Seeing as the poster is what I'm working on as we speak, a discussion I've had with several people is how to get across whatever ideas I have more effectively.

I think one possible weakness in my methods so far is that the more complex my idea becomes, the higher the possibility that in order to focus on one thing, one defining aspect gets singled out, that I completely ignore other portions of the interaction or concept. The result - half formed ideas

This may be part of why I've neglected the interaction portion of the criteria from my selection of ideas from before... Interaction with technology necessitates a certain give and take, you give an input, and receive a result - which is lacking in what I've done at this point.

In a prior post, I talked about the Architect's Vision, the ideal in mind and intent for whats supposed to happen. In contrast was the Cartographer's Vision, a surveillance of how things are now. In this case the intent to "make something amazing" has somewhat taken over the reflection consideration of where and how the ideas are going to fit into an existing context.

Speaking to Awais about the methods used in the cards from last week, I'd found out that he also had other tools in mind, like rubix cubes, among others - games of different kinds. There's a degree of familiarity with these tools, whether its shuffling cards, or twisting a cube, that potentially adds a layer of interest to a discussion, as these are things people have done before.

Using those examokes it was possible to see - how Awais' vision might have been to see how a rather... bland activity of idea generation could be augmented by including familiar aspects to introduce prompts. The communication of intent in that conversation was successful because demonstrating those tools for the prompts, the cards and cube , I could have an image ofhow they could be used.

Another part of effective communication is 'telling a story' visually. Much of what I've made for the course so far consisted of standalone illustrations that I've since patched together in a sequence to show off an idea. These kinda function like a storyboard... doodles and sketches are pretty quick ways to get ideas across, but the downside to them is that it's easy to get carried away and forget how framing the images within a specific context. There has to be a clearer relation between different images so the reader can more easily understand my intent.

For an example of an illustration with context, instead of just having a picture of a car robot of indeterminate size, I could have sketchs of several of them next to buildings, people, or in different locations.

Alternatively, instead of just having four pictures randomly related to the same concept... thinking of a storyboard as having a "camera" that "looks around" and focuses on different aspects of an illustration is helpful too. So instead of 4 disjointed panels, I could have one long, continuous panel that starts with a wide shot of an area (giving context for where the concept will be used), then pull back to a user having a problem (showing what w're trying to address), followed by a zoom in on, perhaps a tool they have, that we've created, (showing how it might be used), before zooming out and showing the potential result of using the tool we've created effectively.

I'll look at that form of idea presentation moving forward - thinking of concept explanations the same way as one would think of a video... but at the same time, it still feels a little odd to just sacrifice the ability to use quick sketches to make points briefly, so I'll use it to supplement what I have, as opposed to simply acting as a replacement.