Last post

So yesterday we had our very last presentation at the big finals. Here we explained the process, from the first museum visit to the finished product, and demonstrated our invention: Intuor. Unfortunately, we did not win the competition, but we certainly had the best prototype with the highest mindblowing factor.

However, there are some things we did not have time to elaborate, and that has not been mentioned in the blog as of yet. What did we actually learn from the course, and how did we apply this to our creation?

The first thing is standards. To avoid unnecessary confusion, we used a button placement that felt most natural. That is, the next button to the right of the back button and the pointer button at the front close to the index finger.

While designing we also though of the Magical Number Seven: There is no need to memorize where the buttons are, and what each button does, it should come pretty naturally to most people. And for others, it will only take a matter of seconds before he/she learns how to manoeuvre the controller since there is only five buttons and a jog to interact with.

Then there is Fitt’s law. We decided on big physical buttons instead of a touch interface, since the user is then able to feel the buttons, and can use the controller without having to look at it. The buttons all have unique shapes for this very reason as well.

As for the matter of potential errors: it is hard to foolproof everything, but we sure gave it our all. It is not possible to skip “slides” into the next or previous area since the slides are limited to each zone. If one presses the next/back button outside a zone, it would not trigger any reactions within the exhibit and startle visitors. We also added the back button and a reset button so that the user can easily correct any mistakes if they were to happen.

The screen on the controller can also show additional information when the user is performing “illegal” actions (such as trying to use the next/back button when no preset “slides” are available in the current zone).

Last but not least, the ethics. Our first ideas involved using technology to create new ways of taking tours at museums. However, this would mean that our invention would completely replace any actual guides, who are already a species in danger. That is when we developed our design principle:
Don’t replace the guides, enhance them.

That was it for us. Thank you (teachers, random Blogspot Americans and Germans, all of you) for having followed us on our journey in this course.
Sayonara!

Final powerpoint

3D prototype

As we had problems getting people to pretend they were guides (hard to find real guides willing to test our prototype) and at the same time making them feel like they were at a museum when using our digital prototype we came to a solution:
We created a prototype where you can test the features of our controller in a 3D-environment (a fictional museum) and have an easier time becoming immersed in the role of being a guide at the museum. This prototype also makes explaining what the controller does a lot easier.
The prototype can be found here: http://xml.csc.kth.se/~fberglun/MDI/webbuild/ (Right-Click -> "Go Fullscreen")

Final Prototype

First prototype

The first prototype we made was a web-prototype where you could click on the controller to go through the light/effect-slideshow in each room: http://xml.csc.kth.se/~fberglun/MDI/prototyp/
We used this for our think-aloud.

We also made a point and click prototype in GameMaker to showcase this function of the controller which can be seen in this video:

First concept (before the think-aloud)

Think-aloud results

The controller, with it's large buttons, was deemed easy to use by most. The fact that there weren't so many buttons also helped, but it’s clear that we need to add symbols to them so people know what button does what. The colour on the display matching the zone you’re in is good.  It’s possible we need to add a back button.

There was a problem conducting the think-alouds, since we didn't have easy access to the museum guides that would be our target group. Instead we had to use people around us, so maybe the results aren't as specific to the guides' issues as we would have liked. Another problem with the prototype is its second hand nature; you’re experiencing a simulation of the actual experience rather than the experience itself, unlike e.g. an app that you can test directly, which may have affected the feedback.

Feedback from other group

• Andra personan glöms om de inte tar guidad tur
• Tar fokus från andra turer
• Lämnar lite utrymme för improvisation 
• Lägga till steps on the fly
• Frågor om annat
• Är effekter verkligen vad besökaren vill ha?
• Hoppa för långt fram/bak
• Reset?
• Händer för mycket? Tar frokus från faktan?
• Hur mycket bättre blir det med lite rök och ljus?
• Bra design - Låter guiden köra utan att tänka på det.
• Idén bra och intressant - kombination musee/film
• Hur funkar det på andra museum?
• Idé:
• Alla har färdigbestämt effektprogram?
• Laserstyrt ljus

---

Visibility status: Rätt dålig

Matching system riktiga världen: Riktiga världen vill man kanske kunna gå var man vill

Constistens standard: Bra intuitiv

Error prevention: Finns ingen riktig felhantering

Recognition: Vilken knapp är vilken? Trycka fel?

Flexibilitet: Bra

Minimalistisk: Bra