Term 1 week 8
Team
Research methods:
AEIOU, creative toolkits
Amen Maheen
Clara Chow
Diya Agrawal
Lindy Qin
Molly Wensley
Niki Marathia
Clara Chow
Diya Agrawal
Lindy Qin
Molly Wensley
Niki Marathia
Figure 1a. Obstacle course concept. Sketch drawn by Clara Chow.
Figure 1b. Working out the user experience of the obstacle course. Sketch drawn by Clara Chow.
Figure 1c. Integrating the obstacle course with the human router.
We decided to integrate the obstacle course with the human router idea because we felt they complemented each other well (Figure 1c). We imagined the obstacle course would spread from the human router’s body, making the experience embodied and material.
Figure 2a. Close-up of the human router’s hands during our first round of testing.¹
Figure 2b. String extending out of the human router’s hands.²
Figure 2c. The other end of the string attached to chairs for the obstacle course.
We wrapped string around the human router’s fingers, exploring how it might feel if the obstacle course was controlled by someone’s hands. Once we tied the other end of the string on chairs though, we realised that the setup was too small. The idea felt promising, but the obstacle course needed to be bigger so we could test the mechanics properly.
Figure 3a. Wrapping string around the human router’s torso.
Figure 3b. Creating an obstacle course that extends through the human router’s body and is held by the team. Taken by Clara Chow.
Figure 3c. Testing out the obstacle course with a volunteer. Taken by Diya Agrawal.
For our second round of testing, we wrapped string around the human router’s torso. Instead of tying the strings to chairs, we held them in our hands while a user moved through the obstacle course (Figure 5c). The interaction felt playful, but the obstacle course itself was still too small to make for an engaging experience.
Figure 4. Sketch of our third round of testing, wrapping string around the hands and legs of human routers.
In our third test, we wrapped string around the hands and legs of two human routers. This made the experience more interactive for everyone involved, though the strings were a little uncomfortable for the human routers and the course still felt too small. We were unable to document this exploration, so I have included a sketch of this attempt instead (Figure 4).
Figure 5a. Making an attachment for the human router’s head.
Figure 5b. Testing the obstacle course.
Figure 5c. Adjusting the length of the strings.
Figure 5d. The other end of the obstacle course attached to the windows of our studio.
Using our bodies helped us realise that to add more height, we would need to start from the human router’s head. Our earlier attempts also showed that if we wanted to achieve a larger obstacle course, we would have to attach one end of the strings to the surrounding space instead of another person. That is when we started making a prototype that extended from the crown of the human router’s head through to the windows of our studio.
Figure 6a. Our volunteer completing the course during our presentation. Taken by Veronika Rovniahina.
Figure 6b. Our final design during our presentation. Taken by Veronika Rovniahina.
Figure 6c. The human router’s point of view of the obstacle course.
Figure 6d. Close-up of the human router headpiece. Taken by Molly Wensley.
Figure 6e. Close-up of the bells attached on the obstacle course. Taken by Molly Wensley.
For our final design, we refined the human router’s headpiece and added bells on the strings. Our only instruction on presentation day was ‘Attempt to cross the obstacle course without disrupting any bells. Good luck.’
- A diagrammatic analysis of our research would have allowed us to synthesise our findings without lengthy written explanations.
- In the tutorial after our presentation, we disucussed that photographing the creative toolkit session would have been beneficial. It would have made it clear that the drawings were not produced by us, and easier to recall specific details had we needed to later in the project.
- During our presentation feedback, it was suggested that we experiment with harsher sounds than jingle bells. I think it would be interesting to test this, and explore how sound alone could change the experience.
- In our feedback, it was also noted that the experience could be enhanced by adding another human router at the opposite end of the course.
- If I were to develop our design further, I would build on both feedback points. I would use the human routers to create a more complex obstacle course, and introduce low-pitch or electronic sounds to create an atmosphere. I would also test the design’s affordances more to explore how the human routers could move within space, and whether this movement might change the overall experience.
² To clean up the floor in Figures 2a and 2b, I used Photoshop’s AI Generative Fill tool. The subjects were not edited or altered.