. I also definitely got a better understanding of app design by learning what was and wasn’t feasible from a coding perspective. Overall, I think that I’ve gained a solid base knowledge of app and UX/UI design that I’m excited to carry over into future projects.
Instead of addressing one of our feedback notes, I wanted to use two that contained opposite opinions. One note we got said that they loved the idea of combining their wallet with their phone case. Judging by the number of projects we saw that used this same base idea, I think it’s safe to say that there are a good amount of people that agree. On the other hand, one of our critiques stated that the combination of the two might not be as useful as it seems in theory. While seeing the positives of the combination idea, I actually tend to agree with this opinion. In a world of compact technology and all-in-one solutions, it seems like a logical next step to combine daily essentials like cell phones and wallets. Seeing the division between those for and against moving in this direction makes me interested to hear reasoning from both sides.
Most of the feedback Jun and I received in our interviews could be boiled down to a few main takeaways:
- Size. Wallets should be thin enough to carry in whichever pocket is most convenient to you. It should be slim and efficient.
- Cards. Our participants didn’t carry cash unless necessary. In turn, they wanted their wallets to fit around 5-12 cards. It was important to include a place to put cash, though, for the times it was needed.
- Accessibility. A common pet peeve we heard was inconveniently placed/sized sleeves in the wallet, sleeves with an unnatural orientation (vertical/horizontal storage), and anything unnecessary and irremovable in the wallet. At the same time, our interviewees said that it was important that the contents of the wallet were held tight and securely so they wouldn’t fall out.
These points helped us come up with a few designs, ranging from realistic to a little out-there.
This is a take on a fairly common bifold wallet with a vertical orientation. It has two card sleeves on one side and an ID (or frequently used card) sleeve on the other. The ID sleeve (which would ideally be a transparent thin plastic) has a cutout in the middle to allow you the ability to easily slide the card out. There are also pockets beneath the sleeves to allow for cash or additional card storage (not included in model).
The idea with this one was to give more freedom to the user by having a single interior pocket, partially divided in the middle. This would allow the user decide how to divide up the contents and has a higher carrying capacity than the bifold model. The main issue with this idea is that it’s not as secure as something with tight, organized sleeves. (The other sketch is for a phone case idea, the model is currently being finished)
Extending Card Holder
Last, and probably the wildest idea, is essentially 3 card sleeves/card holders attached to each other via hinged arms. The user can compact the sleeves into the size of one sleeve when stored and extend all the sleeves out when in use. This allows full visibility of all contents of the wallet, eliminating the struggle to file through a stack of cards before finding the right one. Also, because they’re tight sleeves, the contents are kept secure. Aside from the obvious challenge of making the hinged parts look decent, the downside to this model is the limited storage (though that could be fixed by adding an additional sleeve to the back of each one).
The Engineering of Experience
While I found some of the computer science based examples given kind of hard to follow at times, I thought this article brought up a lot of truths that I had never really thought about directly. For example, the importance of efficiency in “Taylorism” (or what watered-down versions of it we use today) has always been the norm for me in both school and work. I think this idea that while at work, one is there solely to complete a task, has carried over into some of my work in design in a way, I imagine, similar to Senger’s computer science and AI examples. I’ve always aimed to produce creative solutions to problems, but I don’t always provide accommodation for unanticipated human interaction. I think the solution going forward is to remember that no matter what the product, every user is still human, and as Senger says, “…they can somehow never generate the complexity and richness of natural behaviour of humans” (pg. 26).
Making Sense of Experience
This article made much more sense to me. I especially thought the four threads of experience and the six other bullets (anticipation, connecting, etc.) were outlined in a way that made each aspect of user experience easier to understand. I think this attempt to define each facet of experience was important, especially after the first article in which I was sort of unclear as to what exactly the ‘human behavior in experience’ was. This article also made me really see that creating a universally great human experience is impossible since we’re all so different and it’s our unique feelings, pasts, and associations that determine the effectiveness of an experience. The only question I have after reading this article was what exactly they meant by “tendencies to reduce” or “reductive experiences”.