Prototype Concept Explanation

The prototype I will be making for this course is a game mashup between 'guess who' and 'space invaders', called 'Guess Invaders'.

Players will play the game using a physical model of a spaceship, a number of physical 'feature' pieces that fit onto the ship (e.g. an antennae, portholes, a laser gun, etc), and a number of portraits of ships with different features on them.
The goal of the game is to stop the spaceship from reaching the bottom of the screen by flipping the correct ship portrait. Players figure out which portrait is the correct one by playing the physical feature pieces onto the model of the ship. If the invading ship has that feature, it will now display that feature on the screen, otherwise the game will indicate that the invader does not have that feature. Each time a feature is placed on the model, the invader ship will move towards the bottom of the screen faster, reducing the time players have to determine which portrait they should flip.
As players place more features onto the ship model, they will get a better idea of which invader they are facing, and will be able to narrow down the invaders in the portraits. Once the player has a good enough idea of the invader they are facing, they can flip a portrait of an invader down. If the flipped portrait matches the attacking invader, the player wins the game. If they guess wrong however, they will lose. Players also lose if the invader reaches the bottom of the screen before they flip a portrait.

Week 4

Exercise
This weeks exercise was to discuss the differences between high fidelity prototypes and low fidelity prototypes.

Exercise 1:

Elements of a car dashboard:

Steering wheel, volume control, aircon control, radio control, speedomoter, gas meter, gps, radio controls, air vents, windscreen wiper controls, window controls, horn, air vents, hazard lights button

Which compononents are relevant to driving behaviour:
Steering wheel, speedometer, gas meter, windscreen wiper controls, horn

What are the interactions of those components with the driver when driving:
The driver interacts with the steering wheel physically to redirect the car
The driver reads the speedometer and gas meter to adjust there driving behaviour
the driver interacts with the windscreen wiper controls and horn in response to external effects

What goal is implied by these specific questions:
These questions imply the goal of getting the car from one point to another by driving it, using it as a method of transport.

Are there other goals:
Yes. There are goals like 'making passengers comfortable' and 'keeping the driver awake'.

What would you test and how:
I would test the aircon controls using a vertical prototype, being a full replication of the aircon interaction system, with a simple seat+driving wheel mockup for the driver to sit in and feel like they are in a car while interacting with the aircon controls.
I would test that the controls are within reach of the driver easily, can be reached quickly and accurately, and can be manipulated by the driver without looking at the controls.
I would also test the responsiveness of the aircon and how quickly the user reacts to it.
The method of testing would be to place the tester in the driver seat of the car, ask them to pretend they are driving and need to do various things to the air con (ie, make the car colder/hotter, switch airflow modes, etc), then observe their interactions.

Exercise 2:

Horizontal prototype:
The phone allows setting and deleting alarms
The phone rings alarms one after another if an alarm is not stopped
The phone allows 2 different alram tones
The phone has a button to end alarms and one too snooze alarms

Vertical prototype:
The phone has an interface for setting, deleting and editing alarms, whith features like a calender for setting alarms for specific dates, and 'quick change' mode that allows the timeing of multiple alarms to be quickly edited.

Diagonal prototype: 
The phone allows for shaking the phone to snooze alarms that ring when the app is opened.

Week 3

Exercise:

This weeks exercise was to critique some videos explaining concepts.
Specifically we were asked to:
- give our first impression
- explain if we could understand the concept
- what questions does the video raise
- what could the video do better
- what did the video do well
- how well was the video made? (quality of video + audio, and were things shown well)

First video, Brisbane Parkfinder:

The first impression of this video is that its boring, mostly consisting of just a man talking in front of the camera, with occasional simple visual aids that do not provide much interest.
The concept was simple to understand, and explained fairly well. The concept could be better explained by getting to the point rapidly, which the presenter did not do.
The video does not raise many questions, covering most of the information it is intended to present.
The video could be improved by having a better speaker, and showing more interesting scenery (for example, showing shots of the the parks they are talking about), and possibly having some background music.
The video did well in the camera work, having a good steady shot with the presenter well placed in the shot. The video also did fairly well in covering the relevant information without digressing too much.
Audio quality of this video is not great, with a constant wind sound in the background and birds making noise. The video quality is decent and stable.

Second video, PadMapper Explainer:

The first impression here is good, with lots of interesting information and visuals being introduced at a rate that is not overwhelming, but still keeps the viewer constantly interested.
The concept is explained well, with the videos visuals clearly demonstrating the explanations given by the voice over.

