The presentation in mid-term review cleared up the direction of my next stage.
The list of keywords is below.
• User testing
• Benefit of client
• Ability level of the target
• The location of activity (which space, area? Level of height? Precisely…)
• Motivation (How they want to do this activity?)
There is one issue in my project which stands out in relief that the weakness of approach from client’s side. Most of keywords from critics are about consideration for clients and their motivation of the activity. All feedbacks reshape the proposal to next stage.
There is also more concrete example which relates my project in terms of the client’s motivation. One is quilting bee. This is participatory knitting process, and which requires several people (more than two or three). The point is people have a conversation while they are knitting, and also they can rotate the area where they knit so that they can collaborate and share the idea of patterns.
The second example is about NFP which is called Fiber Zero Association. They are promoting artistic participatory activity. Any people can join this activity and they can make something with fibers together. The point is the targets, even blind, deaf, and any other handicap people can join this activity to have a fun. To achieve this, the NFP is approaching how those people can join and have a fun with it. The method is close to knitting but totally freedom. They can do anything with fibers, therefore, the solution is not product, but still artistic creation of collaboration.
All critics agreed my project, however, they noted that I need to do user testing for next stage. Before doing this, I need to improve the solution a little bit more, because the part where I need to develop of my project is about client’s side. The motivation of client to do this activity is different because some client does not want to do join an activity or even be close to care worker. This is very critical point, however, on the other hand, this is great opportunity to make my project much stronger and promising.
Picking up one feedback from a critic who is product designer in NYC, he gave me one question which is laser pointing my next direction. The question is why the target(s) has to use a “product” in my project (activity) instead of their hands, even though they could knit by their hands and it is still actualizing the collaborative activity.
This is not about the negative point of my project actually, but he gave me a trigger to think what only “product design” can do and (or) make people are able to do beyond the ability of hands. This feedback gave me huge impression and makes me to think more deeply about the project.