Design Project Exam 2024 PDF

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN COMMUNICATION AND IT Design Project Exam 2024 Monica Nora Spangholm Nielsen – xlt361 Simone Thulesen – gct899 Number of characters w. spaces: 69,976 Number of pages: 29.1 24/05/2024 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 4 PROJECT PLAN.................................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 5 Problem inspiration............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Literature review................................................................................................................................................................ 6 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION................................................................ 8 Problem statement.............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Categorising the users........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Personas............................................................................................................................................................................... 9 IDEATION.......................................................................................................................... 11 Mind maps........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Presentation of fieldwork data........................................................................................................................................ 14 The Copenhagen Light Festival.................................................................................................................................... 14 LAM museum, Budapest............................................................................................................................................... 16 Copenhagen Contemporary (James Turrell: Aftershock).............................................................................................. 17 The Experimentarium.................................................................................................................................................... 18 SWOT analysis................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Design Idea 1 – Light Room......................................................................................................................................... 20 Design Idea 2: Interactive Installation........................................................................................................................... 22 Decision......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Design exploration of the final design idea.................................................................................................................... 25 Moodboard.................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Storyboard..................................................................................................................................................................... 26 PRESENTATION OF PROTOTYPES................................................................................ 26 The low-fidelity prototype: Sketch................................................................................................................................. 27 The mid-fidelity prototype: Animation.......................................................................................................................... 28 The high-fidelity prototype: Two-part prototype......................................................................................................... 28 The physical prototype.................................................................................................................................................. 28 The interface prototype.................................................................................................................................................. 29 Overview of the installation’s sequences........................................................................................................................ 30 2 out of 46 USER TESTING: INTERVIEW WITH FOCUS GROUP..................................................... 31 EVALUATION.................................................................................................................... 32 SYSTEM ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 32 User stories........................................................................................................................................................................ 32 PACT analysis.................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Activity diagram............................................................................................................................................................... 34 REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATION.................................................................................... 35 Functional requirements.................................................................................................................................................. 36 Non-functional requirements.......................................................................................................................................... 37 Usability requirements..................................................................................................................................................... 38 VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION.................................................................................. 39 IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................... 39 Who should make the installation?................................................................................................................................ 39 Dependency on systems.................................................................................................................................................... 41 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... 41 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................ 45 Books................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Articles............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Websites............................................................................................................................................................................. 46 3 out of 46 Introduction As the world increasingly relies on electricity, many ordinary people remain unaware of how it is actually produced. This lack of understanding is concerning, given the substantial contribution of electricity production to global pollution. Discussions about new methods to promote sustainability are becoming more common, with art emerging as a particularly effective tool in this regard. Therefore, this examination aims to educate citizens about electricity production and its environmental impacts through artistic means. Through defining the problem statement, ideation, creative solutions, prototyping, and testing, this paper navigates the stages of the design thinking process to conceptualise an effective art installation. Additionally, an implementation plan will be outlined to guide the project's further development, emphasising refinement and iteration to maximise effectiveness in engaging users. Ultimately, the goal of this paper is to present an optimal solution that not only enhances public awareness of electricity consumption and its environmental impact but also to encourage sustainable decision-making. Further it aims to inspire individuals to reconsider their energy consumption habits and take proactive steps towards sustainability. By fostering a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between electricity usage and environmental sustainability, we seek to empower individuals to make informed choices that contribute to a greener and more sustainable future for generations to come. Project plan At the beginning of this process we made a Gantt Chart, which is a classical project management tool, to track tasks, their sequences and timeline efficiently (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). It visually outlines the start and end dates, making it easier to manage the project timeline (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). It helped us to plan, monitor and control the project timeline efficiently by showing when and how each task should be completed, which was especially helpful as we had extensive fieldwork for research and inspiration. It also offered a clear overview of the tasks to be completed, though some took longer or shorter than expected. 4 out of 46 Figure 1: Gantt Chart (Appendix 1) Background Problem inspiration When addressing climate change and the strive to cut carbon emissions, the way electricity is generated emerges as a critical concern. Despite widespread awareness of the environmental harm caused by fossil fuels, a lot of electricity still gets produced by fossil fuels to this day (Kabeyi & Olanrewaju, 2022). The lack of transparency regarding this often makes governments, businesses and individuals fail to take proper action (Kabeyi & Olanrewaju, 2022). Electricity Maps is a company dedicated providing actionable electricity data to empower businesses and individuals to make informed choices about energy consumption (Electricity Maps, n.d.). Their mission centres on prompting a transition towards cleaner and decarbonised electricity systems in the fight against climate change (Electricity Maps, n.d.). Through their API, Electricity Maps provides 5 out of 46 centralised access to global electricity data, integrating historical records, real-time updates, and future forecasts (Electricity Maps, n.d.). With insights into electricity production, carbon intensity, and power breakdowns, their platform ensures accuracy and accountability (Electricity Maps, n.d.). Additionally, their open-source map offers clear visualisation of real-time CO2 emissions from electricity consumption in most countries, enhancing accessibility and usability (Electricity Maps, n.d.). In essence, Electricity Maps' efficient data distribution promotes a culture of CO2 awareness and sustainability. However, despite Electricity Maps' efforts, many people and businesses remain unaware of the environmental impact of electricity production, leading to continued reliance on fossil fuels and increased pollution. This highlights the need for alternative approaches to educate citizens to expand the message. Literature review To provide a better understanding of art and its influence on society, we have conducted an extensive review of pre-existing literature. This review aims to facilitate well-informed and insightful decisions on enhancing user experience and education regarding electricity. We have carefully narrowed our focus to three key areas: art's influence on society, the relationship between art and sustainability, and the impact of sensory experiences in learning. Alisa Moldavanova’s (2014) article; “Sustainability, Aesthetics and Future Generations: Towards a Dimensional Model of Arts Impact on Sustainability”, explores the relationship between art and sustainability through the development of a dimensional model. The article argues that aesthetics and art play a crucial role in promoting sustainability and addresses the need to integrate art into discussions on the topic. Moldavanova (2014) highlights how art not only can raise awareness of sustainability issues, but also contribute to solutions; “Art can be a powerful agent of social change”, pointing out that art’s ability to communicate complex ideas in an emotional and accessible way can appeal to a wider audience and create engagement around sustainability projects (Moldavanova, 2014). Furthermore, the article emphasizes how aesthetics plays a central role in ethical reflection and awareness around sustainability. "The cultural dimension of sustainability, with its inherent connection to aesthetics and arts, offers a unique platform for fostering values and principles that are essential for long-term sustainable actions and attitudes." (Moldavanova, 2014). In other words, 6 out of 46 Moldavanova (2014) explores how aesthetic experiences can promote long-term sustainable values and attitudes. For gaining knowledge on designing an art installation that’s both aesthetically pleasing and meaningful, with a focus on sustainability, we’ve included additional background information from an article by Chong-Wen Chen (2018) “Incorporating artistic thinking into sustainability” Chen’s (2018). Chen (2018) article offers an examination on how art works as a catalysator for sustainable behavioural change. It identifies five key aspects for artistic thinking and explores their potential to influence society towards more sustainable practices. In particular, the article focuses on understanding how artistic thinking can inspire innovation and change. It further emphasises the importance of critique as a key component of artistic thinking (Chen, 2018). Challenging status and existing norms is essential to open up new perspectives and possibilities. "Critique is the concept of 'questioning everything,' including artists themselves, authorities, policies and rules." This citation shows essential thoughts on how art can act as a tool to challenge societal perceptions and create space for change. One of the most compelling points in the article is how art can be incorporated into sustainability practices to create real change, as it points out: "For companies, art creation processes can have two purposes. One is to design products with unique artistic techniques and use more added value to extend the product lifecycle." (Chen, 2018). This highlights how art can be integrated into product development to create products that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also more sustainable. Integrating Mihaela Amalia Petrovici’s (2013) article; “Effective Methods of Learning and Teaching: A Sensory Approach”, which provides another layer to understanding the fusion of art and sustainability through the lens of sensory learning. Petrovici (2013) discusses neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), emphasizing the crucial role of sensory experiences in learning, NLP suggests that individuals perceive and interact with their environment through visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic channels. Each person has a preferred sensory channel, influencing how they process information. Aligning educational methods with sensory preferences improves engagement and retention, enhancing learning experiences and communication (Petrovici, 2013). Petrovici (2013) found that in her study of 35 students, 48% preferred visual learning, 25% preferred auditory, 16% internal dialog, and 11% kinaesthetic learning. This suggests that visual learning may be the most common, followed by auditory, with other modalities less predominant. This distribution highlights 7 out of 46 that incorporating visual and auditory elements into educational and communicative practices may be effective, but overall Petrovici (2013) argues that the focus must be on general multisensory experiences. “Our point of view is that education must represent a multisensory experience because the process of learning is accomplished with the aid of an amount of factors which interact and sustain mutually. In order to be efficient, it must combine usefulness with pleasure, to (re)create an efficient interaction which is benefic to the educational process, through a sensory approach” (Petrovici, 2013, p. 150). By engaging multiple senses, educational practices can better align with the individual sensory preferences, thereby enhancing engagement, retention, and overall learning outcomes. In relation to Chen (2018) and Moldavanova (2014) the multi-sensory can be argued as beneficial for fostering sustainable behaviours and attitudes in art installation designs, as it makes the learning process more dynamic and inclusive, ultimately contributing to more profound and lasting changes in behaviour and perception. Problem definition and identification Problem statement Building on the issues described in the problem inspiration, we have formulated a problem statement through our research and literature review on sustainability and art. This statement aims to clarify the ultimate goals of our project. A problem statement is essential for maintaining focus and to identify goals (Bryman, 2016). Our exploration of various exhibitions, which will be presented later, along with our review of literature, has inspired us to design an art installation that could create attention, curiosity, while also being informative about electricity using Electricity Maps. This resulted in the following problem statement: “How can Electricity Maps live data be effectively integrated into an art installation aimed at educating citizens about electricity?” The project will therefore explore the process behind the design of the installation and the considerations behind it. By understanding these considerations, we can ensure that the installation meets both aesthetic and educational objectives, creating a meaningful and engaging experience for users. 8 out of 46 Categorising the users Since the installation should aim to educate citizens about electricity and sustainability, we have carefully considered its location. We have decided to place it at the South Campus of the University of Copenhagen. This is due to the diversity that takes place at a university. Here we wish to capture the attention of students and teachers in particular. By choosing this location, the installation is exposed to many people daily, both students and those who are just visiting. However, the primary users of the location will be students and teachers. We have thought about several pros considering this decision. Among other things, the university is a place for learning, where students have the opportunity to engage with new ideas. It’s easy to envision them pausing to explore an art installation about electricity, gaining insights to their future, and possibly sharing the experience with others afterward. At the same time, teachers and guest lecturers could find inspiration from the installation to integrate in their studies or lectures. Personas Personas provide a thorough understanding of intended product users (Sharp et al., 2019). By creating realistic descriptions of typical users, you can focus efforts and tailor products to specific user needs. Each persona is unique and characterised by specific goals, behaviours, attitudes, activities and environment (Sharp et al., 2019). This helps designers visualise users as real individuals and thus create products that better meet their needs. Personas are useful for communicating user characteristics and goals to designers and developers, improving design decisions and increasing awareness of real user engagement (Sharp et al., 2019). Here we present two different personas that represent the typical user types at the University of Copenhagen. The first being a professor and the second a student 9 out of 46 Figure 2: Persona 1 (Appendix 2.1) Figure 3: Persona 2 (Appendix 2.2) 10 out of 46 These personas are designed based on stereotypical notions of who will interact with the installation. Each persona is described with their own set of challenges, needs, and goals related to their role and interaction with the art installation. By developing and understanding these personas, we can better adapt the installation to the different needs and goals of users, increasing the likelihood of a successful user experience. As shown later in the paper, identifying users happened during the ideation stage, which only emphasises the design process as an iterative process. Ideation Mind maps Ideation is focused on generating and exploring ideas using different methods to tackle the problem statement (Interaction Design Foundation, 2016). Throughout the ideation process, we have utilised mind maps as the main method to make the process more manageable. A mind map is a visual tool used to organise information, ideas and concepts around a central theme, including representation of related topics (Interaction Design Foundation, 2016). Using mind maps helped to manage our many ideas and thoughts while maintaining focus. This process evolved alongside our fieldwork trips, where we continually explored and refined the mind maps to visually and clearly illustrate our concept. Therefore, the paragraph aims to illustrate the progression of our ideation process using mind maps, ultimately leading to the mind map for the final concept The first mind map was made to provide an overview of our immediate thoughts following the earlier stages described in the paper 11 out of 46 Figure 4: Mind Map - The beginning of the ideation process (Appendix 3.1) As indicated by the first mind map, the methods for gaining knowledge regarding the topic are superficial without much detail. However, it still demonstrates an awareness of the key aspects identified in the problem statement that require further exploration, along with general ideas for fieldwork. Therefore, it served as a useful starting point in defining what we considered important, functioning as a foundational model to lean on. After doing fieldwork at Copenhagen Light Festival and a Q&A with our caseholders the second mind map was created. Here, it's evident that various factors have been considered, such as the location of the installation, the users, and the methodology employed. 12 out of 46 Figure 5: Mind Map - From the middle of the ideation process (Appendix 3.2) The second mind map is still superficial. However, at this stage, we have decided that we would like to embed the audience in the design and thus create embodied interaction design. Embodied interaction blends technology with real-world engagement, enhancing experiences by making them more tangible and social (Marshall et al., 2013). The choice of this method allows us to focus the actual interaction into making a more visual and bodily experience. The second mind map also shows the development of our considerations for the installation’s location and its users. Different ideas are mentioned with users varying based on the location. During this phase, we visited the Copenhagen Light Festival where we did autoethnography, which will be presented in a later paragraph. At the festival, we observed the predominant use of light in the installations, inspiring us to incorporate into our own project. Combined with our decision to create an embodied interaction design, this led to the concept of an interactive light installation. Additionally, a Q&A with our case holders, helped us understand their requirements, including the need to implement their data. Overall, the second mind map shows that we started to focus on specific ideas and made key decisions. The final mind map clearly illustrates how our ideas have evolved from broad concepts to specific and refined points. This mind map was created after we had completed all our fieldwork trips to Copenhagen Light Festival, Copenhagen Contemporary (Specifically James Turell’s work: Aftershock), and the Experimentarium. Additionally, one group member visited a relevant exhibition while in Budapest. With the knowledge gained from the fieldwork, the final mind map includes much more specific ideas and thoughts regarding our project, providing a complete overview. 13 out of 46 Figure 6: Mind Map - The final mind map (Appendix 3.3) Among the decisions made is the location of the installation, which is at South Campus of the University of Copenhagen, as argued earlier in this paper. The fieldwork is also illustrated more detailed, explaining the different research methods used on each trip, which were fundamental in making the final ideation decisions for our project. These research methods and the findings will be presented in the next paragraph. Furthermore, the final mind map also includes considerations for prototyping, experimenting, and model making. It outlines a plan for tackling the next stage within the process, which is helpful. In summary, the final mind map provides a comprehensive overview of our core concept, reflecting the iterative ideation process and evolution of our ideas during the fieldwork trips. It highlights the different aspects of the main idea that we need to focus on in the further process. Presentation of fieldwork data The Copenhagen Light Festival On our visit to Copenhagen Light Festival, we did autoethnography as our research method. Autoethnography in fieldwork research is a qualitative method where researchers use self-reflection to link personal experiences with broader cultural and social contexts. It combines autobiography and ethnography, valuing the researcher’s introspection as key data for understanding cultural phenomena 14 out of 46 (Rapp, 2018). Our approach to autoethnography involved continuous note taking in a diary style for each installation. These notes capture both our own personal experiences and reflections on what inspired us, as well as observations of how the general audience interacted with the installations. Here, there will be highlighted key citations from the autoethnography including explanation on the essential aspects to be incorporated into our own project. One popular installation, "The Wave," combined music and light visuals, attracting significant attention in the dark. Viewers were captivated by its bright, colourful lighting, with reactions ranging from taking pictures to simply enjoying the music. “Viewers were drawn into the colourful display, some grabbing their camera and others stood still and listened to the music” (Appendix 4.4) This observation highlights how people were captivated by the installation’s uniqueness, as it stood out with its bright and colourful lighting. Our experience mirrored the audience's, emphasising the installation's dynamic nature. The unpredictability and constant movement erased the sense of time, contrasting with the overall calmness of the installation. Another installation that made an impact and inspired us was “Tordenhjerte”. This installation was featured a medium-sized plinth with tall lightning-shaped light bars, emitting bright white light amidst a damp surrounding. ”There was a remarkable sense of movement and dynamism in its design, enhanced by the vibrating sensations that could be felt from the plinth” (Appendix 4.3). We were amazed by the immersive bodily interaction of feeling vibrations through our feet, heightening our experience of the installation's movement. This combined with the steam atmosphere possibly from the plinth, created a dynamic experience. The element of physical engagement and the use of sensory experiences are aspects we found aiming to incorporate into our installation to make it more impactful and memorable. Lastly, an observation of an installation that sparked reflection but lacked impressiveness. “The Light installation is not striking or exaggerated like the others we’ve seen on our way and many people overlook the exhibit as it somehow blends in with the rest of the lights shining over Copenhagen” (Appendix 4.5). Named "Hidden Nature," this installation displayed organic movement on a large building. Its purpose was not to stand out like other installations but to blend in, offering a moment of surprise to observant viewers. The citation reflects audience observation, with which we somewhat agree. Unlike "The Wave" and "Tordenhjerte," "Hidden Nature" lacked interactivity and physical 15 out of 46 engagement. Its subdued quality suited its purpose but also emphasised the need for a more physical approach to achieve interaction like other installations. Overall, the fieldwork conducted at the Copenhagen Light Festival served as a starting point for gaining further inspiration on how our own installation should be designed. It highlighted specific features and elements that contribute to making installations more appealing for audience interaction. These include larger size, use of sound/music, bright and colourful lighting, dynamic movement, and physical accessibility for the audience. LAM museum, Budapest During a vacation in Budapest, one of our group members discovered the LAM museum, which is centred around the theme of AI and light. The museum featured several rooms and corridors, each showcasing different light displays with various colours and patterns. These rooms were equipped with bean bags on the floor, providing comfortable spots to sit and enjoy the exhibit, as seen in the collage below. 