Interactive Prototype 3 - Feedback and Reflection

Feedback

For this final interactive prototype, I added a new feature which is for players to choose the difficulty level. During the testing session, most people liked this new feature and they thought it was necessary to add this feature into my game because it made the game more interesting and challenging. I got all the positive feedback for the game including the functionality and the operability. However, the feedback for the physical interaction was not all positive. There are not much improvements for the interaction since the last prototype. Some tester said my interaction was not interesting enough because it still looked like four arrow keys on the keyboard. Beyond that, my prototype was really interesting to play.

Reflection

How well did the prototypes developed allow you to test your intended ideas & interactions? 

Based on the feedback from the last prototype, I have added a new feature which is for players to choose the difficulty level. This has successfully made the game become more interesting and challenging through testing. I have also fixed my control panel by covering the foil paper so that to make it easier to control the frogs.

What were the constraints that the technology, style of prototype or approach place on the ability to test those ideas? 

The problem from the last prototype which is the flashing screen once two frogs touch each other still not solved this time. Maybe I need to change the rule and then the problem will be solved. Otherwise, once the frog touches another, the ball will be switched that's why the screen will flash at that time.

How might you change your approach/technology/style to better test those ideas? 

The only thing I need to change for this prototype is to change a better way for users to interact with. The current interaction is very boring for the users to player compared with other people's interaction. If I have a chance to improve my interaction, I would make a interactive hula hoop and the user stands inside the hoop and use his waist to control the direction of the frog by touching the hoop. I think this idea would make the game more interesting.

Interactive Prototype 3 Development

By discussing with the tutor on the prac session, I decided to implement addition of new features for my interactive prototype 3. For the last two prototypes, I had almost positive feedback from the testing session. However, the players feel the game is easy to play so I decided to implement an additional difficulty level for the players. I keep the existing level as a easy level and add a hard level for the users. I have added a starting page which is for users to choose the level first and then starting the game. Here is the screenshot of that page.

The difference between hard level and easy level is the different speed of the yellow moving blocks. The speed in the hard level is much faster than the speed in the easy level. Once one of the players wins the game and restart the game, it will go back to this page again. Here are the screenshots of some codes that I have added.

Next, I am going to make the control panels look better and easy to control.

Week 12 - Class Exercise

How has your understanding of prototyping changed since week 1?

My understanding of prototype does not change too much since week 1. 

What would you change about your initial description?

My understanding of prototyping was that an early sample or model that gives people a concept and a learning experience of the final product. It could be in the form of a physical design or an electrical design. The purpose is to test and analyse the concept of your product. During this semester I have learnt that there are many types of prototype and what I have done is making a physical interaction so I think a prototype is more like a sample or model that can be interacted with physically and it is very important to test each prototype by different people.

How is that related to your experiences?

I have made a flash game which is connected with MakeyMakey so that people could have physical interaction with my game and have more fun from my game. I made a physical control penal by paper cut and model compounds which is just like a physical gamepad. So people will feel like using gamepad playing my game. I have also learnt how to test a prototype. During the testing session, I asked some questions includes qualitative questions and quantitative questions so that I could improve my prototype according to testers' feedback.

Week 6 - Class Exercise

What are the objects in YOUR concept?

Stage, Play Area, Player 1 Frog, Player 2 Frog, Ball, Moving Blocks

What do they need to know?

Ball needs to know when it's touch a frog, when it's touch another frog, when it's touch the blocks.
Player Frog needs to know when it's move up, left, right and down when the arrow key is pressed and need to know when it's touch the blocks, the ball and another player frog.

Create CRC cards for the scenario/s you intend to test in your prototype.

Week 11 - Class Exercise

Imagine a Theremin Duet or orchestra.

Generate concepts for consistently reproducing & representing 3D movement in space that allows a musical composition to be accurately played on a Theremin.

Producing a virtual Theremin by controlling with a mouse. Using MouseY to control the amplitude and using MouseX to control the frequency.

Pugh Matrix to compare concepts 
What criteria important to measure against?

Evaluate each choice against the criteria. There are three ways to do this:

Method 1: Establish a rating scale for each criterion. Some options are:

1, 2, 3 (1 = slight extent, 2 = some extent, 3 = great extent)

1, 2, 3 (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (1 = little to 5 = great)

1, 4, 9 (1 = low, 4 = moderate, 9 = high)

Make sure that your rating scales are consistent. Word your criteria and set the scales so that the high end of the scale (5 or 3) is always the rating that would tend to make you select that option: most impact on customers, greatest importance, least difficulty, greatest likelihood of success.

Method 2: For each criterion, rank-order all options according to how well each meets the criterion. Number them with 1 being the option that is least desirable according to that criterion.

Method 3, Pugh matrix: Establish a baseline, which may be one of the alternatives or the current product or service. For each criterion, rate each other alternative in comparison to the baseline, using scores of worse (–1), same (0), or better (+1). Finer rating scales can be used, such as 2, 1, 0, –1, –2 for a five-point scale or 3, 2, 1, 0, –1, –2, –3 for a seven-point scale. Again, be sure that positive numbers reflect desirable ratings.

Interactive Prototype 2 - Feedback and Reflection

Feedback

During the practical session, some of my classmates tested my interactive game and I got some feedback from them. The feedback that I have got are almost positive and the testers all gave me 9 out of 10 for my game and my interactive design. However, some students also gave me some suggestions that I could implement and improve for the next prototype. The first suggestion is that I could make the interaction more physical so that to make the control panel more functional instead of just using modeling compound as the arrow keys. The modeling compound is a little bit hard to control and the connections of the makey makey is very easy to move from the compound. The other suggestion is that I could add a function of jumping that making a jumping pad so players could get more fun through controlling the frog. Also, once the two frogs touches together, they will shake in the screen which may be a problem. The photo below is two players are playing Hungry Frogs.

Reflection

How well did the prototypes developed allow you to test your intended ideas & interactions? 

My idea is to develop a game for two players so I have made two physical control panels for each player to control their frogs. The interactive prototype I have designed includes two control panels which are made of paper cuts and modeling compounds. By touching fours blue compounds, the player could control the direction of its frog. Therefore, the prototype has successfully achieved the purpose and idea of this game. 

What were the constraints that the technology, style of prototype or approach place on the ability to test those ideas? 

Currently, the game has almost done with all the functionality such as fighting for the red ball between two players and resetting the player once touching the yellow blocks. However, once the two players touches together, the  frogs will shake in the screen. This may be the one of the constraints. The other one is that the four arrow keys are made of modeling compounds which are not very easy to control and they are not fixed with makey makey so sometimes the player cannot control some directions of the frog.

How might you change your approach/technology/style to better test those ideas? 

For the next prototype, I will fix the problem of shaking image of the frogs and fix the control panels which is changing the button instead of using compounds. I will think about adding some background music or sound effect to make the game more interesting.

Week 10 - Class Exercise

Restaurant Dining Experience

What is the existing experience? From different stakeholder P.O.V.?

The existing experience is different depending on different stakeholder P.O.V. If it is a regular restaurant, the service are almost good according to the waiters' friendliness and the taste of the food. But if it is a fast good restaurant such as some fast food in food court, I need to help myself without any waiters' service.

What external/internal factors impact on the experience?

The external and internal factors includes the friendliness and kindness of the waiters, the taste of the food, the serving speed and the atmosphere of the restaurant.

What aspects of the existing experience could be enhanced/augmented/supported with technology?

The button on each table that could be pressed by customers to tell the stuff come to the come over. Each table would have a number and once the button is pressed the light of the number would be turned on at the counter and the stuff would know which table need to go to. The digital multi-touch screen to place the order by ourselves and also can see the cooking time and the estimated serving time of each dish on the screen.

How would introducing technology in to this context change the experience?

The technology would help customers get more efficient service and would also be very convenient to use for customers as well as the waiters. By pressing the button, customers would no longer asking waiters by motion or waiting for a long time. The multi touch screen would help customer place the menu by themselves so the waiters do not have to stay there and write down each course. The customer would also have enough time to think about which one to order instead of wasting everyone's time. The cooking time would be very helpful for customers to know how long the dish would be served.

What experience scenarios might you test with the technology?

A family go to a restaurant and discuss what to eat then place the order by using the mulitouch screen. If someone need any help or wants to pay the bill at the end, pressing the button on the table and waiter would come over to help.