Reflection

In the discovery phase this week, we have learnt to use divergent and convergent thinking in our process by generating, specifying, and ideating our ideas throughout the stages.

During initial problem finding
Brainstorming and narrowing down ideas helped expand and clarify our problem space, with insight from all group members. It allowed us to branch out to smaller issues/consequences (such as inefficiency or lateness to class). Collectively, as a team, we had many perspectives which helped us create a main frame to the problems to investigate in the next phases of discovery - in observation, interviews and research.

Observation trip
We turned our observant eyes on, which helped us notice features about the signs around uni that we did not realise before - such as their quantity, placement, and clarity. All of us felt frustration when stepping in the shoes of a 'student finding a class', allowing us to understand the user experience. These experiences helped us pinpoint many problem areas in the signage, and their corresponding consequences on users (and how they feel).
‍
Empathy stage
Conducting interviews helped us understand how students approach/feel about signage. It helped us gain more perspective on seemly common/simple problems. Our findings helped us sort out which issues are the most prominent (need targeting), as well as their effects. We discovered that each student had different approaches and methods for navigation (some relied on most physical signs, and others maps/apps). However, one area I think we could have improved on is asking for more specifics as to how they felt during the room finding process, or even allowed them to elaborate on the specific details in their way finding process.

Secondary Research
Secondary/Primary research at AUT- this experience was the most eye-opening part for me. It gave me insight into a whole new approach to University signage, and I was impressed at the clarity and quantity of the signs. The design did seem well thought out, and student centred. Comparing my observations in UoA and AUT, helped me notice many differences and potential improvement tools we could use (such as colour coding).
‍

Reflection

The define phase helped once again, see more clarity in our project and figure out what we will focus on during the development phase. We started this process by laying out all of the data and findings from the (divergent) discovery phase, and converged these problems using various activities, collaboration, and analytical thinking .
‍

Problem Brainstorm (left)
This helped us share information from the discovery phase, clarify the commonalities and point out the things which we were surprised about, e.g. "Many people did not know online map resources existed" and what things would make a difference, e.g. "Orientation teaching first years how the numbering system worked"

User stories (middle)
We created character stories to understand scenarios of users with different traits. This helped us summarise some main user concerns from empathetic view, and helped us be inclusive in our problem coverage, e.g. A student that wants to travel home safely,   and a student with classes in a row wanting to take a faster route to avoid running.

HMW statements
Using the character stories, we generated 10 how might we statements, and then chose 3 which we deemed most important. This gave us a general problem frame. 
‍
Before proceeding, we collaboratively looked over the activity resources and assessed their usefulness, as well as finding online way finding diagram inspirations. We moulded the shape and functionality of these activities to cater to the needs of our topic. 

‍
‍

User Inner Thoughts (activity #1)

This inner thoughts exercise helped us gather mainly the empathy findings from our discovery phase. This activity helped us highlight common situations and main questions/needs of the user as they encounter each of the different environments, e.g. when indoors, “How do I read the class number?”. The diagram gives us clarity to the the specific services that users would like during their navigation process, and which 'questions' we could help users answer while ideating in the development phase. 

User Journey Mapping (activity #2)

We narrowed down the user journey process specifics - using the phases 'before', 'during' and 'after', with details about their specific actions and feelings about them, which helped us break down the user experience more thoroughly. We used our interview results to create two different user profiles - with their own characteristics and navigation methods:

These two graphs highlight some similarities and differences between navigation experiences, which will help us approach the problem with inclusivity of these differences. User feelings showed where their experiences could be improved, e.g. “Looks at map directions, they aren’t helpful” was a negative experience.

The "make or break" points show the crucial steps which we must focus on. Here we have a breaking point which is quite similar  for profile 1 and 2: "Trial and error to find the right class", "Sometimes cannot find class -> late to class", which outlined to us that finding the specific class is a prominent issue.
‍

AEIOU FRAMEWORK(activity #3)

Defining our focal points
From our large collection of insights and ideas, we then had to prioritise which were the most impotrtant. We moulded the AEIOU into prioritisation tool within categories - using the format of the DES101 wheel.

The different categories of AEIOU are: Activities, Environments, Interactions, Objects, Users, and we divided these into subsections to compare. Our criteria of assessment was - Which are more integral to our users' way finding process? Which needs the most improvement? Which will benefit the user experience the most? Which parts do we (group members) have the skillset to develop the best?
‍

The AEIOU categories and sections helped us clearly organise the aspects of our problem. During the activity, we all engaged in an active discussion to analyse the different aspects of the issue in a deeper level, and come to a mutual agreement on our target problems for the development phase. 