16 out of 46 Figure 7: Collage - Inspiration pictures from exhibition at the LAM museum (Appendix 5) The museum visit provided ample inspiration, leading us to create a collage featuring photos from the exhibition that highlight the specific elements. The collage showcases various small installations, each utilising different intensities and colours of light. Some installations were subdued and calm, creating a contemplative atmosphere, while others were colourful and dynamic, offering an intense experience. We found this diversity intriguing and kept it in mind for the further process. The exhibition itself was more static, focusing on creating specific atmospheric spaces purely visually, with some installations incorporating subtle sounds to enhance the experience. Despite a lack of the features, the focus on detail created an otherworldly feel. Copenhagen Contemporary (James Turrell: Aftershock) When experiencing James Turrell’s comprehensive work “Aftershock” at Copenhagen Contemporary, we chose to use the bodystorming method. Bodystorming is an ideation method where researchers use their own bodies to physically simulate and explore scenarios. This hands-on approach helps to identify potential issues and generate new ideas by providing experiential insights into user interactions and experiences (Interaction Design Foundation, 2023). During our bodystorming session we focused on the profound and in-depth interactive experience facilitated by innovative use of light. This session aimed to deeply engage how light shapes human perception and emotional response within a defined space. Entering through what appeared to be a simple blue lit square it was later revealed to be the actual entrance to the immersive environment. We were part of a group of 8 people allowed to experience the installation for about 10 minutes where the museum mediator instructed us to fully enjoy the experience without speaking or taking pictures. As we navigated the space, the freedom to move around the rectangular room with rounded edges and a downward slope allowed for dynamic interaction with light. Our perception of the environment evolved with each step, intensifying our connection with the changing hues and intensities. The room's design, with its gentle slope guiding us towards the centre, fostered natural exploration and movement, central to our bodystorming approach. The lighting shifted between deep reds and bright yellows, creating varied atmospheres from warmth to tranquillity. The experience was punctuated by the sudden use of strobe lights providing a 17 out of 46 disorienting contrast to the otherwise fluid transitions, enhancing sensory engagement and underscoring light’s power to alter spatial perception. This intense interaction with light deeply affected our sense of presence. The varying intensities and colours, coupled with our movement through the room, created a rich sensory experience, making us aware of the environment’s impact on our emotional and cognitive states. Our bodystorming session with “Aftershock” demonstrated how light can be a powerful tool in design to create deeply engaging and transformative experiences. Turrell transformed the room into a dynamic environment that responded to and was altered by our movements, highlighting light’s potential to influence mood, perception, and even sense of time. By focusing on the in-depth interaction with light, we appreciated its aesthetic and atmospheric effects and its ability to shape human interaction within a space. The Experimentarium Our final exhibition trip was to the Experimentarium, a Danish science center. Drawing from Petrocvici’s (2013) article; “Effective Methods of Learning and Teaching: A Sensory Approach”, presented in the literature review, we decided to explore sensory experiences as a key element of our project integration. Before our visit, we made a list of five interactive senses: vision, hearing, feeling, touch and movement, that we wanted to explore further. 18 out of 46 Figure 8: Categorization of activation of senses (Appendix 6) In the five installations described in the table above, we noted how interactive emotions were utilised to draw inspiration regarding which senses we could incorporate into our own installation. The installation “Sansetunellen” stood out for its integration of various interactive senses. It combined vision, hearing, movement, and feeling, providing a rich multi-sensory experience which according to Petrovic (2013) is beneficial. This aligns with contemporary educational theories that advocate for comprehensive sensory engagement. We found the combination of multiple senses interesting, and it inspired us to somehow incorporate it into our own idea to provide users a similarly immersive experience. Overall, our exhibition experience highlighted that vision and hearing were the most prominently used senses in the different installations. This aligns with Petrovici's (2013) findings, indicating that most individuals may primarily rely on visual and auditory inputs to process information. By 19 out of 46 incorporating visual and auditory elements into our installation, we can aim to create a dynamic and inclusive learning experience. SWOT analysis With our final mind map, which generated various approaches, we explored opportunities and ideas for an art installation. Before selecting the final idea for prototyping, we performed a SWOT analysis on two main ideas developed. SWOT analysis is a strategic planning technique that identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Kenton, 2023). The analysis also helped us to examine both internal and external factors that could impact the success of the ideas (Kenton, 2023). Therefore, it allowed us to make a more informed decision by systematically comparing the potential and challenges of each idea, enabling us to choose the most promising one for the further prototype development. Design Idea 1 – Light Room Our first idea was inspired by the exhibition at the LAM Museum in Budapest and the experience with James Turrell’s “Aftershock”, where we envisioned using an entire room as an installation. The room would be dark, utilising video material, light, and sound to create an immersive space. This concept aimed to engage users by enveloping them in an otherworldly atmosphere where they could freely walk around. The interplay of visual, light, and sound elements aims to evoke diverse feelings and reflections about sustainability, presenting continuously updated data from Electricity Maps in an aesthetic and sensory manner. Strengths The strengths of this idea revolve around utilising a darkened room with video material and sound, creating an immersive environment that captivates the users and enriches their multi-sensory journey, as described earlier. Moreover, this embracive sensory experience makes profound emotions and contemplation, rendering the sustainability message more resonant and enduring. Weaknesses The idea has several weaknesses, like its space requirement. It needs a dedicated and larger area, which could limit its availability and reach fewer people. Like our experience with James Turrell’s “Aftershock,” only a small group could experience the installation at once for optimal interaction. This requires guides or a system to regulate entries, potentially impacting visibility. Additionally, 20 out of 46 there would need to be time limits for each group to manage the flow and accommodate as many users as possible. While it's uncertain if our installation would garner the same attention, it's important to consider, nonetheless. Furthermore, a dark room might challenge users with certain disabilities, such as visual impairments or sensitivity to flashing lights or loud sounds, which requires a disclaimer to ensure user safety. Opportunities The educational potential of this idea is substantial, given its immersive installation format, which effectively can function as an educational experience. It can raise awareness and stimulate discussions about sustainability in an engaging manner. Moreover, the dynamic and atmospheric nature of the installation would allow for regular updates aligned with data from Electricity Maps. This would encourage users to revisit, thereby maintaining the audience interest over time. Threats Some threats are also associated with this idea. There is the risk of technical failures due to the dependency on technology, which could disrupt the user experience and result in dissatisfaction. Also, the intensity of a sensory experience may overwhelm some users, potentially leading to negative feedback or reduced engagement. Furthermore, there will be a significant maintenance cost, including ongoing expenses for maintaining and updating the technology and elements, which could strain the budget. 21 out of 46 Figure 9: SWOT analysis for design idea 2 (Appendix 7.1) Design Idea 2: Interactive Installation Our second idea was to create a physical interactive art installation that combines light, sound, steam, and vibration with interactivity via a touchscreen with the world map and its data from Electricity Maps. Users can engage with the installation by tapping on countries on the map, triggering changes in colours, steam emissions, and vibrations. This incorporation of multi-sensory elements aims to heighten users’ interest in electricity and its environmental impact, and this idea was mainly inspired by the installations we experienced at The Copenhagen Light Festival and the Experimentarium. Strengths The combination of light, steam, sounds, and vibrations within the installation offers a multi-sensory engagement that stimulates various senses, enhancing the overall experience. Enabling users to interact with the world map from Electricity Maps and initiate changes increases their involvement and personal connection with the content. Also, the installation holds educational potential in enlightening users about global electricity usage and its environmental impact, thereby promoting awareness and discussion. Additionally positioning the installation centrally at the university makes it more accessible, reaching a broader audience and increasing its appeal. Weaknesses 22 out of 46 The components of the installation, including steam and vibration, necessitate regular maintenance to ensure proper and safe functionality. Additionally, integrating sophisticated technology for light, steam, and vibration poses challenges in terms of maintenance and susceptibility to technical glitches. With high initial setup costs and ongoing maintenance expenses, financial burden may arise, underscoring the need to allocate resources for this project. Opportunities The size of the installation and its activation of senses will attract a broader audience, increasing awareness of electricity production and its environmental consequences. This heightened sensory immersion not only enhances the installation’s appeal but also makes complex data and ideas more understandable and relevant. Moreover, its capacity to engage individuals of all ages and backgrounds positions it as an educational resource spanning diverse demographics, from study groups to professionals. By offering an interactive learning space, it encourages users to reflect on energy and its global effects critically. Threats The operational costs associated with maintaining and updating the installation might strain the budget, particularly if the number of users do not meet expectations. There is also a heavy dependence on technology increasing the risk of malfunctions or system failures, which could disrupt the experience, disappoint users, and potentially damage credibility. These financial and technical challenges underscore the importance of securing resources to guarantee the installation’s long-term sustainability and reliability. 