For the most part, the actual “quality of our proposed system” was well liked by our critiquers, with most concerns stemming from a misunderstanding of our world. In particular, we need to better explain the social stigma from using a smartphone, and the reasoning behind the law that bans cellphones while moving.
Individual Responses to Critiquers
Presentation and Communication: 4/5
“Well communicated idea. See comment below.”
Process and Methods: 3/5
“Think about the context. I don’t think you need to change much, just clarify. Why the implants? Perhaps they regulate health?”
Quality of proposed System: 3 – 4
You are definitely onto something. I encourage you to continue refining. Good job!
We were not being entirely clear on some details about our world and there was some confusion about the implants and why exactly certain people need our device. For safety? Law? Necessity? We just need to rework how we explain our world.
Presentation and communication: 4/5
Clear presentation – well delivered. Need a video showing gestures.
Process and methods: 3-4
Very structured; survey did not support their original device. Needed to Iterate more at the beginning.
Quality of proposed system: 3/5
Just needed more literature review early on.
Net neutrality on steroids
We agree that a video would be very powerful for our concept. In our final presentation, we will have a concept video. We’re not sure what he means by “iterate more at the beginning”. We spend more time that we should have on iteration, in my opinion.
Presentation and communication: 4/5
Visuals were relevant and humorous, but a bit rough/cluttered.
Process and methods: 5/5
Great to see the pivot in system design, and the research that informed it.
Quality of proposed system: 3 – 4
Clear act of revolution and resistance.
Unclear about the exact uses for the ring system.
Our visuals need to be more refined and clear.
Presentation and communication: 3/5
“Clarify the problem and purpose. Material supported the message, but difficulty receiving the message until the discussion part.”
Process and methods: 3/5
“Make some more direct connection with product review and what you are designing.”
“Create a clear connection between your customer discover and the product.”
Quality of proposed system: 4/5
“Make the world (managed world) more clear and what the “issue” is to connect system with the resistance.”
We didn’t present as much product review as we probably should have and there wasn’t a clear and definite connection between our interviews and our product. It was there, but we just we didn’t explicitly say “because of X in interview data, we made X product decision.”
Presentation and communication: 2
Too long to get to idea (spent too much time on the old system?)
Process and methods: ⅗ – ⅘
Used a WAAD.
Seemed unaware of powerglove.
Quality of proposed system: ?
Complicated future vision.
In our future presentations, we will iterate more quickly and get to our core idea faster.
We will also better explain our world.
Final Response to Critiques
Most importantly, we need to better define and relate our world to our audience. First and foremost, we must better explain why the law exists which bans the use of mobile devices while moving. It would be powerful for us to cite actual real world cases of injuries as a result of using phones while moving.
Second, we need to better define the social implications of non-discretely using a smartphone in a world dominated by cybernetic implants. It would be prudent to draw an analogy to today world; for example, how would you feel if you saw a person using a PDA or 90s brick phone in today’s smartphone-dominated society?