Theme 5 (Pre) - Design research

Part 1

How can media technologies be evaluated?

Media technologies can be evaluated with many different approaches. To achieve the best possible results it is recommended to apply various evaluation methods. As the aim of media technology should be to serve as an intermediate between sender and receive bridging the natural given communication gap, it is of highest importance to evaluate the usability. As mentioned in the text and according to the ISO usability is defined as effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments. Hence, the testing of usability involves systematic observation under controlled conditions to determine how well the receiver uses the respective media technology. Methods to conduct evaluations of usability are among others eye tracking, interviews and A/B testing.

What role will prototypes play in research?

Prototypes play a very important role in research and are there to evaluate the respective object of investigation on a small scale. A prototype is part of the first development stages and hence a powerful basis of decision-making which sets the course for further steps in the development process. In the text for example, the authors used a self-designed printed circuit board and a mock-up of a mobile phone which was attached with a vibration motor.

Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?

Through such a proof of concept prototype the idea of a certain concept can be presented and hence the concepts feasibility will be put through its paces. It could be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype in order to make wisely use of support funds as a proof a concept prototype can state the prospect of success on an early stage in the project. Without a proof a concept prototype the risk exists that monetary means and labour force are not target-aimed spent.

What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

A prototype is a preliminary version of a product from which other forms are developed. By using a prototype, the test participant can get an actual feel of the future product, since the interactions with prototype can enable the test participant to better understand the idea of the concept. As the prototype is developed in an early development stage and also part of the development prototypes are usually not complete and thus many details are not built in the prototype. A prototype can be changed during the development process according to the received feedback in order to fulfil all required needs for the future product. However, using a prototype with its limited functions causes also high chances that a test person considers the functionality of a prototype as a final state instead of considering it as a part of the development, which leads to a misleading evaluation.

How can design research be communicated/presented?

Prototypes are already a very powerful tool to present design research. Other forms can be for example visual material, such as sketches, concept clips or pictures which supporting an explanatory textual description in order to improve the understanding.

Part 2

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

In the first text by Ylva Fernaeus & Jakob Tholander, the empirical data consists of testing results through experience, i.e. observing how children correspond things when interacting with the prototype.

The empirical data in the second text by Anders Lundström not only collects data by testing the prototype, but also from a series of interviews with experts, early adopters and experienced electric car drivers. Besides that the remaining empirical data is gathered by a driving range app, recording the state of charge and the current speed of the vehicle.

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

In my opinion practical design work can definitely be considered as a “knowledge contribution” as the practical approach enables further perspectives which would be unknown without experience. As theoretical work is the pure product of the researchers’ thoughts there is a given risk that the research is due to unforeseen circumstances incomplete, which can be detected by practical design work.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

After my opinion the main difference is that design intentions within a research project trying to capture new insights through the observation and thus design intentions are mostly focusing on the development. Whereas, design in general aiming for products which are attractive to potential customers and hence focusing mostly on commercial or cultural aspects.

Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?

In general, I think that research is replicable in tech domains, however with clear limitations. Due to the fast-moving development world of technology there is only a short period of time in which research is replicable as otherwise the time/historical setting would already differ significantly. Furthermore, skills of designers and available tools also drastically changing over a relatively short time frame and hence I believe that the level of replicability within tech domains is lower than in other domains.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

An important difference is that design driven research is focusing on the understanding of human behaviour and the reasons why such an behaviour exists, whereas other research are focusing on gathering systematic data. Hence, it could be said that design research emphasizes on empathy rather than on logic.