INTRODUCTION
In Milestone 2, using a diary study and two cultural probes, we refined our design scope for our concept of Nostalgia from enhancing a “sense of place” in the everyday environment of urban residents to enhancing a person’s connection with their personal identity, social identity, and physical place through the non-intrusive and meaningful augmentation of location-based remembering. We kept our original target audience: urban residents who have accumulated meaningful memories associated with the physical places of their city.
Based on an analysis of our diary study and cultural probes, we decided that our design criteria was to create an augmented memory experience that was meaningful, appropriate, non-intrusive, reinforced connection, and didn’t induce distress. We then explored three different design concepts and evaluated them based on how well they fit with our criteria. During the course of our design concept evaluation, we discovered several potential opportunities and problems that might arise from the implementation of our design. To learn more about how users might react to these potential problems and opportunities, we designed a series of user enactments to better understand how our future users might react to issues of :
- Always on data capture
- System automation vs. user control
- Public vs. private memories
- Shared memory experiences
- Memories with negative or mixed emotional connotations
STUDY DESIGN
We designed a series of five user enactments to explore the five themes listed in bullet points above. Using the methodology described in Odom’s "A Fieldwork of the Future with User Enactments" article, we started by generating a large amount of concepts derived from our insights from Milestone 2. We then consolidated the design concepts into five related themes that we thought were important to investigate further. Next, we we constructed five different scenarios based on our main themes. We simulated the social contexts and environments in a classroom in North Quad and asked participants to enact loosely scripted scenarios designed to address the concepts and features of our Nostalgia concept that we wanted to learn more about. We wanted to use the user enactments to engage participants in a critical exploration of what the future of experiencing place based memories should be like. To do this, our scenarios explicitly were written to attempt to push the boundaries of what participants might be comfortable with to ground our speculations about how current human values might extend into the future. We thought that this perspective can help us to reduce the risks that come with designing based on speculation, aiding us in discovering and focusing on richer opportunities for our augmented location-based memory experience to produce value for the user.
(William Odom, John Zimmerman, Scott Davidoff, Jodi Forlizzi, Anind K. Dey, and Min Kyung Lee. 2012. A fieldwork of the future with user enactments. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 338-347.)
We recruited five participants that fit into our target audience through our friend networks (see Table 1 below for the user enactment schedule). The results of our user enactments are limited by the homogeneity of participants that we were able to recruit as ⅘ of the participants were female, all participants were in their twenties, and all of the participants were MSI graduate students. We conducted all of the user enactments on the same day in a classroom of North Quad. We designed “sets” for each scenario featuring props and paired with a backdrop of digital slides projected on the classroom screen. After participants acted out each scenario, we followed up with interview questions to understand their responses to the user enactment. We recorded audio and video of each user enactment and later referred to the recordings during our analysis.
(William Odom, John Zimmerman, Scott Davidoff, Jodi Forlizzi, Anind K. Dey, and Min Kyung Lee. 2012. A fieldwork of the future with user enactments. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 338-347.)
We recruited five participants that fit into our target audience through our friend networks (see Table 1 below for the user enactment schedule). The results of our user enactments are limited by the homogeneity of participants that we were able to recruit as ⅘ of the participants were female, all participants were in their twenties, and all of the participants were MSI graduate students. We conducted all of the user enactments on the same day in a classroom of North Quad. We designed “sets” for each scenario featuring props and paired with a backdrop of digital slides projected on the classroom screen. After participants acted out each scenario, we followed up with interview questions to understand their responses to the user enactment. We recorded audio and video of each user enactment and later referred to the recordings during our analysis.
User Enactment 1*
We designed the first user enactment to explore the following two questions:
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 1.
We designed the first user enactment to explore the following two questions:
- How do people react to having their experiences recorded and captured all the time?
- How people react to their personal memories being shared by others without their consent?
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 1.
