Co-Design Methods
1. The Black-box
Description
In this activity the participant is given a simple box with the dimensions of a portable device. The box has no specific function, but instead represents a device that could help the user in any way when the problem is encountered.
The participant/user is exposed to a situation where the problem (previously identified) has to be dealt with. The situation can be either created or real though the closer it is to the real situation, the more accurate the results to be drawn. Before the game starts the participant is asked to be aware of the problems encountered and to imagine the black box provides a function that helps him/her to deal with it. In this way, the blackbox becomes a device that acquires functions that help the participant overcome the problems encountered, an imaginary fully working and useful device.
After being exposed to the situation for a specific amount of time, or after the participant has been exposed to the identified triggers, a discussion takes place. The participant is asked to describe the functions he/she thought the black box could provide. There are no limitations to the functions and ways in which the device helps the user.
Goal of the activity
To identify the specific needs of the participant when the problem is encountered. Similarly, the functions the device/service to design could perform to tackle the discomfort experienced can be identified. The functions described by the user might not be feasible for the project, or even for the current technology and design possibilities. However, the root need of the user could be identified, and further translated into a feasible solution.
Data type
Description of the functions that the black box could perform to aid the user. Written details of the participants' feedback. Video recording of the participant explaining the functions of the black box.
Insights use
Understanding of the immediate ways in which the participant/user can be supported and aided when the discomfort is triggered. Similarly, the functions described can be translated into functions that the product/service to design could perform. The challenge can be additionally identified from the perspective of the user, which can further support the insight of the designers from a more personal experience.
Materials used and participants
A black box is not strictly necessary to develop the activity. However, an object whose appearance does not suggest a specific function must be used. The object’s dimensions must resemble those of a portable device, one that fits in a hand.
The researchers (designers) and the participant must take part in the activity. Documenting the results and giving feedback, respectively, is their main role.
Explanation of main choices and rationale
Since the specific causes of the participant's repetitive communication cannot be further investigated, because of time limitations and lack of in-depth knowledge about the disease itself, taking a pragmatic approach results more convenient. In this way, the problem can be tackled by understanding the immediate need of the user when the discomfort that triggers the behaviour is encountered. In this sense, the original cause of the behaviour is disregarded, and instead the symptoms of the discomfort are addressed with the design solution.
Further details
The activity will take place via Zoom, during the weekly meeting with the participant. Given that the project is restricted to a digital environment, the researchers will not provide the material given for the activity. Thus, the participant will be informed about what is needed to develop the co-design activity.
2. Stimuli hub
Description
The participant takes part in a conversation about different topics. Ideally, the conversations are related to the project itself, as well as aimed to gather information about the participant . This way the interactions take place smoothly, and the discomfort of the identified problem is encountered while trying to make the participant as much involved in the conversations as possible. During the conversations, different stimuli are introduced in order to trigger different responses from the participant. Auditory and visual stimuli, as well as emotional, will be specifically introduced. Selection of these stems from identifying the main stimuli involved during interpersonal communication. The stimuli will be introduced in such a way that they are aimed to trigger the discomfort that causes repetitive communication. From this, noise will be made at the background of a conversation with the participant. Furthermore, as a visual stimulus, one of the interviewers will move around their physical space creating a moving visual background. Finally, the interviewer will ask questions and consequently act distracted or uninterested in the conversation. The latter is aimed to trigger a sense of disconnection and lack of involvement from the converser as an emotional stimulus. All the stimuli will be introduced at different times, and must be performed by the main person interacting with the participant. The behaviour of the participant is observed, especially her communication skills and emotional responses. To add to the depth of the results, the participant is asked about her feelings and thoughts during the co-design activity.
Goal of the activity
Identify whether or not different stimuli affect the communication skills of the participant during a conversation. Furthermore, if stimuli do interfere, it is an aim to determine the type of stimuli that most likely affect her behaviour and could potentially trigger the repetitive communication behaviour. The extent to which the stimulus interferes is furthermore identified and whether the participant is much more sensitive to one or many of them.
Data type
Narration of the procedure of the conversations, as well as descriptions of the behaviour of the participant during them. Video recording of the participant during the conversation for further analysis of the triggers and additional factors influencing the repetitive communication behaviour.
Insights use
The results will determine if the product must help the user deal with these stimuli by herself or if, on the contrary, the stimuli must be attenuated by the device's functions. Furthermore, identifying the extent to which the participant is able to deal with the stimuli will determine if, over time, the participant will be able to deal with them by herself.
Materials used and participants
No materials are needed for the activity. Insead, the stimuli will be introduced as a casual part of the interactions taking place during the meeting.
The researchers (designers) and the participant must take part in the activity. Documenting the results and giving feedback, respectively, is their main role. Participation of family members, and other people close to the participant is not restricted.
Explanation of main choices and rationale
The specific cause(s) of the repetitive communication behaviour of the participant have not been accurately identified. Understanding how the discomfort is triggered, or fueled, by factors of her environment, in addition to the limitations of the disorder, allows to define the characteristics of the device to design. Ideally, the setting where the co-design activity takes place is representative of a causal interaction that the participant takes part in on a daily basis. Furthermore, the stimuli that trigger discomfort are also representative of casual discomfort triggers. In this way, the effect of the introduced stimuli can be more accurately identified and analysed.
Further details
The activity will take place via Zoom, during the weekly meeting with the participant. Given that the participant’s behaviour should be analysed when it is representative of her casual/daily behaviour, she will not be informed about the specific stimuli introduced until the end of the activity.
After the previous formulation of the design challenge, the co-design activities were developed to gain insight and depth into the factors influencing her communication skills. From them, as well as additional interviews that allowed us to keep framing our idea of her context and life, a new design challenge was formulated. This resulted from understanding that focus greatly improves her communication skills, decreasing the repetition of points she wants to make and following the line of the conversation she takes part into.
“Design a product that empowers Mona to decrease her repetition by helping her focus on when she has made herself clear.”
Design Challenge 2.0
.png)
In the third part visual distractions are applied. Mona did not directly catch the first question when wieke was walking around with her camera, but the rest of this part she answered straight to the point and without any repetition. When asked more about autism awareness, a topic she is writing about herself, she starts to loosen up a bit and answer more elaborately. Still, her answers are very clear and not repeated.
Mona mentioned at the start of the interview that she was not feeling great over the past week. Mona answered the questions briefly and clearly. The question of the first part did not seem interesting to her, which might be the reason she could focus on her repetition problem. Mona was not even a little annoyed or distracted by the noises. A reason for her good performance could be that the questions were about her repetition, otherwise we must conclude audio distractions are not a large cause of Mona repeating herself.
No distractions were applied in second part, and moniek seemed to be able to control her repeating very well. During the interview Mona got called. She kindly asks us to hold on for a second and tells her caller she is in a meeting.