Updates

On this page

  1. Update 1: Project Goals 
  2. Update 2: Prototype Testing
  3. Update 3: Ideation with Cheryl
  4. Update 4: Grant proposal diagram
  5. Update 5: Prototype Wireframes
  6. Update 6: Midterm
  7. Update 7: Feedback review
  8. Update 8 Usability testing
  9. Update 9: Usability testing
  10. Update 10: WordPress prototype & Final

Weekly Update 10: 4/30/24 (WordPress prototype & Final)

This week we did the following tasks: 

  1. Synthesized the insights from all the testing sessions 
  2. We began implementing the changes to the WordPress site. Here is the link to our WIP resources page. 
  3. We worked on the final presentation

Weekly Update 9: 4/23/24 (usability testing)

This week our group conducted 3 usability testing sessions. The sessions were quite helpful as it gave us more insights into our proposed solution and helped us validate some of our ideas. Here is the link to the notes – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aDJD-q_eroOvhQuOaSH7z64Ytre-BxaxfQKvWWAm76M/edit?usp=sharing

Based on these insights, we made changes to our proposed prototype, and also started incorporating those changes to WordPress.

Here is a file with the updated design based on testing insights – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yozQIdWDGJkhCNdo8EflufN2SWIvcVsTpUQ2l0bKZTM/edit?usp=sharing 

Next steps – 

  • We are doing another usability testing session this week.
  • We will update the WordPress prototype.
  • We will also start working on the presentation.

Weekly Update 8: 4/16/24 (usability testing)

This week our group focused on usability testing. We created a document to highlight our goals, methods, and the structure of the testing, and also created a test prototype to show our users. Below are some of our notes: 

Areas of Investigation:

  • Prototype 
    • Current gaps with the prototype
    • Is the Language and text easy to understand (plain language vs industry jargon)
    • Is the user able to (hypothetically) create a touch object based on the solution? If not, what is missing?
    • Is everyone interpreting the artifact similarly?
  • Proposal Ideas 
    • Out of all the changes, which one is the most valuable?
    • Are there any concerns with the proposed changes?
    • Any other suggestions that we did not address? 

Methods:

  • Testing the existing prototype, thinking out loud 
  • Getting reflection and comments from the user 
  • Showing the new prototype
  • Analyzing if it addresses their comments from the prototype 
  • Getting final comments and thoughts

We also conducted a pilot usability testing with one of our classmates. We found the activity to be quite helpful in validating our proposed ideas, but also gave us more insights to work on. 

Weekly Update 7: 4/9/24 (Feedback review)

This week, our group asynchronously reviewed the feedback we got from the midterm. Some of the feedback includes: 

About the presentation: 

  • The beginning of the presentation might be a little too quick for people who don’t know about our project.
  • Our presentation was a little text-heavy because we wanted to include everything in the text for our mentor Cheryl, so next time we’ll figure out a better balance.
  • It’s a good idea to explicitly state names of the people who have worked on the Touch Tree prototype in the past, including our mentor Cheryl.
  • Be intentional about everything that we put up on the presentation.
  • While designing slides, think from the POV of someone who doesn’t know anything about TouchTree.

About the content: 

  • Define the material page concept further, if it is categorizing materials of the artifact or materials to make the touch object. 
  • Assess whether Twine or WordPress is a better tool to further prototype. 
  • Consider reaching out to some of the other community partners for potential user feedback. 

Weekly Update 6: 4/2/24 (midterm)

This week we worked on compiling our work for the midterm. In the presentation, we presented our project, gave our status updates, and finally spoke about our next steps. Here is a link to our presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YCRBq5qi6NcUkTGhMt8lKVoog6MQW7hNs9XiKRIoEyk/edit?usp=sharing

We worked hard to ensure our presentation met the Accessibility standards we discussed in class. However, we still believe we can improve for future presentations! The midterm was a good learning experience on how to create more accessible content. 