User Enactment 2*
We designed User Enactment 2 to understand the participant's preference for a fully automated memory experience as opposed to an experience where the user has more control. In Part I of this enactment, we set up chairs in front of the projector to simulate being inside Hill Auditorium. We told the participant that it was her birthday and that her best friend (played by Sharon) had bought her tickets to see an orchestra perform Gershwin's greatest hits. We told the participant to imagine that she was a huge Gershwin and music fanatic and that she was very excited to go to this concert. Sharon and the participant then sat in front of the projector as we showed a video of an orchestra playing the first few minutes of Rhapsody in Blue in Hill Auditorium and acted out the script. In Part II of the enactment, we told the participant to imagine that it was a year after she had attended the concert. We projected an image of the exterior of Hill Auditorium on the screen and told the participant to imagine that she was walking past the building on a nice afternoon when she was leisurely returning home from class. We also gave the participant a pair of bluetooth headphones to wear and played music on them using the Spotify app. We told the participant to stop in front of Hill Auditorium for a few moments and look at the building. Then we switched the music to play the first few minutes of Rhapsody in Blue while the participant was looking at the building. After the enactment, we debriefed by asking the participant how they felt about the experience, specifically about how they felt about not having control over the music changing to Rhapsody in Blue to simulate an automated memory experience.
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 2.
We designed User Enactment 2 to understand the participant's preference for a fully automated memory experience as opposed to an experience where the user has more control. In Part I of this enactment, we set up chairs in front of the projector to simulate being inside Hill Auditorium. We told the participant that it was her birthday and that her best friend (played by Sharon) had bought her tickets to see an orchestra perform Gershwin's greatest hits. We told the participant to imagine that she was a huge Gershwin and music fanatic and that she was very excited to go to this concert. Sharon and the participant then sat in front of the projector as we showed a video of an orchestra playing the first few minutes of Rhapsody in Blue in Hill Auditorium and acted out the script. In Part II of the enactment, we told the participant to imagine that it was a year after she had attended the concert. We projected an image of the exterior of Hill Auditorium on the screen and told the participant to imagine that she was walking past the building on a nice afternoon when she was leisurely returning home from class. We also gave the participant a pair of bluetooth headphones to wear and played music on them using the Spotify app. We told the participant to stop in front of Hill Auditorium for a few moments and look at the building. Then we switched the music to play the first few minutes of Rhapsody in Blue while the participant was looking at the building. After the enactment, we debriefed by asking the participant how they felt about the experience, specifically about how they felt about not having control over the music changing to Rhapsody in Blue to simulate an automated memory experience.
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 2.
User Enactment 3*
User Enactment 3 is designed to explore how comfortable people felt with sharing their personal memories with a public audience. We projected an image and soundscape of Central Park in NYC on the projector and used the window seat in the classroom as the park bench. We told the participant to imagine that he is in Central Park with his father (played by Sharon). We told the participant that both he and his father are very busy and do not get to spend a lot of quality time together. We told the participant to imagine that his father is getting older and talking a walk through the park with him is very meaningful for you. During the walk, the father asks to sit down for a while to rest his back. He then notices a kitten stuck in the tree above and the participant and the father rescue the kitten together. After they rescue the kitten, the bench (played by Yuting's voice as she is sitting hidden behind the bench) asks them if they would like to transfer the memory they just experienced to the bench so that other people who sit here can experience their memory of rescuing the kitten. We then ask the participants why or why not they would transfer their personal memory to the bench and how they feel about other people viewing or experiencing their personal, positive memory with their father.
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 3.
User Enactment 3 is designed to explore how comfortable people felt with sharing their personal memories with a public audience. We projected an image and soundscape of Central Park in NYC on the projector and used the window seat in the classroom as the park bench. We told the participant to imagine that he is in Central Park with his father (played by Sharon). We told the participant that both he and his father are very busy and do not get to spend a lot of quality time together. We told the participant to imagine that his father is getting older and talking a walk through the park with him is very meaningful for you. During the walk, the father asks to sit down for a while to rest his back. He then notices a kitten stuck in the tree above and the participant and the father rescue the kitten together. After they rescue the kitten, the bench (played by Yuting's voice as she is sitting hidden behind the bench) asks them if they would like to transfer the memory they just experienced to the bench so that other people who sit here can experience their memory of rescuing the kitten. We then ask the participants why or why not they would transfer their personal memory to the bench and how they feel about other people viewing or experiencing their personal, positive memory with their father.