23 out of 46 Figure 10: SWOT analysis of design idea 2 (Appendix 7.2) Decision After thorough deliberation and conducting a SWOT analysis, we have chosen our final design idea: The Interactive Installation (Design Idea 2). This decision was reached after weighing the strengths and challenges of each idea against our overall goals and vision. The interactive installation shares similarities to Design Idea 1, particularly in its aim to deliver an experience through the integration of various sensory elements like light and sound. While Design Idea 1 focused on creating an atmospheric ambiance in a darkened room, the interactive installation builds upon this concept by introducing interactive features and presenting real-time data via a touchscreen, as well as steam and vibration elements. The interactive installation offers several advantages that were crucial in our decision-making process. Notably, its central location at university enhances its accessibility and visibility, enabling it to engage a broader audience. Despite the maintenance challenges associated with this idea, we believe its positive impact and potential to make meaningful connections with viewers justify the investment in its long-term sustainability. In conclusion, we are confident that careful planning and resource allocation will minimise the risk of technical issues and ensure consistent operation. 24 out of 46 Design exploration of the final design idea Moodboard We created a digital mood board that serves as a central visual tool, ensuring cohesive integration of all design elements to achieve the intended user experience. This tool offers a clear visual representation of the installation’s envisioned elements, facilitating comprehension of the desired aesthetic and mood. The moodboard inspires creativity, aids communication, and ensures a common understanding of the project vision among all involved (Sharp et al., 2019). Figure 11: Moodboard (Appendix 8) The mood board established a visual and emotional direction early, maintaining consistency and guiding design decisions with the desired atmosphere and aesthetic in mind. The mood board contains images from our fieldwork trips that sparked inspiration and captured desired user feeling. It also contains the colour palette; red, green, and yellow which we will use in the installation. Overall, our moodboard effectively visualises and communicates the intended atmosphere, enhancing the installation’s cohesion and user engagement. 25 out of 46 Storyboard Furthermore, we created a storyboard, which is a series of sketches illustrating how a user might progress through the installation. A storyboard serves as a low-fidelity prototype, providing a visual representation of the user experience (Sharp et al., 2019). Figure 12: Storyboard (Appendix 9) Through the storyboard, it is illustrated how the installation’s light grabs the attention of passersby, compelling them to stop and engage with the unexpected and intriguing object. By depicting the attraction of the light and the subsequent curiosity it evokes, the storyboard aims to show how the installation effectively draws in people, encouraging them to pause and reflect. This moment of wonder is important for sparking interest and facilitating deeper engagement with the installation. Presentation of prototypes In the design process prototyping brings abstract concepts to life by exploring mechanics, behaviour, and materials. It provides crucial insights into user interaction and experience, focusing on understanding and refining design concepts rather than a technical feasibility or market readiness (Koskinen et al., 2011). In our prototyping process, we created multiple prototypes at various levels of fidelities, indicating different stages of development: Low-fidelity, a basic representation often 26 out of 46 depicted through paper sketches; Mid-fidelity, a more detailed representation allowing for some interaction; and High-fidelity, an advanced representation close to the final version. High-fidelity is known for being a close representation of the finished product, but fidelities can be relative (Interaction Design Foundation, 2019). In this presentation, it is therefore important to highlight that the term “High-fidelity” is used as a concept to describe our most developed prototype, even though it is not close to the final product. The low-fidelity prototype: Sketch In the beginning of the prototyping process, we made a paper sketch illustrating the entire installation. This sketch served as the first visual presentation of the installation, guiding the development for upcoming prototypes Figure 13: Sketch prototype (Appendix 10.1) The sketch illustrates the installation grounded on a platform, serving as the users’ entry point. Upon entering, the user is surrounded by illuminated cylinders of varying colours. At the centre of the platform is the touchscreen enabling the interaction and activating the installation. Additional features 27 out of 46 outlined in the sketch include vibrations from the platform, speakers for sound, and stem emitting from the cylinders. Central to the sketch is the touchscreen, which displays the world map from Electricity Maps, offering users information for the country they selected. While simplistic, the sketch provides an overview of the installation’s features, facilitating the further prototyping effort. The mid-fidelity prototype: Animation Our Mid-fidelity prototype includes an animation (Appendix 10.2) showcasing the interaction with our installation. In the animation, a virtual “hand” taps countries on a white map, representing the map from Electricity Map without colours. This introduces an element of excitement since the user does not know the colours of the countries before pressing one. The animation also shows the screen’s positioning relative to the cylinders, like the sketch, and how interacting with the screen changes the cylinder lights to green or yellow. While the cylinders can also turn red, this was not included in the animation, as its purpose was to illustrate colour interaction. Furthermore, the animation reveals the outcome of selecting a country, with relevant and updated data from Electricity Maps displayed on the screen. This animation was created as an effective way of conveying interactions and functionalities within our installation, offering a sequential overview that the sketch cannot communicate, while visually demonstrating its practical operation. The high-fidelity prototype: Two-part prototype This high-fidelity prototype presented is a two-part prototype, including a physical prototype and a separate prototype for the interface made using the program Figma. The physical prototype To bring the installation to life, we created a physical prototype for a hands-on experience. This was a priority for understanding how all the installation’s elements could come together. Additionally, it helped us structure and illustrate a simplified representation of the desired interaction with the installation. 28 out of 46 Figure 14: The physical prototype (Appendix 10.3) The installation was created by constructing the platform using cardboard, which was painted black for a cleaner appearance. Next, we created the screen in the middle using cardboard and a piece of wood as support. Plastic pockets were used to make the cylinders, allowing light to shine through. For the installation’s features, we utilised Micro:bit, a small computer device for programming activities. With Micro:bit we coded a program activated by buttons. Depending on the buttons pressed, the light would change colour, and the speaker would play a sound. We adapted this concept from the mid-fidelity prototype but also incorporated the feature of sound. This prototype was particularly useful for user testing, allowing participants to press actual buttons, simulating the experience of a touchscreen, which will be presented later. However, it lacked the educational aspect of not displaying information from Electricity Maps. The interface prototype To better illustrate how the touchscreen of the installation will function, we created a prototype in Figma demonstrating the interaction and display. The screen starts by displaying the logo and company name “Electricity Maps”, along with a start button (Appendix 10.4). Upon pressing the button users will be taken to the world map where countries with available data from Electricity Maps will appear in white, while those without data will be grey with cross-hatching, indicating they cannot be pressed (Appendix 10.5). As shown in appendix 10.6, when a user selects Norway as an example, 29 out of 46 updated data such as energy consumption, carbon emissions, CO2 intensity, renewables, etc., will be displayed along with a relatable comparison. To encourage further exploration, there is a button labelled “Explore another country” (Appendix 10.7). Pressing this button returns the user to the same world map (Appendix 10.8), allowing them to select another country. As shown in the Appendix 10.9, selecting Poland will display its data in the same format as Norway as examples (Appendix 10.9, 10.10). Combined, the two presented prototypes, the physical and the interface, together represent the full compilation of almost all the features of the installation, except steam and vibration. Thus, the high- fidelity prototype consists of two parts, the physical prototype demonstrates the general physical activation of the installation in an interactive way, while the interface prototype shows how the touchscreen visually displays information to the user in sequences Overview of the installation’s sequences To illustrate a clear overview of the entire installation and its sequences, a diagram was created to illustrate the activities that occur when a specific colour coded country is selected by the user. The diagram represents green, yellow, and red countries to simplify the features for each category and prevent potential confusion. It’s important to note that many countries on the map from Electricity Maps don’t fit particularly into this simplified explanation, as they exist somewhere in between on the spectrum for these colours. 30 out of 46 Figure 15: Diagram of the installation’s sequences (Appendix 10.12) User testing: Interview with focus group We tested our final prototype on a focus group consisting of students from the University of Copenhagen, South Campus to gain insights into the future users’ experiences and preferences. Our focus group evaluated both the mid-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes. During the interview, we presented our prototypes and allowed the participants to interact with the installed buttons on the physical prototype. We also showed the interface prototype and the mid-fidelity animation as accompanying. Participants were then asked questions by the interviewers. The interview provided valuable insights into areas of improvement. One suggestion was to personalise the interaction by allowing users to input their own data: "You could type in some things yourself and it would say, okay, you contribute this way?" (Appendix 11.2, 11:16-11:21). Another idea was to provide concrete examples of what CO2 emissions equates to in everyday terms, making the data more relatable: “You could have examples of what it would be like. It's like R3 was talking about how you could personalise it a bit. But then instead, you could say, okay, what does so and so many tonnes of CO2 emissions in this country actually correspond to? Can you say it's the same as if we built four Great Belt bridges?” (Appendix 11.2, 20:21-20:45). As can be seen in our prototype (see Appendix 10.6), we added a relatable comparison as requested by our focus group. In doing so, we recognised the importance of incorporating personalisation, providing clear instructions and integrating positive messages into the installation to improve its effectiveness and relevance. The importance of usability and clear instructions from the installation was also discussed. Including a FAQ section was suggested “... I think it can also be just like, if we're going to go into a little bit more on this usability, that there are those FAQ things. Like click here to get more information.” (Appendix 11,2, 19:42-19:56). This could be relevant for further work to provide clear instructions and easy to understand information, enhancing user experience and encouraging interaction with the installation. Additionally, the interview highlighted what worked regarding the installation. Participants appreciated the inclusion of positive aspects about green countries: “...You never hear about Norway, for example, which is one of the green countries... if you really want to call yourself enlightened, then 31 out of 46 you have to be a little enlightened about it all. But I don't often feel that way... there are also good stories. So, there's an aspect to it that might be important” (Appendix 11,2, 09:01-09:40). This feedback suggests that users might be more likely to interact with the installation, discovering it also includes positive information, rather than just negative facts. Evaluation In our design process, we used mind maps to organise our thoughts and stay on track. Visually mapping out our ideas helped us to identify connections and tasks needing further investigation. During fieldwork, interacting with various art installations and observing the audience allowed us to update our mind map with new insights and inspirations. Using SWOT analysis, we objectively assessed the feasibility and potential impact of our two ideas, enabling us to make well considered decisions about which idea had the most potential for development. We then moved from ideation to prototyping. The high-fidelity prototypes were tested by a focus group, who interacted with them. The feedback from the focus group provided valuable insights for our design. Based on the SWOT analysis, it was possible for us to assess their feasibility and potential impact more objectively and therefore make an informed and well-considered decision about which idea would have the most potential for further development. Moving forward we transitioned from ideation to prototyping, where we ended by creating a physical “high fidelity” prototype. This prototype was used in our interview by the focus group, where they were allowed to play with it and see the interfaces made in Figma. The insight gained from the focus group interview provided valuable input for evaluating and refining our design helping us identify areas for improvement and refine our prototype to better meet user expectations. This iterative and user-centric approach ensured that our final prototype effectively captured users’ attention and conveyed the intended message through relatable comparisons. System analysis User stories To get a better understanding of the features our solution should deliver, we have created user stories to outline user needs. User stories are brief, user-centered descriptions of features or requirements, examined as acceptance criteria (Sharp et al., 2019). They capture what the user aims to accomplish and why, helping in ensuring that the development team understands the end user’s perspective (Sharp 32 out of 46 et al., 2019). Based on our professor and student personas, and our storyboard presented earlier, we have created the two user stories. As a teacher at The University of Copenhagen, I want to stay updated and inspired on global topics to integrate new ideas into my lectures, inspiring students and evolving as an educator. As a student at The University of Copenhagen, I want to engage in alternative learning methods so that I can make a difference in both my personal life and the world around me through my education. The two user stories outline acceptance criteria for our project, which is important to emphasise. In the teacher user story, the criteria include; access to updated and reliable information, and having accessible resources for inspiration. As for the student user story, the acceptance criteria include; access to diverse alternative learning resources, exposure to new and relevant information, and support for effectively utilising a new learning method. These criteria are important for guiding the later system development process to ensure a solution that meets the needs outlined in the user stories. PACT analysis PACT analysis is a user-centered framework used in interactive system designs (Nis, 2023). It ensures that the design process revolves around the users and their needs. It considers four main components: People, Activities, Contexts, and Technologies (Nis, 2023). By analysing how these components interact, it provides insight into the user experience. We have employed PACT analysis in our project to ensure that the interactive system is designed and implemented effectively, aiming for maximum user satisfaction. 33 out of 46 Figure 16: PACT analysis (Appendix 12) Both user stories and PACT analysis are useful for understanding user needs and designing effective solutions. We found it relevant to use both, considering the age gap and varying tech skills of students and teachers. PACT analysis helps ensure our design meets user needs and context, creating a coherent, user-friendly solution. Activity diagram To illustrate the functioning of the system, an activity diagram was developed. Activity digraphs are used to describe activities, control flows, and object flows, demonstrating how actors engage to reach a goal (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). Each activity is represented by a rounded rectangle with both inbound and outbound flows. Arrows represent control flows, indicating the sequence of events between activities (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). Based on our user stories and the PACT analysis, we created an activity diagram that describes the workflow and activities that occur when a user enters the installation. 34 out of 46 Figure 17: Activity Diagram (Appendix 13) The diagram shows a sequence of activities from user inputs, starting with the user tapping on a country on the map and proceeding to data collection and display of results. The user can interact with the system, selecting different countries and receive visual feedback. The diagram also shows that the interaction is iterative, allowing the user to continue tapping on different countries and decide when they want to stop the interaction. Requirement specification Requirements specifications detail a system’s essential functions, performance criteria, and data handling standards (Laursen, 2002). They reflect customer needs and expectations, ensuring the system meets its purposes, such as device management, order processing, or information retrieval (Sommerville, 2011). These specifications create a common understanding of the desired outcomes, guiding developers and ensuring technical and business requirements are met (Sommerville, 2011). Our requirements are divided into functional, non-functional, and usability requirements to provide a comprehensive overview of the system's needs and limitations. 