The video could be improved by showing a real world interface (or mockup of an interface) to better show the viewer the concept.
The video did well keeping the viewer interested, using eye catching and engaging visuals, and having a good pacing on the voice over which kept to an excellent rate which did not overwhelm viewers.
The video was well made, with good visual and audio quality, with no background noise, although there were occasional words that were hard to understand.

Third video, Pegasus:

This video is somewhat confusing, with no real explanation as to what is happening. The first impression suggests that the concept is some sort of board game, but no further explanation is given throughout the video. The entire video consists of what appears to be a game being played out, but after the first few seconds of this, the video becomes very boring and repetitive to watch, especially without knowing the rules of the game being played.
The video produces questions as to the rules of the game.
The video would be greatly improved if it explained at least the basic concepts of the game being played at some point, and would be even better if it explained what is going on throghout the game being played. (E.G. on screen text pointnig out what moves have been made. (White tile captures black section for example)).
The video does well providing a detailed and visually engaging graphic of the game being played, despite overusing it.
The audio and visual quality of the video is good, although given the entirely animated and unvoiced nature of the video this is to be expected.

Fourth video, ember light:

This video has a good first impression, rapidly drawing the viewer in with an interesting explanation of what the product does, showcasing what the product can do for viewers before going on to explain the more technical details.
The concept is explained well, with the visuals of the videos showing how the product would be used in real life.
The video could be improved by showing more how the interface for controlling the product would work, and possibly by interleaving the technical explanations and the showcasing of the product with one another, to prevent viewers getting disinterested with the info dump in the second half of the video.
The video does a good job of showcasing the product and explaining is use in every day life, showing very real situations which viewers would empathise with.
The video is of very good quality, with excellent audio and video. Shots are well framed, highlighting the important aspects of each frame, and the voice over and speakers voices are clear and without interference.

Prototype thoughts:

Having seen some examples of concept videos, I have gained some ideas on how to go about making my own video. I plan to use a method similar to the PadMapper video, using graphics and a voiceover to explain the concept (although I plan to use physical effects rather than animation). I think that creating the video this way will best explain the concept in an interesting way, and will prevent me simply creating a boring 'sit in front of a camera and talk' type of video.

week 2

Week 2:

Exercise:

Design a mixed/augmented reality prototype:

I often get engrossed in doing things at my computer, and I'll take plates of food and cups of coffee into my room, then forget to take them back to the kitchen.
A program on my computer that could access my webcam to see how messy my desk is, and give me alerts to clean things away when mess starts to build up would be useful.
The program could be given a starting 'default clean' image of the desk, at the level of clutter I'm comfortable having it at, and then be able to give more frequent and urgent alerts the messier the desk became. It could also detect what I'm doing on the computer, and time alerts to be when I'm switching between tasks (like, give an alert as soon as a youtube video ends, or a game closes). The prototype could also recognise how long a mug or plate had been at the desk for, and determine whether I'm likely to still be using it. (So it shouldn't give alerts for a mug thats been there for 1-2 minutes, but after 5-10 minutes start giving reminders).


Thoughts on prototype to make:

So far haven't had too many more ideas, though I've been thinking a little bit. The space invaders/guess who idea is still the one I think I'll be most likely to do...
I have had a start of a thought though, for an 'improving every day life' prototype. An 'impatience thermometer', a device that you wear on your shirt that displays how impatient you are at the moment to other people. It would make it easy for people to see if it would be a good idea to bother you at the moment or not. It could measure things like tapping you fingers on your leg, how fast you walk, etc to determine the output to display. I don't know if it would work that well, but I'm going to think about it more over the week.

Week 1 blog post

Week 1:

Exercise: Prototypes:

What do you need? :
- an idea
- anything, you can use your body to demonstrate prototype features, or paper, or a full working example, made by hand rather than efficient processes. Different types of prototypes for different uses.

Used for: Testing ideas, proving viability, getting feedback, communicating ideas between team members (ie, getting concepts solidly in reality, rather than in each team members head where miscommunication can occur)

Purpose: Testing user response, proving concepts, failing - better to make a prototype that doesn't work than keep planning out an ultimately doomed/flawed concept

When to build: any time before the final product really. Different sorts of prototypes at different stages of development.

What does a prototype mean for my studies:

An opportunity to rapidly gain skillets and understanding of a wide range of design spaces.



Thoughts on what prototype I'll build:

I like the idea of mashing up 2 games, something like space invaders X guess who, with physical 'feature' buttons that reveal features on the invaders, and only shooting with the right character selected will be effective maybe. Each feature guess speeds up the invaders.