Thursday, January 17, 2013

Presentation Day

We did it!

It wasn't easy and many many drafts found their way to the recycle bin- physical and metaphorical.


On the more general and positive side of the feedback given by those present, we were told that our project is exciting, that we were focused and in the right direction. One of the mentors even stated that he’s “dying to play it”. On the other hand, a concern was raised that due to the nature of the interaction the user’s inclination to participate in it might be simply dependent on his/her particular mood.

A few pointers we got:
  • It was brought to our attention that the flow of the interaction was not clear enough. One question was raised regarding how exactly the game is played, and if the user is simply expected to react to the system each time. We were also told to clarify how the flow of the game will match the timing of the traffic signal.
  • One question was raised regarding the synchronization of the game with the traffic signals: Are we in fact going to sync with municipality data and programs, or should we perhaps attempt to track the timing ourselves with the use of a photo-resistor?
  • The traffic signal count-down-timer feature was in general well received, although some comments suggested that we should rethink how and where to make this indication (one suggestion was on the pavement, since that’s where the user will focus his/hers attention while playing the game)
  • It was also stated that more thought should be given as to how to best present all the data we wish (points, timing, electricity produced) on the traffic light/ game surface.
  • Suggestions were made as to where exactly Street Simon should be placed. One opinion was placing the interaction near schools, children would perhaps be more oriented and inclined to participate in such interactions. This associatively reminded the commenter of the piano scene in the movie “Big”. Another suggestion was to even implement the game in building while waiting for elevators.
  • More debate regarding the game placement- in crowded or less crowded areas? Concerns were raised regarding potential over-crowding and accumulating lines to play the game (especially during rush hour), or even people fighting over who gets to play. 
  • Some proposed that too few pedestrians would more likely become an even larger issue, as playing the game alone, although possible, might not be as interesting and will not meet the goals of the interaction. 
  • We were advised to research busiest street times and areas and try to make some observations ourselves.
  • One comment stated that our study does not truly represent the user scenario as our presence influence the interaction. We were thus advised to conduct more passive observational research, in which pedestrians simply run into the unfamiliar game and we observe their interaction with it. 
  • Another opinion was that in fact the study conducted was efficient for the current stage of the project as a more basic exploratory phase.
  • The prototype demo: some thought it was a nice touch, some thought it was pointless.
  • As for the main objectives and focus of our product, some said they were fond of the social factor of the game and also of the electricity generation potential. Another opinion was that we should be more focused on one objective: Either passing the time in an enjoyable manner, connecting with others through crowd interaction, or producing electricity.
All in all the feedback was pretty positive, we took notes and have sort of an idea how to continue from here.

So long fall semester, hello exams period!

No comments:

Post a Comment