35 out of 46 Functional requirements Functional requirements detail the specific services or functions a system must provide, how it should respond to inputs, and its behaviour in various situations (Sommerville, 2011). They outline tasks like processing user requests, performing calculations, and generating reports, as well as restrictions like prohibiting unauthorised access (Sommerville, 2011). We have listed the functional requirements in the table below. Figure 18: Functional Requirements (Appendix 14.1) Functional requirements are relevant for our project because they clearly describe the system’s expected behaviour, serving as a foundation for design, development, and testing (Sommerville, 2011). They ensure the system meets user and stakeholder needs, identify potential issues early on, and facilitate effective communication among the development team, stakeholders, and users. This 36 out of 46 customization is essential for delivering a reliable system that aligns with user needs and business goals. Non-functional requirements Non-functional requirements are constraints on the system rather than specific features. These may include time constraints like response time, development process limitations, and compliance with external standards like safety (Sommerville, 2011). They apply to the system as a whole and affect performance, usability and maintainability (Sommerville, 2011). For our project, non-functional requirements ensure performance standards, regulatory compliance, ease of maintenance, and a positive user experience. These requirements for the installation are illustrated in the following table: Figure 19: Non-functional Requirements (Appendix 14.2) 37 out of 46 Usability requirements Usability requirements outline the services a system should provide users and the constraints must operate within (Sommerville, 2011). These requirements are abstract representations of the system’s functionality from the user’s perspective, distinct from detailed system requirements (Sommerville, 2011). The usability requirements are depicted in the table below. Figure 20: Usability Requirements (Appendix 14.3) Including user requirements is relevant for our project because they facilitate effective communication between stakeholders, helping developers, customers, and end-users share a common understanding of the system’s goals. They align expectations, establish a foundation for system 38 out of 46 design, and prioritise features (Sommerville, 2011). Usability requirements also contribute to the successful delivery of the system. Validation and verification Verification and validation are crucial for ensuring software meets requirements and improves communication between developers and stakeholders (Sommerville, 2011). These processes help developers understand and confirm stakeholder needs, ensuring the software fulfils its intended functions and user expectations (Sommerville, 2011). Verification assesses whether the software meets its specified requirements and is built correctly, focusing on both functional and non-functional aspects (Sommerville, 2011). Validation, on the other hand, checks if the software meets stakeholder needs and performs as expected in its operational environment (Sommerville, 2011). Through interviews and user testing with University of Copenhagen students, we gained important verification insights for our project. Observing user interactions with our high-fidelity prototypes provided feedback on their intuitiveness and functionality, highlighting areas for improvement and aligning the design with user preferences and needs. While we haven’t implemented validation yet, it would be critical for scaling up the project. Validation assesses whether the software meets the real- world needs and expectations of its intended users (Sommerville, 2011). This would involve deploying our installation more broadly and gathering feedback on its effectiveness, usability, and impact. Both verification and validation are crucial to ensure our project meets requirements and user needs effectively. By conducting verification through interview and planning for real world validation, we could aim to ensure our sustainability installation is impactful and user friendly. These processes should be ongoing to keep the installation relevant and effective over time. Implementation Who should make the installation? The art installation combines large scale artwork with technology. To create it, a team will be formed focusing on interactive design and technologies. This team will include artists skilled in interactive 39 out of 46 design to ensure the installation’s aesthetic and conceptual quality, as well as IT specialists in software development and usability design to make sure the technology works well and fits smoothly with the rest of the installation. Together, this diverse team will collaborate to create an installation that is visually striking, technically solid, and effectively communicates its messages about electricity and sustainability to the audience. To overcome the project’s complexities, a hybrid methodology will likely be beneficial for future implementation of our art installation. This approach is relevant to use for projects like ours that mix artistic creativity with technical demands. A hybrid approach is well suited for projects with a high degree of complexity as it combines traditional artistic approaches with agile development methods (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). By prioritising equally on the artistic and technical aspects, we ensure the installation communicates about electricity and sustainability effectively and in an engaging manner. Furthermore, the hybrid approach includes using Big Up-Front Requirements (BRUF) to outline and document all project requirements before beginning the iterative construction process (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). This provides a more structured approach which is appropriate for our project including its relatively clear and stable requirements. By defining the requirements early, we can ensure that all stakeholders understand the project's goals and constraints from the beginning, which helps to prevent miscommunications later in the development process. Using a hybrid approach will increase the chances of developing a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) within time and budget constraints (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). The MVP is a product development strategy that focuses on the minimal features needed to satisfy the early users (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). By launching quickly and gathering user feedback for iterative improvements, it enables users to make informed decisions about how to enhance the installation in subsequent releases. This iterative process ensures that the product evolves in a way that meets user needs and adapts to any changes in requirements or technological advancements (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). Each successive release of the MVP will gradually expand to fulfil increasingly complex requirements and improve the user experience. This incremental approach allows the future team to introduce new features and enhancements based on real user feedback, ensuring that the installation remains relevant and engaging. It also allows the future team to manage risks more effectively by addressing potential issues in smaller, manageable increments rather than all at once (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). 40 out of 46 Additionally, the hybrid approach supports collaboration among the different team members, including artists, designers, IT specialists, and data scientists (Spurrier & Topi, 2021). This multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for a project like ours, ensuring that all aspects of the installation are considered and optimised. It also fosters a creative and innovative environment where ideas can be shared and refined, leading to a more robust and impactful final product. At the same time, a hybrid approach will deliver an art installation that not only meets but exceeds user expectations, providing an engaging, educational, and aesthetically appealing experience that raises awareness of electricity consumption and sustainability. Dependency on systems Our art installation depends on external systems, especially Electricity Maps for data displayed on the touchscreen. It also relies on the university's power and network infrastructure for stable operation and internet connectivity. Therefore, a collaboration with Electricity Maps ensures real-time data availability, while a partnership with the University of Copenhagen will ensure power and network support. To effectively manage these dependencies, we believe it's important to establish clear integration points and APIs for seamless data transfer. Since our IT system cannot operate independently, it must continuously be integrated with external systems and the university's infrastructure. Successful operation will require ongoing engagement with technical support, representatives from Electricity Maps, environmentalists, and art critics, among others, to ensure the installation meets its intended goals. Discussion In reflecting on our project, several key insights emerge regarding what might have been done differently, particularly in understanding user needs and expectations. Firstly, a significant challenge we encountered was the need to identify our users independently without a clear directive, given the broad scope of the project. This made it challenging considering there was no specific expectation from the case holders regarding this aspect. For improvement, a more comprehensive user research strategy could have been beneficial. Conducting interviews with 41 out of 46 a diverse group of people, including ones from different backgrounds and professionals within the art industry, might have given us a clearer and more detailed understanding of potential user needs. Though simultaneously, this provided stronger validation for our own choice of users in relation to the chosen installation location. While these interviews would have been difficult to conduct, as they would rely on abstract and imaginable scenarios, we believe they still could have offered valuable insights into user preferences and needs. Even though the general potential users might not directly relate to the proposed art installation, their feedback could have revealed trends and desires in interactive art experiences, which could have informed our design process more effectively, helping to align the installation closer to user expectations and interests. In addition, employing quantitative methods like surveys, particularly within an academic setting, could have helped validate user intentions and preferences. Engaging potential users in informal discussions at the University of Copenhagen and showing them prototype demonstrations might have also provided deeper insights. For instance, presenting our mid-fidelity early in the process could have offered a good representation of our concept and its desired functioning, before developing the high-fidelity prototype. This could have also given us insight into the students’ thoughts upon the installation’s presence on campus, before simply making the decision ourselves. However, it is important to acknowledge the inherent complexity in targeting users within the art realm. It is conceivable that most artists often create without consideration for a specific audience, which adds another layer of challenge to user-targeted design in art installations. On the other hand, the installations at The Experimentarium show a clear focus on user targeted design, especially considering it’s a space primarily for educating children. Their approach could have been explored more deeply, potentially applying similar concepts to our own methodology. The fieldwork conducted through the ideation process served as a valuable source of inspiration for the project. The initial research provided a solid foundation for ideation and concept development. The use of Gantt charts helped manage the project effectively, offering a clear overview of tasks and deadlines. However, the process occasionally felt chaotic due to tight deadlines, suggesting a need for more flexible scheduling or proactive management strategies to prevent such challenges. 