"Articulating Co-Design in Museums", CSCW 2016 presentation
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•479 vues
The document summarizes two participatory co-design processes used in the meSch project to create tangible digital installations for museums. In the first process, workshops were held with partners to develop concept ideas and non-functional prototypes. In the second process, an existing prototype was customized by a museum and designers. Both processes involved sharing skills and knowledge between participants and shaping design decisions through activities, but the existing prototype more directly influenced roles and participation compared to ideas and non-functional representations. The document reflects on the benefits and challenges of different collaboration approaches within co-design.
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (12)
Similaire à "Articulating Co-Design in Museums", CSCW 2016 presentation
Similaire à "Articulating Co-Design in Museums", CSCW 2016 presentation (20)
Plus de Luigina Ciolfi
Plus de Luigina Ciolfi (7)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
"Articulating Co-Design in Museums", CSCW 2016 presentation
- 1. Articulating Co-Design in Museums: Reflections on two participatory processes ACM CSCW 2016, San Francisco, 27 February-02 March 2016 Luigina Ciolfi*, Gabriela Avramº, Laura Mayeº, Nick Dulake*, Mark T. Marshall*, Dick van Dijk^, Fiona McDermottº *Sheffield Hallam University (UK) ºUniversity of Limerick (Ireland) ^Waag Society (The Netherlands)
- 2. The meSch project: creating a DIY toolkit enabling heritage professionals to design and configure tangible installations for their institutions. The entire project adopts a co-design approach Bottom-up design of the toolkit: populating it with “recipes” (i.e. templates) of tangible installations that other heritage professionals can replicate and customise Complex and long-lived co-design endeavour including project partners and collaborators from many heritage institutions
- 3. Existing literature reflecting on the co-design process: decision making; “degrees” of participation; power relationships; evolving participants’ roles Many co-design projects commence with an open brief (goal of developing design concepts); others have also explored how existing prototypes/interaction concepts can be used as prompts, tools, or development environments in the design process. Little has been said about how different collaboration approaches unfold within the same co-design frame, and about the possibilities and challenges from a more complex strategy
- 4. 18 months-long phase (February 2013 –July 2014) 5 large-scale co-design workshops (participants from the 3 partner museums, other designers, social scientists and technologists from the project consortium). 7 further sessions organised and facilitated by various consortium partners, involving representatives from collaborating museums from their local areas. Various techniques used to generate ideas for tangible interaction concepts/prototypes: brainstorming, scenario building, sketching, rapid prototyping, etc. Alternating convergent and divergent design explorations All co-design activities were documented through note taking, video observations, self-reporting by facilitators through blogs, and (in most cases) post-hoc interviews
- 7. Design partner working with a science and anthropology museum in the same country. Richard (lead designer); Henry and Francis (heritage professionals working at the museum) Henry, Francis and their colleagues identified the need of making wayfinding in the museum easier and more fun, and providing some guidance to visitors interested in specific themes that connect various exhibits “Augmented Compass” idea developed through brainstorming and scenario building/discussion A non-functional prototype of the compass was created for discussion and elaboration.
- 8. Design team tackled the making of the prototype: suggested change of form in order to accommodate necessary technology and functionality From the compass to “The Loupe”: the functioning prototype is a magnifying glass that visually augments objects or locations in the exhibition space, and provides clues to visitors for moving to the next point of a recommended trajectory.
- 10. Workshop with designers and 6 CHPs from 5 collaborating institutions (from archaeology to history and science). They were presented 5 exploratory prototypes built by meSch. They could choose one and adapt it to suit their museum (form-wise and content-wise), based on their own ideas/strategies. Julie (historic house museum) teamed up with designers Niall and Linda, and with Mary (from an art museum) to develop an interaction scenario around “The Way Detector”, a portable device providing light guidance through haptic feedback Scenario detailing; Julie provides insights on the house; Niall, Mary and Linda give suggestions based on their experience, and on possibilities offered by the prototype. Customisation of Way Detector with appropriate content files and behaviour
- 11. The Way Detector is adapted for the historic house museum to encourage visitors to explore the servants’ quarters of the 19th century house: a replica of an original kitchen utensil from the house: a pie dish Niall and Julie, Mary and Linda work together on developing the interaction context, sketching the design, making a quick physical prototype and adding the relevant content and behaviours to the way detector The final prototype is demoed to all other workshop participants
- 12. Identifying the issues around which the process unfolded and that shaped the practices of participants, and how this occurred: Skills and knowledge shared Influence of the prototypes’ form Openness vs. defined concept Shaping of design decisions Participants’ roles and involvement
- 13. How do participants share different skills and knowledge with collaborators when designing using low-tech representations compared to high-tech prototypes?
- 14. How did the form of the prototypes used during the process influence participation in the development of design ideas?
- 15. How does a non-functioning prototype support interpretation? Is a functioning prototype less open to interpretation than a low-tech representation or idea, as a low-tech representation provides a broader picture of how the prototype may work and what technologies may be applied?
- 16. How did the two processes support the shaping and making of design decisions? Which activities occurred in each case to underpin design development?
- 17. How were the roles and the involvement of the participants affected by the two processes?
- 18. We presented a reflection on two different and somewhat alternative participatory processes within the same large project by a team of designers, heritage professionals, social scientists and technology developers. As co-design becomes an increasingly widespread approach to technology design (in heritage settings and beyond), the process also becomes more complex. Co-design strategies are more diverse and variegated. Co-design as collaborative work
- 19. The project (2013-2017) receives funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme ‘ICT for access to cultural resources’ (ICT Call 9: FP7-ICT- 2011-9) under the Grant Agreement 600851. Thank You!
Notes de l'éditeur
- The meSch team is reflecting on such process of co-design as one of its main outcomes (valuable particularly within cultural heritage, but not solely). C-design resource
- In this paper we have taken two examples of co-design activities within the same phase of the process and with a common goal, one that stems from an open brief, the other from an existing prototype, and we have analysed in detail how each process unfolded and the similarities and differences between them.
- Very long and rich co-design phase, many interaction concepts and scenarios were generated, coming from various sources and motivations. How did they emerge? What kind of work did the facilitators have to do to achieve their goal in such different processes?
- The two examples that we discuss in the paper revolve around the same interactional need: that of a tangible, lightweight way to direct visitors around a museum In our analysis, we focused on each specific case to highlight how different ways to frame co-design activities lead to different processes. We also looked at how the different processes supported the making and shaping of collaborative design decisions, particularly with respect to the use of technological prototypes. Our analysis is not aiming to identify which of the two approaches is more effective or successful, but rather to illuminate how different processes may unfold within the same participation frame, and to point out to a number of issues and concerns emerging from these processes in varying ways. I will give you a very brief description of the two examples
- The first example represents those co-design workshops that started with an open brief focused on artefacts, exhibitions or challenges that the museums brought to the table.
- Their chosen guide appearing on the face of the compass could be, as Henry put it: “a zen monk, a pizza delivery driver, or even Superman ”. Brainstorming in subgroups around compass idea. Scenarios and bodystorming. Scenario evaluation: pros and cons.
- Describe Way Detector Full detailed description of the two examples in the paper
- While we had similar goals and results in both examples, the way in which things happened is quite different.
