How can media technologies be evaluated?
In the article ‘Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration.’ by Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008) they used user studies to evaluate media technologies. Which gives good, subjective feedback. However I believe it is important to perform these studies in a situation and environment in which they are later to be used, otherwise the results may be somewhat skewed.
In the article ‘Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration.’ by Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008) they used user studies to evaluate media technologies. Which gives good, subjective feedback. However I believe it is important to perform these studies in a situation and environment in which they are later to be used, otherwise the results may be somewhat skewed.
What role will prototypes play in research?
I think prototyping makes it clearer for the researcher how the product are/will be used. This gives him insight into the possibilities of the product and what things are necessary to focus on. That information is really viable when conducting research.
I think prototyping makes it clearer for the researcher how the product are/will be used. This gives him insight into the possibilities of the product and what things are necessary to focus on. That information is really viable when conducting research.
What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
A prototype can never be a perfect, finished product. The meaning of prototyping is development, to see what works and what needs to be changed. What is missing and possibly what is abundant. To try out new ideas and to iteratively redesign and evolve into something a bit better with each version. A prototype always has room for improvement, because when it has not, it’s finished, and not longer a prototype. Prototypes could be released early, for testing and research and doesn’t have to work perfect. A finished product should on the other hand not be released to early, and should not fall short.
A prototype can never be a perfect, finished product. The meaning of prototyping is development, to see what works and what needs to be changed. What is missing and possibly what is abundant. To try out new ideas and to iteratively redesign and evolve into something a bit better with each version. A prototype always has room for improvement, because when it has not, it’s finished, and not longer a prototype. Prototypes could be released early, for testing and research and doesn’t have to work perfect. A finished product should on the other hand not be released to early, and should not fall short.
- - -
What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?
In the paper ‘Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space’ by Fernaeus & Tholander they mostly collected data by watching and analyzing participants using the programming environment they set up. While in the other paper ‘Differentiated Driving Range’ by Anders Lundström the empirical data was extracted from online conversations, interviews and information based on prototyping.
In the paper ‘Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space’ by Fernaeus & Tholander they mostly collected data by watching and analyzing participants using the programming environment they set up. While in the other paper ‘Differentiated Driving Range’ by Anders Lundström the empirical data was extracted from online conversations, interviews and information based on prototyping.
Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?
I think so. When designing and then testing new systems for real, you gain knowledge and get an insight into what is working and what is not, if it’s even relevant to use in the real world.
I think so. When designing and then testing new systems for real, you gain knowledge and get an insight into what is working and what is not, if it’s even relevant to use in the real world.
Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
The way I understand it is that designing for the purpose of research is to gain new knowledge of an established system. While designing in general is more about creating and establishing a system for users. In that way they both realize a system but with different intentions.
The way I understand it is that designing for the purpose of research is to gain new knowledge of an established system. While designing in general is more about creating and establishing a system for users. In that way they both realize a system but with different intentions.
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?
This is a really hard question and my thought is that they are not replicable since research are based on very many factors such as time, location, setting, quality and so on.
Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
I think the difference is that general research are based mainly on observations where design driven research has its focus on the conceptual side. Design driven research are ment to intervene and improve.
This is a really hard question and my thought is that they are not replicable since research are based on very many factors such as time, location, setting, quality and so on.
Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
I think the difference is that general research are based mainly on observations where design driven research has its focus on the conceptual side. Design driven research are ment to intervene and improve.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar