Focus Group with
Teddy Share Prototype v.3 Analysis & Evaluation
Summary: The most important
feedback gained from this was the need for an on/off switch as well as the
potential for the audio message to change i.e. be randomised, or be
customisable after the product is delivered. New audio data proposed: jokes or
stories. User feedback pointed out the pros of not implemented a separate presence
detection/indication system i.e. one that notifies a user that the remote user
is there all the time so it will not be integrated into the prototype at this
stage. Also, users should be instructed to only have the bears on when they are
at home so that messages are not sent when they are not there. Even if they
were not in the same room, a user could still hear the bear as its quite loud
and it could draw them into the room where the bear was. Users were happy with
the security and the context of use.
Initial questioning
The users responded positively to the prototype and it was
important that problems raised in the previous focus group did not reappear.
The users like the prototype and the ‘hugging’ gesture in interaction with the
Monkey. The big teddies were both liked and disliked; one user found them a
little to large for their room whilst others liked the form. Users liked the
system and the fact that ‘you don’t have to make an excuse u to say hi’. One
user mentioned amusement at the possible scenario where a person presses the
button when the remote person wasn’t even there.
Context of use: All users said that they would use it. One
user said she’d use it with her boyfriend, and put their special song on it.
One said that they’d use it with friends to tell jokes. All users understood
how to use it when presented with the manual, which was analysed separately. They
all agreed with the presented usage of it within the home. All users were
excited by the idea that the prototype could hold multiple audio tracks that
could be randomised.
The users all liked the audio
tracks and one member likened the process to ‘being like having someone request
a song for you on the radio. You’d know that they’re thinking about you at the
time. It is a bit more special than sending a test-you can get across more stuff’.
User base: the users developed a
list of people that they could imagine using this system with. This included
friends, partners and family. It was generally agreed that the users would have
to know each-other quite well as otherwise ‘it could be kind of awkward’. One
user disagreed with this saying that it could be given as a gift by someone you
just started dating, and that it could be quite sweet. The general consensus
was against this usage however and most said that they’d find it intrusive,
especially if a voice recording was used instead of a song or something less
personalised.
Interaction questions
All users found the closing arms
control easy to manipulate which was extremely important. The interaction
method was described as being unusual.
Users did not like the idea of a
constant indicator to identify when the remote user was there. One user pointed
out that it might interfere with the meaning of the ‘thinking of you message’. ‘I’d
be like… ‘I know you’re at home… why aren’t you thinking about me’. Another
user embraced the fact that it might be missed, and that the risk element was
important to them. It would defeat the purpose in a way if you KNEW that your
message was being received and that this makes it that bit more special. The
whole point is to communicate with them at the time so if they miss it, they
miss it, its all part of the package. There is the risk with normal communication
i.e. texts that they may not get the message immediately anyway. The system is
as much about sending the message as receiving it. Another user points out that
it is good to know once the message has been sent that they received it. It
might be good to know before so that you don’t just send the message for no
good reason.
My response: the system
incorporates a message validation system. If the remote users bear is off, the
green feedback light does not flash. This happens within 4 seconds. Would you
want a separate ‘enquiry’ button, as the system currently does both jobs? The
user was happy with this response, although liked the idea of an enquiry
button. Other users preferred the system the way it was, and one even said that
they liked the idea of not being 100% sure if they were definitely there or
not. They said that if both users simply turned their bears on when they were
at home, even if they weren’t in the same room they would hear the music
anyway. They said that the manual should include this instruction. This would
prevent ‘wasted’ messages.
If an enquiry button was to be
implemented, however, all users agreed that it would have to be very discrete.
If there was indication of whenever the person was near the bear perhaps it
could vibrate. There are numbers problems with this, but it was not further
explored as users did not embrace either idea in general.
Security
The security was satisfactory for
all users. One user stated that ‘You only have people in your home, and
especially your bedroom, that you trust’, and the others agreed. They mentioned
that if you wanted to give the product to a child to take to school, it might
be useful to have extra security like a matching wristband to unlock
everything.
Context of use
Other contexts proposed by the
users were systems where the user could carry the object round with them which
wouldn’t be so conspicuous. However this was disregarded due to the embarrassment
factor.
All users would use it within the
proposed context, but would record different data i.e .Jokes and Funny Stories.
All of the users liked the idea of being able to record multiple messages which
were either randomised or flipped through chronologically.
Thesis
The thesis was then analysed to
see how well the prototype addressed it. The thesis has been tested in an
extremely limited way, but serves as a starting point for further investigation.
All users felt that the system conveyed presence and that they got a feeling of
being connected to another person at the current point in time. ‘You know that
they’re at home thinking about you which is really nice’. All users said that they
felt that they knew exactly where the user was i.e. at home and what they were
doing i.e. thinking about them. They said that they would not get the same
feelings if they could press the button and play the audio at any point in time
as you’d have no idea when they recorded It or where they are now or what they’re
doing’.. ‘You’d get a reminder of the person which is quite nice, but I can’t
imagine a situation where this would be useful. I could easily play the stuff
on my computer with much better quality’. All users agreed that the output was
valued more because it cannot be replayed at their discretion. One user summed
it up; ‘You always want what you can’t have’.
Improvement questions
-An on/off switch would be useful
-The potential to change the
audio whenever you want easily. This would make it more customisable and people
would eventually get tired of hearing the same things.
Improvements to the v4 prototype:
·
The manual should say that the bear should be
left on only when a user is home
·
An on/off switch should be integrated to prevent
the batteries from burning out
·
The breadboard should be replaced with strip
board to stop the wiring falling out