- We reflected on when and how knowledge is shared within the team, and at which critical points of the process. In the first example, the focus was initially on low-tech design techniques to allow the CHPs to present their ideas, without worrying about feasibility or technical knowledge to realise the scenarios. However, about halfway through, the designers had to find a practical solution to implement the compass idea at least partially, and transformed the concept into a different form factor, that of the Loupe. Henry and Francis expressed some disappointment that the jointly developed concept was not realised exactly as it was envisaged. The technical knowledge was not shared from the beginning by a deliberate choice, but that led to some communication and acceptance issues later: the Loupe had to be re-integrated in the scenario. In the second example, the CHPs, Julie and Mary, could see and understand from the beginning how the Way Detector worked and what possibilities it offered. The designers were first to share their knowledge and to offer their skills at modifying the prototype in whatever way the CHPs wished. The decision whether the technological know-how should be shared earlier in the co-design process depends on whether the potential pitfalls of placing boundaries on design ideas are lesser than the advantage of giving all the members of the team a better understanding of how the technology works for a design scenario. Deciding when to share certain knowledge leads to different sequences of discussion/decision Technical knowledge was not the only kind to be shared in the two examples: The specialist knowledge of the CHPs was shared too - not only in the initial phases of the discussion (e.g. Julie’s description of the historic house), but also during the development of the scenario (e.g. Julie explaining that the prototype had to be held, and could not be directly placed on the surfaces of the house)
- The presence of some representation of the prototype form factor shaped each process. In Example 1, the concept and lo-fi prototype of the augmented compass was translated into a physical object that reminded but did not closely reproduce the shape of an actual compass, but it was a Loupe - making the object pleasant to hold, but also providing some space for the technology to be built in later on. The form was different from the concept, but ensured for a good working prototype. In Example 2, although the shape of the Way Detector was meant to be as neutral as possible (a blank white ‘egg’) and the participants were informed that the shape of this prototype could be easily altered, Julie had some difficulties imagining the technology actually embedded in a different shell, i.e. the pie dish. Once this was achieved thanks to the skills of the designers in the team and after a lengthy group discussion, the ideas started flowing freely. Working with a functioning prototype, albeit an intentionally “generic” one, requires a stretch of imagination in regard to adapting the form to the context. Once the new form is identified and appropriated, new functionalities can be envisaged to complement the existing ones (such as adding a smell component proposed by Julie).
- In example one, a metaphor such as the compass afforded a broader exploration of desired functionalities and served as a prop for eliciting more information from the CHP’s knowledge of their visitors. On the other hand, a defined concept can make the design process more immediate and focused, but still provide room for elaboration of the interaction concept,. In the second example, Julie selected the Way Detector as the prototype that suggested the most potential to her, and developed her ideas by re-imagining it for the historic house. Therefore, while presenting the CHPs with a specific defined concept in isolation might be problematic in the early stages of the co-design strategy, it seems that offering a choice from a portfolio of such concepts can provide good scaffolding for their ideation in relation to their domain and interests.
- The actual design scenarios evolved in both cases through a dialogue among all the members of the team that alternated open-ended proposals (such as the addition of a certain interaction, or the introduction of particular content) and discussion of how they would fit in the envisioned scenario. In both the examples, open brainstorming and technical specification were crucial activities. Also, it’s important to note how the particular context of the mesch project, the goals and power relationships in the two examples (which are interlinked with decision-making) were influenced by the overarching goal of the project. Participation, in both cases, was configured to suit the needs of the project team: they initiated and directed the process and they held the “bigger picture” behind the co-design activities. There seems to be a delicate balance to find between the more open and creative activity, and the more constrained one: the framing of both brainstorming and technical specification in the co-design process is critical in establishing how the subsequent collaborative development of ideas and decision-making will occur.
- Both examples show how the particular composition of the team allowed for sharing information across professional and disciplinary boundaries. In both cases, the co-design activities were facilitated by design project partners, who created space for the decisions and contributions of others. However it was CHPs who were in charge of choosing the challenges to work with, and thinking of which interactions to Implement Applying Druin' s ‘onion model’ to these two scenarios would situate the CHPs between the Informant and Design Partners roles of the model, meaning that they have been involved at multiple stages of the design process using technology. in both examples the involvement of participants changed as the process evolved, both regarding their relationship with the technology and with the developers. This indicates that even within phases of co-design, and within specific exercises, roles ad forms of involvement are continuously shifted and re-defined as the process evolves and as collaborators jointly make decisions and share expertise. This shifting of roles does not just apply to the non-technical participants (e.g. the CHPs in our case), but to all participants.
- Value of the analysis, reflection and discussion of two alternative processes that were deployed within the same project frame and the same co-design phase. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but both useful to support valuable participatory practices within the same frame Important to analyse in-depth how collaborative practices unfold in such cases. Greater attention to less linear processes, and to various forms of facilitation to achieve a common goal