Group Process

This week we had a total of 2 additional group discussions.

The first time (Tuesday)

According to proposal requirements, we have redefined concept and feedback in more detail.

Team domain (which is not yet decided):

• Modern pressure is great, it will have a great impact on people's lives
• Give non-professional users the possibility to create and give ordinary people more opportunities to contact music (crowd: non-professional music lovers)

Target audience:

Removed a persona (music producer), because for professionals, they have a more accustomed way to collect sounds that can be used (because during the collection process, the surrounding noisy ambient sounds will be added, thereby the collected sounds cannot be used in music) and they have a high dependence on the music editing function (professionals and ordinary people have a large gap in the demand for music editing, and it is difficult to achieve functional unification)

Feedback and solutions:

• F: Multi-person participation S: The original plan can achieve the effect of cooperation, collect sounds separately and arrange music together
• F: Noise problem S: Detect the number of decibels and only collect sounds above a fixed decibel
• F: Nice music S: Provide some main melody in the beaker, change the melody by knocking the flask (Inspiration: Airpod)
• F: More functions for editing music S: Does not meet the user characteristics of persona, for ordinary users, the operation is too complicated
• F: Collection of multiple pieces of music S: Add multiple buttons on the dropper / decide the number of recordings according to the number of presses (add a cue light)
• F: More visual effects S: Increase the smoke effect and use the brightness of the light to indicate the upper end of the recording time
• F: More experimental equipment for interaction S: It is difficult for users to heat and cool, and equipment interaction is already very complicated

Technical problem:

• Transmit the sound from the dropper to the test tube
• You can use Makey,Makey as an aid to start touch interaction
• Light up by judging the duration

Proposal report (Team part):

Break down and understand the requirements of the proposal, and determine the content of everyone's work in the team report

The second time (Friday)

Team domain:

Eventually we decided to use option1 as our domain. Reason: enough board to start the discussion

Proposal report structure (Team part):

Reorganize and distribute the content of the proposal, because if the report is completed according to the order of assignment, it is logically difficult for people to understand us, and the feedback part will involve not only the video presentation part but also after the part of user research conducted. Therefore, after the discussion, we decided to reorganize the structure of the report in the form of stages.

1. Team domain (regarding the current situation, sources, influence and resolution possibility of stress)
2. Concept + context (functional design and the reasons behind it)
3. Research stages (related work, methodology, feedback)
4. Audience & intended experience
5. Relevance to theme

• Stage1: Music helps relieve stress (literature review)
• Stage2: Some people will prefer a certain daily sound, such as earsore / ASMR / nature ’s sound sleep aid (a sleep aid app + literature review + online survey)
• Stage3: Self-made music is the most helpful to relieve stress (literature review + online interview + card sorting)
• Stage4: Paper prototype (online + video presentation) + evaluation (TAM) + Honeycomb (desirable + usable)

What have I done in team report?

The reason why we use TAM as evaluation method

TAM is the abbreviation of Technology Acceptance Model; it is proposed by Davis (1989) aiming at measuring the user’s acceptance of a new technology. It is measured by 4 dimensions namely perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), attitude (ATT), intention to use (ITO). Usable: The functions in the system can well meet the needs of users. Desirable: Aspects related to emotional design, such as graphics, branding, and image.

TAM questions:

(PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use; ATT: Attitude; ITO: Intention to use)

1. PEOU1: I can produce music more quickly using Sound Lab.
2. PEOU2: I can capture surrounding sounds easily using Sound Lab
3. PEOU3: I can playback generated music easily using Sound Lab
4. PEOU4: Learning to use Sound Lab is easy for me.
5. PEOU5: It is easy to use Sound Lab to do the sound processing.
6. PU1: Sound Lab reduces my irritability.
7. PU2: Sound Lab enables me to enjoy the process of creating music.
8. PU3: Overall, I find Sound Lab useful.
9. ATT1: Overall, I believe Sound Lab is easy to use.
10. ATT2: In my opinion, it is desirable to use Sound Lab.
11. ATT3: I think it is good for me to use Sound Lab.
12. ATT4: Overall, my attitude towards Sound Lab is favorable.
13. ITO1: I will use Sound Lab on a regular basis in the future.
14. ITO2: I will frequently use Sound Lab in the future
15. ITO3: I will strongly recommend others to use Sound Lab.

Individual directions:

1. According to roles (designer / researcher / programmer)
2. According to perspectives (domain: music and stress / interactions: music-related interaction methods / target audience: people and music without a music foundation)
3. According to devices (the dropper / the flask / the test tube)
4. According to functions (record and capture sounds / playback and manipulation / mixing)

In the end we decided to use option 4 as the final direction. First of all, it is unreasonable to classify by role. As far as designers and researchers are concerned, their workload is relatively small, and the output content is mainly in proposal, and in the later stage, our main content is to use Arduino and Makey Makey to produce the equipment. In other words, if this is allocated, everyone's workload will be much different.

Secondly, because we have decided that three people will work together to make the sound lab, so if we follow this classification method, we will need to do background research and user research again at a later stage, which will produce three new concepts. This is different from our expected development direction.

Third, Lorna has suggested that the direction of development can be determined based on the device, but in actual discussions, we found that such a classification listing is very similar to option4. Because the main function of the dropper is record and capture sounds; the main function of the test tube is playback and manipulation; the main function of the flask is mixing. So fundamentally, option 3 and 4 are essentially the same. But when making a dropper, you need to collect and play music; when you make a flask, you need to play, operate, and mix music; when you make a test tube, you need to operate and play music. Although we will have a common code base, when assigning and carrying out work, complicated methods and online communication modes make our cooperation more difficult, so we chose option4. Clear classification can help us understand the project schedule and work content more easily.

Although our classification is based on function, it includes: visual / physical interaction, design, technology, and fun in each small classification. For example, the radio includes: how to collect multiple sounds, how to reduce the collected noise, the light display, etc .; the sound playback function includes: how to play regularly, how to control the playback time, how to choose to play tracks, etc .; including in the mixing function : There is a smoke signal when the mixed sound is completed, how to debug a certain sound in the mixed sound, etc. In this way, everyone's workload is very even.

Work to do:

1. Proposal partial completion
2. Consult tutors about additional sensors and equipment needed for our project
3. Look for some tutorial sites to get familiar with the components in the Arduino kit (what are they and how to use them)
4. Start thinking about how you need to complete the function you are responsible for