Idea Generation

Adapted Generative Techniques

Playtesting

We worked with the Flash prototype used by NASA, shown here, to learn and illustrate the game rules.

The Flash prototype was developed as a testing tool last year. The system was helpful for illustrating the rules of the game. For example, the interface illustrates that the facing blocks have the same point value. We also used it to test multi-person modifications. One of the group members played the part of the engineer and another group member played the part of the scientist. The time constraint is not accurate. So in play testing we needed to create rules, which simulated actual conditions, i.e. each movement, each photograph and each turn costs X time.

Makestorming

We developed a participatory design technique during this project called makestorming. Makestorming combines concepts form maketools and bodystorming where participants are given a task and an assortment of materials to aid them in accomplishing the task. Unlike maketools, makestorming is used on non-expert users who must complete a specific task rather than have expert users brainstorm abstract ideas about a topic. We used makestorming sessions to motivate design ideas.

Makestorming Session 1

For the first makestorming session we conducted, the participants were asked to play an actual simulation with the engineer acting as the rover. We ran two user tests during this first makestorming session. The first user test was a pilot study performed by the team as a trial and error session. Paper printouts with circle, triangle, and x shapes were placed on the floor in a grid-formation to represent targets in a rover-simulation. The participant acting as the engineer would walk through the field with the constraint that they must walk heel to toe and they would reach a downlink every ten footsteps. This was meant to represent the rover's movement through the grid and approximate the distance a rover could travel in one downlink period. When the engineer came within one foot of a target, we allowed them to "take a picture of the target" where we would draw on a small piece of paper what the numbers on the side of the target would have been and then give the participants the drawing at the next downlink. We rolled a dice to determine if the picture they took fully captured the numbers on the box to represent error in the rover's navigation.

Makestorming Session 2

Participants played with actual game rules and indirectly controlled a PER (Personal Exploration Rover). The session was conducted with two user groups, one playing the role of the scientist and the other playing the role of the engineer. Before the planning session, the participants were allotted time to read over the instruction manual and ask questions regarding the rules of the game. We have had a total of two sessions, which included a set of engineering students and a set of industrial design students. The participants were presented with an overhead map of 12 targets in a grid-like layout. The targets were placed randomly according to their shape. The participants were presented with paper cutouts of a rover, and game targets, which corresponded to the rover and targets in a second room. The tools provided were similar to the first makestorming session, however were adjusted to fit the dimensions of the map. The participants were not allowed to see the room where the rover was moving. The PERs were controlled in another room manually (while the session was in play, we attempted to control the rover in rover-room via a throw-away interface on a laptop). The participants would communicate his/her commands, which were delivered to the person controlling the rover. The first group was given ’Äúperfect’Äù imagery since rover communication was a problematic. In order to ’Äúcontrol’Äù the rover, users would point to a position on grid and communicate the angle at which the rover should take an image and someone from our team would run to the rover room and tell the person in control of the throw-away interface where to position the rover.



Concept Development

Design sketches were created and iterated upon in parallel with generative techniques and prototyping. Below are the design ideas listed in chronological order as well as focus points for each stage.

Phase 1: Initial Design Work

  • Resource Management
  • Timeline Planning (Multi-Sol)
  • Image Annotation

Phase 2: Post-Playtesting Design Work

  • Score & Time Oriented
  • Annotations for Scoring
  • Controls for capturing and viewing images of targets

Phase 3: Post-Makestorming Design Work

  • Predicted Image Capturing of targets
  • Estimating rover location & rover control
  • Illustration of rover progress via timestamps
  • Error correction