W9.2 — Prototyping — Sue Heeyeon An

Work work work

Fig 1,2 and 3. Prototyping. Image by Sue and David.

Fig 4. Building the Structure. Image by Sue..

Testing

After building the structure, I have done a quick runthrough of the experience with a few people. Ana and Sanjana both liked the fact the only visible layer was the application layer and the rest was hiding and reflecting back by the mirror. However, they did not notice it had layers until I explained it to them. Damul also said she would like to know what each section represents by having it labeled somewhere. She pointed out by comparing the installation and the leaflet, she wouldn’t know which layer is which. From this, I really thought there should be a brief introduction/description or at least the title of the layers displayed on the prototype.

Fig 5 and 6. Layer Title Labelling. Image(s) by Sue.

I suggested having it labeled with the clear acrylic as it still remains clean but David prefered to have a clean surface of the installation. Instead of aesthetics, I thought allowing people to understand the essence of the design (showing the structure of layers) is the priority. Also, if we were not to label it, I thought at least we should explain it in a didactic way for the participants to understand the idea behind it. Or else, they would have no clue what they are looking at or experiencing. We really needed to think about the journey thoroughly and how to guide people carefully.

Fig 7. Leaflet Design for Criticalities. Image by Sue.

David and I had a discussion regarding the leaflet design. Now David wanted to add a promoting context on the frontside and the critical prompt questions on the back. He explained it as a stereotype of Blockchain. So to promote then reflect (showcasing the criticality of it) to have a twist. The idea of a twist was intriguing but I wasn't sure about the promoting aspect. It was hard for me to understand the logic of encouraging the use of Blockchain Technology then asking the audience to reflect on the criticality suddenly. For me, I thought it would confuse people what our point is and what our own voice is. I was adding descriptions of each layer and what it does on the front and a critical prompt question on the back side with. The purpose was to give them a context of what they are experiencing then reflect with prompt questions, supporting the installation. As I mentioned before, I thought acknowledgement comes first, then everything else comes after. Also as it's a leaflet people can take it with them, I wanted them to remind themselves what they have experienced and continue to have a critical thinking around it. However, David again strongly argued he does not want to have an educational purpose text on a brochure because he does not want to educate or explain. From the literature review I have done previously, the essential point was to communicate and deliver the complexity and obscurity to the participants in order for them to analyse comprehensively and locate where the presence of trust is for them in blockchain. If we weren't to explain anything regarding the design, for me the prototype seemed to be an artwork - asking people to interpret the subject freely. Later on, he suggested having a different set of leaflets, a design of my own and his as a solution. From this discussion, irrespective of what I say, I felt my opinions were neglected and ignored which was very disappointing. Teamwork is supposed to support each other and also try to narrow down the gap or combine ideas from each other through discussions. Not to take feedback offensively or personally but really listen carefully : (