Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
111 lines (104 loc) · 12.7 KB

Design process.md

File metadata and controls

111 lines (104 loc) · 12.7 KB

  • Analysed different methods of design (divergent, convergent, mapping prototyping)

  • How might we? : starting from the general problem statment, each of has created HMW cards. We also tried ChatGPT for those cards.

    • Grouped the HMW cards around similar topics
    • Dot voting to determine the most imporatant questions

  • Inspiration board: we gathered images, news,concepts etc that reminded us of the project/inspired us

  • We took the sticky notes (ideation cards) created previously, grouped them under themes, added new cards (w and w/o help of ChatGPT)

  • We converted themes into cards

    • We came up with 5 suits for ideation cards (Critical, design, scenario, narrative, stickiness)
    • We decided to keep two suits: critical and design and distributed the themes across these two options
    • Some suites can serve as a "checklist" for a quality check for the designs created (to be determined later).

  • We divided the themes among ourselves so that each of us had cards from each suit (critical and design). Then we each created ideation cards based on the theme with the format: title + description

  • We "tested" the cards. Each of us drew one card from each suit and came up with a design. We repeated this to see how we draw cards (keep drawing 2 cards until we find an idea, keep the one we like and continue drawing friom the other suit etc.), whether the combinations lead to ideas.

  • Then each of us looked at all of the cards to either present alternatives to the card content itself (changes regarding the title and/or the description) or we suggested to keep them as is.

  • We also merged/unmerged cards, discussed whteher the card is a good fit for its suit.

  • We applied the MoSCoW method to determine the most important, relevant cards to keep in the deck.

  • March 5, 2025: We started to go over each ideation card to finalize them (decide whether to keep a card, refine the description and the title, choose among the alternatives of the same card)

  • We decided on a "final" set of cards after several iterations on the cards (which involved merging, deleting, moving the cards between the two categories, rewording): 37 critique and 30 design cards.

  • May 14, 2025: we decided to conduct an autoethnography

  • May 21, 2025: we decided on what to report for each diary entry and created the required fields in the form. We decided to record 4 entries each until our next meeting.

  • May 28, 2025: After 4 days of recorsing diary entries for the auto ethnography, we discussed how it went. We polished the form that has the sections of our diary and merged the fields that we found redundant. We also added new fields: ChatGPT transcript, option to upload an image, how long it took to come up with the design. We also discussed different ways of interacting with ChatGPT: use the prompt we have (the one with the previous designs as examples), talking about the cards drawn first and then designing. We talked about differetn ways of experimenting with the design process: using ChatGPT or not, how we interact with it (we let it come up with the design, try to extract ideas only etc), narrative style (following the "template" we have, how to improve the narrative, or try something other than the template...).

  • June 9, 2025:

    • We clarified some questions we had about the auto ethnography. For the cards used field, we'll write only the ones we used but explain in the resflections section, whether we drew more cards and decided to use a subset fo them.
    • We also discussed what is the goal of this process: find the optimal promt that will generate a good critical design? Create a 5-star design independent of the way we interact with ChatGPT (or without it)?
    • We should also reflect on the things we tried and didn't work (a prompt, drawing cards in the morning and thinking about them whole day and taking down notes, creating the design in one session, coming up with he name of the design first, limit yourself to the first two cards you've drawn, use both cards, use only one of them etc.)
    • Another goal is testing the cards: do they work, in which combination, ideal number of cards for coming up with a design...
    • How long the autoethnography will take? If we think that we start to use the same patterns during the design process, we can stop and try also other things. We all thought that we can continue making designs.
    • Some common criticisms we had about the process that the design sometimes lacked plausibility, had a preachy tone, sometimes the prompt generated answers more than what we wanted (like explanations, analysis of the design)
    • We are also experimenting wiht the narrative style.We followed this "template" in most of our designs: describe, why the design is liked, what goes wrong. But we also tried creating a narrative only design, news, an ad for a design, meme, images etc.
    • We can also have "challenges": to create 5-star designs only (not a design a day but it may take longer to polish the design to have 5-star rating), draw two cards on Monday and create 5 designs using the same cards during the week (another version: all three of us use the same two cards)
    • At the end of the process we can rank all of our designs (using dot voting for insatance). Why we liked them? Which component is strong? (Name, plausibility, creativity etc.)
    • We decided to co-design all together in the next meeting.

  • ​ June 18, 2025:

    • Discussed the option to edit the text generated by ChatGPT in the Canvas it provides, easier but later it may be more difficult to follow the changes in the transcript.
    • "Start with why" -> what problem does your design solve?
    • Trying 3-4 different narrative styles for the best designs we have. A similar idea: create 3-4 different visualisations for a design. We can work on 5-star designs to experiment with different narrative styles, different types of images etc.
    • Generating an image for your design is a way to check whether your design actually is aligned with what you had in mind. A visual way to check.
    • Storyboard is another format we can explore for our designs
    • Creating a rubric, checklist to better evaluate a design. What aspect of it I like and don't like. Ex: I may like the narrative but maybe the design is not very strong in terms of the plausibility aspect.
    • Another way to interact with ChatGPT is to discuss the card itself (not necessarily about a particular technology, app etc.)
    • Where does your design stand between sci-fi and plausible tech (closer to what we use,have now)? A desing can be a futuristic version of an existing tech.
    • Another aspect that would make a critical design strong could be showing how it affects the society. Not simply a descritpion of a sci-fi scene, but also thinks about the societal changes it triggers, like the everyday life aspect of it.

  • July 2, 2025:

    • We discussed our experience about creating three designs using the same two cards (Phishing and Doomscrolling). We all think that the third one was more difficult.
    • We started co-designing during this session. The cards we drew were Deceptive Design and Finances.
    • We brainstormed about what the cards mean.
    • For deceptive design: not necessarily intented to be evil directly. Some examples: Aceept button is more prominent than decline, sneak to the basket, convincing not to opt out, comparison with nudging and bright patterns.
    • Can we use deceptive design for a good purpose like preventing the users from making a catastrophic error?
    • Discussed what the artifact should be and what the narrative should be, what the critique is
    • Creating intentional friction for the users: like speed bumps for security reasons, similar to physical cues like fences
    • We discussed different type of narratives (once we have the design, we can write it in several different styles):
      • Description, why it is good, what went wrong
      • Museum artifact
      • Newspaper article
      • Like a tale
      • First-person narration
      • User reviews
      • Ad for the product
      • Humorous, dystopian, scary...
    • We noted down the main points we discussed and decided to come up with a design (or a sketch of it) individually, without the help of AI. We'll each submit the designs throught the form we used for autoethnography.

  • July 9, 2025:

    • We discussed the titles of the vignettes. A title for the narrative vs using the name of the artifact as the title

  • One of the conclusions we drew from this experiment: ideation cards work

    • 5 different versions of the same design to show that there are no rules to prescribe for a design.

  • We’ll come up with criteria that differentiates a good design. These criteria can be general for any type of critical design.

    • We discussed how we can analyze our diary entries. Two options: thematic analysis and affinity diagramming, using Miro vs Taguette

  • We concluded that the entries for the personal reflections are too long for affinity diagramming and it will be better to use thematic analysis

    • We'll start with open coding

  • We also discussed the relevance of inter rater reliability and reflexive thematic analysis.

    • We decided to randomize the entries and each of us will code separately the first 20 entries

  • Next meeting, we'll compare our tags to determine a common codebook

    • Each week we'll code in batches of 20 and discuss+compare iteratively to make sure that the themes align

  • July 23, 2025:

    • We discussed how each of us did the coding.
    • We decided that it would be useful to have a categorical label for each code.
    • We also discussed how to code the parts that we weren't sure how to categorize. (assigning miscellaneous and then deciding which code to assign)
    • We will decide how to share the codebooks to reach a consensus. (And using affinity diagramming to analyze later)
    • We'll add descriptions to each code.

  • September 17, 2025:

    • We have each been doing the coding of the diary entries for the past few weeks.
    • We decided to export the codes to Freeform and cluster the codes around common themes, so that we see the overlap of themes among codebooks.
    • Reflexive thematic analysis
    • Explaining how we did the coding.
    • We also occasionally go over our codes to rearrange them as we code more excerpts.

  • October 1, 2025:

    • We discussed our strategies for coding. Our codebooks ahave different level of granularity in terms of the tags but we mostly identified similar concepts (even though each may have named it slightly differently) like prompt strategy, design strategy, narrative structure, what we liked about our design, inspirations, emotions, creative process, self-criticism, evaluation of the methodology itself, disucussion about how the cards are used in the process.
    • Some other questions emerged: do we need ideation cards? Is AI helpful? When it is not helpful, was it beacause the prompt wasn't good ?
    • Ideas about working on the desings more: changing the narrative style, illustrating them.
    • Practical applications: will it be educative content? or more like an art exhibition? a website? or tag them into categories and randomly choose a vignette to read under a category?

  • November 5, 2025:

    • We went over the whole design process and shared insights about the coding process of the diary entries.
    • The themes emerged during the coding process are rather the insigths about the process.
    • HMW used to explore what we'd like to achieve. Ex: avoid clichés, draw inspiration from different things, how to make ideation cards, etc.
    • We then dot voted on the most important things and then, come up with the ideation cards.
    • Present the process with double diamond?
    • We can also summarize the whole process into three stages: brainstroming with HMW, creating ideation cards and the diary study.
    • How to create ideation cards and how to use them are two different processes.
    • Reflexive thematic analysis
    • Some themes explored: Whether human-AI collaboration worked well or not, human limitations, general process of generating the vignettes ...
    • Usefulness of ideation cards: Are the deigns as good as the cards? No, it is more like a starting point.
    • Diary studies were the quality control for the cards.
    • Are the designs themselves good? One of the things we look at how well the story is told: open-ended, absurd, writing of the narrative
    • Cards✅ it is not about improving the cards. But what about the design process? What if we gave up early in the design process and that's why we weren't happy with a certain vignette?
    • Each if us will chose top 8 best designs from two piles: ones created using ideation cards and the ones created before ideation cards. We'll reflect on the process: what we liked or didn't like about a design and how it effected our choice, was it easy to chose the designs...
    • We also discussed the possibility of illustrating the top desgins we choose at the end.