Focus Group Analysis

Focus Group with Teddy Share Prototype v.2:  Analysis

The users were provided with signed consent forms that had been edited to remove the audio recording section due to the length. I instead printed out my prep sheet and kept notes. I also used the prep sheet as a prompt. One of the users did a drawing which I kept.

Users were selected on the fact that they all had friends/family members that they were away from. They were contacted over the phone and in person and screened beforehand.

I ensured that all of the questions I had were answered and that all my high level goals were met. I am able to improve the prototype. The DECIDE framework as well as the question prep sheet was very useful.

This is the feedback I received.

PART1: Opinions, Context of use and user base

Users like the prototype i.e. ‘very good’, ‘we like it’, and all agreed that it was useful and that they would use it themselves. Examples of when they’d use it was ‘when my sisters at uni’. They suggested ‘parents/children, couples, friends, or anybody that wants to tell someone they love them’.

They all use alternative methods to show that they missed someone that was far away. Examples of these methods were ‘phone, call, text, bbm, ping, letters’. They all used these methods currently for various reasons i.e. ‘just to say hello’. I added a question last minute ‘What are the benefits of this system over other?’. The responses were:

·         Personal

·         Fun Element

·         Direct element

·         You don’t have to give a reason for contacting them i.e. if you have nothing else to say except for that they are missed.

·         Historically the teddy bear already has certain connotations (in relation to why the form of the teddy bear is appropriate

PART 2: Interaction questions

They thought that the twisting control was easy to use, but all preferred to use a button instead for example embedded in the hand for them to squeeze.

They like the idea of putting the hands together to send the message as well as squeezing the stomach of the bear (instead of the hand)

They felt that all users i.e. children would be able to manipulate the control easily, but this would have to be tested by representatives of a specific user base. They would prefer to be able to push the button once to send a message rather than holding onto it. This was because ‘how would we know how long to push it??’. Which is very valid.

I  suggested a system where you place the bear on something to send the message, and one user liked it and drew a design for a platform, but the other users disliked it due to the constraints presented by it ‘you’d have to leave it in one place and it wouldn’t be as portable’.

Below is the drawing of the system.

I added a single question ‘What kind of messages would you send?’.

·         ‘Thinking of you’

·         ‘Wish you were here’

·         ‘I just called to say I love you’

·         Boo’

·         ‘Hello how was work today’

·         ‘Goodnight’

‘Thinking of you’ got all votes, but this system is meant to be tailored to suit the individual so it can be left open ended. However the primary message for presentation could be the ‘I’m thinking of you’.

PART 3: SECURITY

Users were split 50-50 on their personal preference between the key nd the password, but all agree that it would depend on the users. If it was for a child it could be made wearable.

Below is a drawing of a t-shirt design for a child generated from the focus group.

However, something detachable might be more appropriate for an older age group  they saiddue to concerns around reliability and the lack of access. ‘if it was in a t-shirt, you’d have to wash it eventually which would make it off-limits for an amount of time’. They also suggested voice activation but mentioned that this might be a bit over the top. One user gave an example of a scenario ‘when I had a slow phone that send messages with a massive delay I put a code 123 on the end of messages and added a time code on it which let my friends know it was from me and knew what time I had sent them.’ There was the idea of a secret code and validation.

In terms of protection, I mentioned the fact that because it would look like an ordinary teddy bear, it wouldn’t be obvious so people wouldn’t know how to use it or that they should use it at all. A user mentioned the fact that a user would probably have the teddy bear in a protected space i.e. a home or a bedroom so It wouldn’t really be interfered with. There was also point made that ‘why would anyone bother sending a fake message that a person is missing them, there’d be no point’.

I agree with this and the idea of physical protection. I did like the idea of a matching t-shirt or bracelet to go along with it, but this would only be appropriate for certain users and would have to be trialled with the next focus group.

PART 4: PHYSICALITY

Other physical manifestations suggested were keyrings, dolls and toys. One user suggested that there could be a choice of objects with the same function i.e. a toy car for a child. The other users agreed that this is possible, but felt that the bear was most appropriate for the widest range of users and personally preferred it above the other ideas. They did not want any other functions to be added.

NOTES

Users have said that the system adds to the electronic advancements of today, but this system makes it more personal and intimate. This was said without prompting and it was great  because it is the point of the system. They also said that it was universal i.e. anyone could use it and the form could be subtly tailored to suit different user bases without changing core function i.e. a toy truck with a wheel you can press. ‘It can be bought for someone going away’ as a gift which I thought was a context I hadn’t focused on. Users like the fact that it has been ‘stripped down’ and has a specific function.

The final question I asked ‘Is there one user base that sticks out for you’

·         Kids

·         Younger people

·         Connection between young & old people i.e. parents & children