Interpreting the chart above
Our main focuses are on: User interactions (mainly first years) with physical signage (Indoor, buildings and for safety), to help them find their class. Lower priority (but still important) problems are: Providing more map education during O week, improving physical maps, and being inclusive with sign (languages). It was also clear that all aspects of the environment - indoor, buildings, safety, needed attention. Below are the written reasons for each ratings.
‍

Summary

Our discussions and visualisations through these different activities effectively put our large quantity of problems into a sieve, helping us arrive at a clear direction for the development stage. Each activity had its own purpose in terms of categorising, narrowing down, prioritising, and clarifying our problems. Good collaboration, and listening to each others' thoughts helped us make decisions with better logic, and build on each others ideas which improved their quality. Together, using the crucial problems we have identified, we decided on our final goal:
‍

‍
FINAL HOW MIGHT WE STATEMENT:‍
How might we improve the wayfinding design at the University to ensure students can find spaces efficiently
‍‍

100 ideas

Our first goal for the week was to rapidly brainstorm 100 ideas to solve our problem for our HMW statement. By aiming for quantity over quantity, we were able to diverge our concept landscape and explore multiple opportunities. First, in the studio, we generated several quick ideas- many of these arose directly from problems in our observations, empathy and researching, e.g. interactive signage. We also added any creative ideas we could think of, e.g. VR glasses, collaboration with Google Maps, giving new and unexpected concepts.

Change in environment

We had already whizzed out around 50 ideas, but for more inspiration,  change in environment and go on a small adventure to AUT. Here, while walking and in a relaxed environment, we were able to loosen up, chat, and develop on our observations. We generated several more ideas e.g. using acronyms for UoA buildings, e.g. OCH for Old Coral Hall. We then went back to the studio and sat around the table to speed fire ideas, and we had a lively discussion while we came up with out-of-the box ideas.

Narrowing It Down

Voting on Miro
We utilised the Miro voting tool to choose our preferences unanimously, while discussing in between. We did two rounds of voting. After our first round of voting we sorted top votes into categories to help us visualise the main types and to reduce  category overlap. This voting process helped us quickly and efficiently narrow down the 100 options to 3 main ideas which we all agreed on.

‍
TOP 3 NOTES

‍• Add a game aspect or achievements to the app signage to get points during o-week.  
--> Creating a wayfinding o'week activity

 • Employ graphic design symbols + typography etc. in signage      
--> Improving signage graphic design

‍• Cohesive, interconnected signage system by using a colour coding system to connect maps, signs and directory  
‍--> Creating a cohesive signage labelling system

Testing the Top 3

Quickly prototyping and testing our assumptions with users

1. O-week way finding game with achievements
‍We created a storyboard prototype (cartoon strip) to show the experience of a first year using the way-finding game during o-week. We then asked our friends to see what they would think of the experience.

‍
USER FEEDBACK
The people we talked to said that they liked the idea, but didn't know if they would actually participate. They commented that looking for classes that you won't need isn't helpful and they would be more likely to take part if it was explained to them that university is hard to navigate.
‍

‍
2. Improving signage graphic design
‍We used illustrator to draw on top of an existing sign photo we have, to create a mockup of an updated signage. We applied a clearer font, hierarchy layout, as well as directional symbols. We intend to show the before (old signage) and after (updated with graphic design principles) to test with users and get feedback on which they prefer.

‍
USER FEEDBACK
The people we talked to really liked the improved design in general. The feedback we got from different users included: it grabbed attention and seemed easier to use, that it was  "much clearer". One person said that it was still confusing (did not give context to the buiding) , and another liked the use of the arrows.
‍

‍1. A cohesive, interconnected signage system
‍We decided to test this concept by creating two mockup labelling system to try out: Colour and Letters. For each labelling method, we created a map, faculty sign and room signs. We then stuck the signs in the environment around us, and used the maps to test the navigation and sign identification experience.

‍
USER FEEDBACK
From our trial within group members, we found out that both labelling systems were effective and easy to use (especially the colour), and made buildings easy to identify. We also agreed that a combination of the two styles would be even better. The people we talked to also agreed, and said that both the lettering and numbering were easy to understand and follow.
‍

Final Concept

In this phase, we went through yet another cycle of divergent and convergent thinking. Generating a wide variety of ideas has allowed us to be open minded, yet selective to find the direction for our best solution. We worked through all these steps with speed: quick generation, selection and testing, which was time efficient and effective. After narrowing down from 100 to 3, we discussed in our group and came to the conclusion that we would do a combination of our last 2 ideas to create an impactful design solution.