Weekly Update 5: 3/26/24 (prototype wireframes)

The progress we made during the week includes:

  • 1 – We tested Twine
    • (link to the Twine page)
    • We found making ‘this or that’ kind of flows to be relatively easy on Twine like our Touch Tree prototype is
    • We have replicated the existing prototype on Twine, and can now add more questions and add to the flow easily
  • 2 – We made a site map 
    • As per Cheryl’s grant requirements, we created a diagram that shows the current flow of the prototype, along with proposals
    • The diagram consists of screenshots of the prototype screens, a visual description and details of the screen, and any work-in-progress ideas.
  • 3 – We created wireframes based on the previous meeting and we’d like to propose some new ideas.
    • Link to Figma: https://www.figma.com/file/9bmU0oiZFEMkMq6VVz3RdL/Touch-Tree?type=design&node-id=30%3A104&mode=design&t=qtH4sCyRIOqhk7dV-1 
    • Solution Page
      • The Problem of the Current Solution page: The current solution page doesn’t include enough information for new users without experience creating tactile objects.
      • Redesign Proposal: 1. Add a “Save this page as a pdf” button. 2. Create a step-by-step guide based on the user’s result and link related pages or resource posts under each step.
    • Materials Page
      • Why do we need a Materials page? Material is a page to introduce materials that are commonly used to create tactile objects. The goal is to help our users have a general idea of useful materials so they can formulate a plan based on their skill sets and budgets.
      • Visual Description: Materials page introduces commonly used materials by category, for example, hard material, soft material, 3D printing material, Crafting Products, etc. Each material card will have a close-up image of the material, the name of the material, material properties, and a link to a case study or an online store that sells the material. For example, if we want to create a material card for Modeling Clay, the material card will look like this. 1st line: An image. 2nd line: Modeling Clay. 3rd line: Soft, Smooth. 4th line: A link to a case study that uses Modeling Clay. 5th line: A link to an online store that sells Modeling Clay.
      • Users will also be able to filter materials by choosing the property of the material. On the left side of the page, we’ll create a list including all the material properties, for example, an elastic material, a material with rough texture, etc. If users click on “Elastic”, all elastic materials will show on the right side of the page.
    • Gallery Page
      • Why do we need a Gallery page? The gallery page showcases tactile objects created by museums in a case study format. By sharing the project, we aim to build a place for museums to learn from each other, understand the workflow, and envision the possibility of tactile objects.
      • Visual Description: The Gallery page contains a blog post about tactile objects created by museums. Each post includes step-by-step documentation of the process. The thumbnail of each post will contain an image of the project, the name of the museum, the name of the art object, the method used in the project, and a date.
      • Users will also be able to filter case studies by choosing a method, for example, 3D Printing, Sewing, etc.
      • I hope we can collaborate with Gray Gallery by the end of this semester to create the first gallery post.
    • Resources Page
      • The Problem of the current Resources page: The current resources page contains valuable articles and tools, however, the lack of categorization makes it difficult for users to quickly locate the information they’re looking for.
      • Redesign Proposal: Categorize the type of the resource and create a tag for each resource for quick search. Tags include tutorials, apps/software, Academic Research, Organizations, History of Tactile graphics, etc.

Weekly Update 4: 3/13/24 (grant proposal diagram)

For this week, our group worked on ideating for Cheryl’s grant proposal. We discussed and narrowed down the following idea: 

  • A site map with annotated screenshots that highlight key features and their significance
  • Highlighting new features in the map: 
    • A section that provides information about the significance of tactile experiences, and more information. 
    • Supporting the solutions with evidence-based recommendations and resources.  

As a next step, we have also compiled some questions for Cheryl, that will guide us in completing the grant diagram: 

  • Do we need to include all the redesign ideas in the proposal? Can we make changes after the submission?
  • When you talk about adding a link at the end of the touch tree result, are you considering a link that leads users to an external website or to another page on the website?
  • What type of articles are you thinking of adding to the website? Would they be standardized? 
  • What is considered as “evidence-based”? 

In our meeting with Cheryl on 05/12, we will be discussing further steps for the grant diagram, as well as brainstorming yes/no questions based on our proposals. 

Weekly Update 3: 3/5/24 (Ideation with cheryl)

This week, our group met with Cheryl for an introduction call. We discussed our findings from the prototype testing, asked her questions based on our observations, and also heard her thoughts on the prototype. Based on this, we  created a formal list of the challenges we noted, and brainstormed proposals for the prototype. Below are our notes:

Challenge 1: 

Need help to find information/resources to materialize the tactile object.

Proposal:

  • A more thorough dictionary/ resources page that directly links to the solutions given.
  • Resources and definitions being more contextual (directly available on the output page)

Challenge 2:

Questions may be too generic, and may not be able to account for different materials, textures, scales, etc. 

Proposal:

  • More segregation in the tree chart. 
  • Create educational content to help users understand materials and estimate outcomes and expectations (as part of resources) 

Challenge 3:

Lack of consideration of material availability, cost, time, space in the museum, etc.

Proposal:

  • Successful examples, precedences 
  • By providing previous examples to help curators set up expectations and envision the outcomes.

Challenge 4:

Many museums don’t have in-house production/workshops and need external technical support.

Proposal:

  • Provide information for museums to find local maker labs to collaborate with.

Challenge 5:

It’s hard to convince museums to install tactile experiences

Proposal:

  • When the prototype gives an output, we could also portray how having tactile experiences helps everyone and not just people with disabilities. 

Next, Cheryl also told us about a grant she is applying for the Tactile Tree concept, for which she needed help with a diagram. She sent us the requirements, and some more information, based on which we have been ideating. We plan to  share our ideas with Cheryl in our next meeting. 

Our next steps are to get feedback from Cheryl regarding our proposals, and figure out how we can make edits to the prototype. 

Weekly Update 2: 2/27/24 (Prototype Testing)

This week, our group selected 10 unique artifacts each from the Smithsonian Open Access repository. We each tested the 30 total artifacts with the prototype, and documented our interpretations. Here is a link to our documentation. Some of our thoughts from the testing were: 

  1. How can we account for artifacts with multiple materials? Can there be a way we ask for more information on the different components? 
  2. How can we take into consideration the safety aspect? Especially with artifacts that may have sharp components? 
  3. The output generated by the current prototype is quite open to interpretation. Different people might interpret the output in a different way, possibly resulting in a difference in the tactile graphic. How would one know the best way to interpret it? 

Our testing also helped us prepare for our first meeting with Cheryl. Below are some of our discussion points and questions for her: 

Touch Tree Prototype 

  • What are your current thoughts on the Touch Tree prototype? Is there anything you wish it did better?
    • Are there any other aspects the current prototype should account for (size, texture, etc.)? 
    • What do visitors want to know through touching the prototypes?
  • What’s the goal for the output generated by the prototype?
    • Quick and dirty or realistic as much as possible?
    • Do we take into consideration aspects such as cost, material availability, time, etc.? 
  • Who is the target audience of this website? Is there anything we should keep in mind when designing for this user group? 
  • How often would curators have to use this program to make prototypes? 

Tactile Experiences and Outcomes 

  • How will the prototypes be presented to the users? Will there be someone present to introduce it or users will have to try them out alone?
  • Who is going to make replicas?
    • Is hiring a professional 3D designer an option? Or curators with various crafting skills?
  • What other sources of information do museums use when they are trying to create a tactile experience for an artifact? 
  • When creating a tactile experience for an artifact, what are the biggest challenges that you come across?

We are excited to meet Cheryl!

Weekly Update 1: 2/20/24 (PROJECT Goals)

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT TEAM NAME

Our team name is Tactile Troops. The name was an outcome of a brainstorming session with all the team members. We mind mapped a lot of words that we associate with the project, and subsequently finalized on Tactile Troops. It is a fun way of depicting our support for bringing tactility to museum experiences! 

PROJECT LOGISTICS

We decided that Ayushi will be the main point of contact for the group to schedule meetings, and manage emails with Cheryl. Aditya and Yi will help out whenever needed! 

Currently, we are all collaborating, and participating in everything. We may choose to choose responsibilities once we get more clarity on our ideas.  

We plan to meet with Cheryl every Tuesdays, at 4:00pm. Our group otherwise meets on Wednesdays, at 3:00pm. 

DeSCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 

The project is a continuation of the prototype from Spring 2023.  The prototype from last semester is a decision tree that museum practitioners can use to (1) create a touch object (2) what type of touch object to create for any given museum artifact. In doing so, museum practitioners will be able to allocate the right amount of time and resources to create touch objects that blind and low vision visitors will find engaging, with the goal of improving their museum experience.

Our broad goal for now is to improvise on the prototype, and test it with potential users. 

TOOLS / EXPERTISE

Since we are all designers, we will be using Figma to visualize our ideas. To share our ideas with Cheryl, we have also found a plugin that converts the Figma files to WordPress. 

TIMELINE

Due Date  Assignment 
02/20 Introduction, Project goals 
02/27 Prototyping testing, Formulating questions and thoughts for Cheryl  
03/05 First meeting with Cheryl, brainstorming ideas 
03/12 Grant proposal diagram ideation
03/19 Spring break 
03/26 Making prototype wireframes and site map, testing Twine (prototype tool)
04/02 Compiling midterm content 
04/09 Reviewing midterm feedback
04/16 Usability testing set up and documentation
04/23 Conducting usability sessions , compiling insights 
04/30 Implementing changes to WordPress, compiling final presentation
05/07 Final presentation