42 out of 46 Regarding prototyping, we wished we had spent more time in this stage. We particularly wanted to explore how to increase interactivity while maintaining consistency with Electricity Maps data and educational goals. Extending the prototyping phase aligns with Chen’s (2018) suggestion that critique and innovation are essential to artistic thinking. By dedicating additional resources to prototyping, we could have delved deeper into integrating interactive elements that dynamically engage users with the installation. This could involve incorporating features such as gamified or providing personalised information about electricity use, allowing users to actively explore Electricity Maps data in a more immersive way. However, our fundamental decision to incorporate activation of sensory experiences, as inspired by Petrovici (2013) article and our own fieldwork, was made with the aim of providing users with the most effective educational experience regarding electricity consumption. Extending the prototype phase would have also provided an opportunity for iterative testing and refinement of the interactive elements through user feedback sessions and usability testing. This approach would have allowed us to identify usability issues, iteratively refine the design, and better meet users’ needs and expectations. While prioritising interaction, it has still been important to ensure the educational aspect as central. Balancing interactivity with educational value is essential for creating an engaging and informative experience for users while staying true to the project’s goals. Moreover, Moldavanova's (2014) perspective underscored the importance of the aesthetic experience in promoting values and principles essential for long term sustainable actions and attitudes. Therefore, prioritising the prototyping phase and refining the design to ensure alignment with aesthetic principles would create an installation that captivates users visually and effectively communicating educational content on energy and sustainability. Nevertheless, we believe we produced a strong prototype that effectively integrates interactivity and educational content, but there’s room for improvement in fine tuning the balance between these aspects for a more engaging and informative experience. Moving forward, commitment to iterating our prototype, incorporating user feedback, and refining the design will be beneficial. As it’s argued in the paper, it may be relevant to use the MVP method, among other things, to focus on the small features that could optimise the experience for future users. 43 out of 46 Lastly, we believe that our project holds the potential to have a meaningful impact on individuals directly involved and those who encounter it. By providing an interactive installation for learning about energy and its environmental impact, we aim to empower individuals to get enlightened on the issue and perhaps make more informed decisions and take meaningful action towards sustainability. The installation also offers a unique opportunity for reflection and inspiration, sparking curiosity and conversation about sustainability among diverse users. Through raising awareness and fostering dialogue, we hope to contribute to a broader cultural shift towards more sustainable behaviours and attitudes, aligning closely with our motivation from the project’s inception. Conclusion The purpose of this paper was to develop an interactive art installation to educate and raise awareness about electricity and sustainability, inspired by a case provided from Electricity Maps. Our project followed a structured approach using a Gantt Chart and mind maps, which helped us maintain focus and continuously develop our ideas. After completing comprehensive fieldwork, we utilised SWOT analysis to evaluate our concept and chose the most suitable idea, leading to prototypes that integrate aesthetic and educational principles. Inspiration gained from fieldwork, along with a user-testing interview, provided valuable insights and highlighted the project’s potential and areas for improvement. The structured process, combing iterative design and user feedback, resulted in a promising prototype. While we achieved preliminary verification, future implementation will require further validation and a team of specialists to ensure effective development and data security. Identifying functional, non- functional, and usability requirements in the paper has clarified essential elements for the installation’s success. Overall, we recommend a hybrid approach to balance artistic and technical needs, ensuring the installation is user-friendly. Our project shows potential and offers a strong foundation for future development and implementation, requiring collaboration with Electricity Maps and the University of Copenhagen. In conclusion, the paper shows the progress of our design process with different approaches utilised to reach the final idea that shows potential and provides a solid base for future developments and implementations. 44 out of 46 Bibliography Books Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Chapter 2, Chapter 3) Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J. and Wensveen, S., (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier. (Chapter 8) Laursen, S. (2002) Softeware Requirements-Styles and Techniques. Addison-Wesley https://www.itu.dk/people/slauesen/Reqs/SoftwReqsPre.pdf Rapp, A. (2018). Autoethnography in human-computer interaction: Theory and practice. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10772, pp. 43-60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73374-6_3 Sharp, H. et. al. (2019). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.: ProQuest. Ebook Central (Red.) (Chapter 11, Chapter 12) Sommerville, I (red). (2011). Software Engineering (9th ed.) Pearson https://engineering.futureuniversity.com/BOOKS%20FOR%20IT/Software- Engineering-9th-Edition-by-Ian-Sommerville.pdf (Chapter 3, Chapter 4) Spurrier, G. & Topi, H. (2021). Systems Analysis and Design. In an age of options. Prospect Press. Articles Chen, C.-W. (2018). Incorporating artistic thinking into sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1007-1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.050 Kabeyi, M. J. B., & Olanrewaju, O. A. (2022). Sustainable energy transition for renewable and low carbon grid electricity generation and supply. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.743114 Marshall, P., Antle, A., Hoven, E. V. D., & Rogers, Y. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on the theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/2442106.2442107 Moldavanova, Alisa (2014). Sustainability, Aesthetics, and Future Generations: Towards a Dimensional Model of the Arts’ Impact on Sustainability. 172-193. 45 out of 46 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alisa- Moldavanova/publication/315834900_Sustainability_Aesthetics_and_Future_Generations_ Towards_a_Dimensional_Model_of_Arts'_Impact_on_Sustainability/links/58eae696a6fdcc b4a834f21a/Sustainability-Aesthetics-and-Future-Generations-Towards-a-Dimensional- Model-of-Arts-Impact-on-Sustainability.pdf Petrovici, M. A. (2013). Effective methods of learning and teaching: A sensory approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 146-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.168 Websites Electricity Maps (n.d.). Company page. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://www.electricitymaps.com/company Electricity Maps (n.d.). Live 24/7 CO2 emissions of electricity consumption. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Electricity Maps (n.d.). Reduce carbon emissions with actionable electricity data. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://www.electricitymaps.com/ Interaction Design Foundation. (2023, August 28). What is Bodystorming? https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/bodystorming Interaction Design Foundation. (2019, October 17). What is Prototyping? https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/prototyping Interaction Design Foundation. (2016, June 6). What are Mind Maps? https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/mind-maps Interaction Design Foundation. (2016, June 5). What is Ideation? https://www.interaction- design.org/literature/topics/ideation Kenton, W. (30/10-2023). SWOT Analysis: How to With Table and Example. Ivenstopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/swot.asp Nis. (2023, April 24). The PACT Analysis: A Human-Centered Design Framework. Bornoe.org. https://bornoe.org/the-pact-analysis-a-human-centered-design-framework/ 46 out of 46

Design Project Exam 2024 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue