Sunday, December 2, 2007
My contribution
I contributed to the Coffee Shop project in which our group carried out observations and contextual interviews to evaluate and redesign the interface of coffee shops. We performed five interviews, with six users consisting of college age students. Most of our users were occasional coffee goers. I performed the observations and interviews for User 5. This user's experience went rather smoothly and she did not encounter the breaking points that we had derived from the other users. For this reason, we used User 5's experience as a template for how we would redesign a universal coffee shop.
My personal contribution was to facilitate one of the five contextual interview sessions following the Master-Apprentice model. I also was a participant in our group session when we met up at Geisel Library to brainstorm, have interpretation sessions, and discuss what we would write in our project paper. Considering the problem with group papers that had been encountered in previous classes (i.e. Cognitive Science 102C), we decided to learn from our mistakes and to not write the paper in the same ways that we had before (since those had not turn out the way that we had hoped). Therefore, we decided that one person would write the first draft, another would add onto that draft, and two would jointly work as editors. The fifth person in our group proofread the collaborative paper and was responsible for a figure. This way, the ideas in the paper would flow better and we would not have to be so concerned about unifying writing styles. This allowed us to focus our time on the substance instead of the aesthetics of the paper. I served as one of the two editors; I met with my fellow co-editor to work on the second draft after the two writers had finished.
My personal contribution was to facilitate one of the five contextual interview sessions following the Master-Apprentice model. I also was a participant in our group session when we met up at Geisel Library to brainstorm, have interpretation sessions, and discuss what we would write in our project paper. Considering the problem with group papers that had been encountered in previous classes (i.e. Cognitive Science 102C), we decided to learn from our mistakes and to not write the paper in the same ways that we had before (since those had not turn out the way that we had hoped). Therefore, we decided that one person would write the first draft, another would add onto that draft, and two would jointly work as editors. The fifth person in our group proofread the collaborative paper and was responsible for a figure. This way, the ideas in the paper would flow better and we would not have to be so concerned about unifying writing styles. This allowed us to focus our time on the substance instead of the aesthetics of the paper. I served as one of the two editors; I met with my fellow co-editor to work on the second draft after the two writers had finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)