Versions Compared

Old Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Unknown User (lpertusi@mit.edu)

Saved on

compared with

New Version 9

changes.mady.by.user Unknown User (denzils@mit.edu)

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

the meta-level decisions about your design process: your risk assessments, your decisions about what features to prototype and which prototype techniques to use, and how you evaluated the results of your observations.

Panel

Project Proposal

and

, User Analysis, and Task Development

What We Learned

While creating the project proposal, we learned that it was a lot easier to get our creative juices flowing once we knew what we wanted to develop. Through the entire proposal process, we realized how important it was to conduct the interviews, especially in the case of Torch. We learned the importance of digging deeper and really focusing on the aspects of route-planning application. Once we had designed the tasks and narrowed our focus, it was really easy to begin creating designs. Together we brainstormed all the different ways that we could have such an application, and each of us focused on a different way to do the three main screens. This process allowed us to have four different designs for each main screen, giving us a lot of options. Our end design ended up being an amalgam of different parts that we all created, and it really allowed us to have the best possible design going into the paper prototyping. 

What We Would Have Done Differently

When we were trying to decide on a product, we at first were focusing on what was already out there rather than what was something that we wanted to use. We eventually learned, but if we had started from that mindset of creating something of use rather than improving something that was already in existence, we could've saved ourselves some time and thus, would have had more energy to devote to analysis and proposal of Torch. When we first started, we didn't really have a specific problem and we had some lofty goals. To be honest, we should've narrowed down our focus directly to the specific needs of self-guided tours rather than what does the user "find interesting" angle.  We should've narrowed in scope our User analysis so in the future it would've been easier to develop specific tasks and needs. Our interviews were more surface level than they should have been, and while designing our product, we had to delve more deeply, a task we could have avoided if we had done more comprehensive interviews originally.

...