You are here: M2.2 Showcase > Final Master Project

Final Master Project
February – June 2010
Coach: Tilde Bekker, Ben Schouten
Final report
Movie

Curious-action: design-research on eliciting repetitive curiosity in public spaces

Persuasive technology often uses attraction to elicit behaviour; however, when this attraction fades, the persuasion fades as well. Lack of curiosity is one of the causes for this; the aim of this project was to elicit and analyse repetitive curiosity.

Through proof-of-concepts and user evaluations, it has been shown that it is possible to elicit repetitive curiosity. Four principles (novelty, interpretation, uncertainty and conflict) and two mechanisms (scaleability and scaffolding) showed to be strong evokers of repetitive curiosity. Four different types of behaviour (normal, explorative, playful and pattern) were elicited in the encounter-behaviour process. The entire process, and the performed behaviour, is heavily influenced by the context, and all its variables.

A proof-of-concept shows that applying these principles and mechanisms is effective for eliciting repetitive curiosity. Six interactive speakers have been developed, responding to passers-by in curiosity-eliciting ways, using sound output.

Reflection – analysis, design and research

My main challenge in this project was setting up and executing a thorough design-research process. Several constraints had to be fulfilled at the same time: (1) finish the entire process within the allocated 20 weeks, (2) study curiosity thoroughly and in depth (research) and (3) develop an interactive installation that elicits curiosity in a public corridor in a vocational school (design). This proved to be a difficult, yet instructive challenge. I will first briefly explain how I solved this; followed by a reflection on influential decisions.

The major trade-off throughout the project was design versus analysis. It is almost impossible to create an effective persuasive technology by applying literature principles – a good design is needed in order to persuade. On the other hand, it is just as difficult to distillate the effective principles in a finished design – one can never prove that a certain principle exists in the product. On top of this, my dense planning forced me to make decisions in an early phase, in order to reach the analytical depth that I aimed for.

I solved this by choosing a platform early in the process, and sticking to that. A platform in this case was an interactive installation with a fixed input, output, medium and embodiment. This allowed me to design such an installation in iterations, while developing and evaluating simultaneously. Using this, I could safeguard my process, and reach the analytical depth. In addition, I was able to incorporate persuasive principles directly, while also creating an interesting installation.

Additionally to the platform, I had to choose for experience versus analysis. I could design an interesting interactive experience, mixing in curiosity, enjoyment and other emotions. Or, I could focus purely on curiosity, in order to study this principle in depth. I choose for the latter: this was completely new for me – I had never designed for analysis before -, and I felt it would provide me with stronger insights and findings.

Downside

Presented as it is above, the downside of my choices for analysis become apparent: I might have been too analytical, removing the opportunity to create a real curious experience. One can (validly) argue that curiosity is a lot stronger and more persuasive, if it is embedded in an aesthetical experience. There are certainly several advantages and disadvantages to both methods: I elaborate about that in more detail in the Appendix of my report. That said, I feel both approaches are mandatory, and complement each other; in order to fully understand curiosity, I need to study both isolated and embodied curiosity. With the short amount of time available in such a Final Master Project, I’m very happy with the results: useful and refreshing insights, a range of newly developed competencies, and inspiring iterations – even if the eventual interaction might seem a bit dry at times.

Understanding the user

The target group in this project, and in the follow-up PhD, are secondary and vocational school students. Initially, I felt that this was a relatively easy-to-approach target group: I am almost of the same age, so I expected to be able to relate a lot of my own experiences to theirs. I was surprised how wrong I was, and feel a bit naive on hindsight. One anecdote can nicely summarise this: when visiting a secondary school, on just entering the school yard, I was hailed in an almost hostile way – I clearly did not belong there, and students looked at me in a very suspicious way. Combine this with the variety of nationalities, with which I have even less experience, and a new challenge was complete.

This ‘problem’ simply asks for a slightly different approach than normal: for example, approaching the students via the teachers to gain authority; interviewing groups of students instead of individuals; letting the students review existing solutions and record their opinions instead of asking them to review one of my designs; and so on – all methods adapted to the user. Just like a designer always needs to do, but I was surprised by the unexpected ‘extremeness’ of those users. Certainly promises interesting studies in the next years: I’m looking forward to this challenge!

Critical thinking

On advise of several experts, I spend a good deal of time on a solid literature-based foundation: this would strengthen my project, and help as a first iteration for my PhD. I noticed that, compared to previous literature studies, I had become more and more critical of what I was reading. In the past, I often accepted everything I read from papers and books without much thought. Now, because of the combination of increased knowledge, and experience with publishing, I found myself questioning literature a lot, often seeing contradictions or even impossibilities in my findings in the literature study. This critical reading was strengthened even more when I helped my supervisor to review a paper: very challenging, and interesting, to look at a paper this critical.

All by all, I have changed in this perspective, and I feel it is a good and immediate applicable feat: it is mandatory in a PhD project.

Teaching

As part of the PhD project, I was asked to start teaching at the Fontys University for Applied Sciences. I participated in two courses: Playful Interventions and User-Centred Design. Beside the experience and competencies developed from setting up and executing a (small part of a) curriculum, I noticed a personal growth in didactical skills. Teaching is a lot more than just giving a presentation: the audience, the message, and the goal are totally different than I was used to. Keeping the attention of the entire class for a few hours, finishing exactly in time for a lesson to end, but also the way of presenting the information to make it graspable: all very instructive for me, and a good and enjoyable experience – but one that asks a lot of energy!