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 3.
User Enactment 4*
We designed User Enactment 4 to explore if people would prefer to experience memories privately or would they enjoy experiencing memories communally with others. We asked this question to better understand if our final design should include elements like projecting memories that other people can see or if memories should only be visible to individuals on private devices. We designed the setting for this scenario to be a participant's living room. We projected an image of a living room on the screen. We then gave the participant a paper prototype of a watch and told them that this watch is recording every moment that occurs and has the ability to project these moments visibly. We asked the participant to imagine that one sunny afternoon, she is sitting at a sofa at home thinking about her lover. We told the participant to imagine that she misses her lover so she writes a short text, romantic message on the laptop in front of her to send to her lover. After the participant has finished writing the message, we told the participant to imagine that the group members are over her house later that night to hang out. We then turned on the screen on so that everyone in the room can see the message she wrote for her lover. We told the participant to imagine that the watch had projected this private message for everyone in the room to see. We then asked the participant how she felt about the scenario, especially about how she would feel if her private memories were viewable to others.
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 4.
We designed User Enactment 4 to explore if people would prefer to experience memories privately or would they enjoy experiencing memories communally with others. We asked this question to better understand if our final design should include elements like projecting memories that other people can see or if memories should only be visible to individuals on private devices. We designed the setting for this scenario to be a participant's living room. We projected an image of a living room on the screen. We then gave the participant a paper prototype of a watch and told them that this watch is recording every moment that occurs and has the ability to project these moments visibly. We asked the participant to imagine that one sunny afternoon, she is sitting at a sofa at home thinking about her lover. We told the participant to imagine that she misses her lover so she writes a short text, romantic message on the laptop in front of her to send to her lover. After the participant has finished writing the message, we told the participant to imagine that the group members are over her house later that night to hang out. We then turned on the screen on so that everyone in the room can see the message she wrote for her lover. We told the participant to imagine that the watch had projected this private message for everyone in the room to see. We then asked the participant how she felt about the scenario, especially about how she would feel if her private memories were viewable to others.
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 4.
User Enactment 5*
We designed User Enactment 5 to understand the following questions:
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 5.
We designed User Enactment 5 to understand the following questions:
- What types of memories are meaningful to people?
- How do people feel about experiencing memories with possibly mixed or negative emotional connotations?
- How interested are people in the memory experiences of people they don't know personally?
*Please see the Appendix at the end of the page for the full script and set design for User Enactment 5.
Study results
Analysis
To analyze the results of our user enactments, we each individually coded the data from the audio and video recorded during our user enactments to discover insights (see the table below for an example of a table from UE1). We then met as a group to collectively analyze our insights and evidence and to group our findings into key themes. Once we had established our key themes, we then generated a list of user requirements based on addressing the constraints and opportunities that emerged in our key themes.
To analyze the results of our user enactments, we each individually coded the data from the audio and video recorded during our user enactments to discover insights (see the table below for an example of a table from UE1). We then met as a group to collectively analyze our insights and evidence and to group our findings into key themes. Once we had established our key themes, we then generated a list of user requirements based on addressing the constraints and opportunities that emerged in our key themes.
Key Insights
Always on Data Capture and Privacy
Participants in our user enactments expressed a need for control over their private memories. This was especially evident in UE 1, where we tested user responses to always on memory capturing. When the secret that they had told their best friend was exposed to someone else, Users 1, 3, 4, and 5 all felt betrayed. They also indicated that if they knew that they were being recorded at all times they would behave differently and wouldn't feel comfortable being themselves or expressing themselves candidly. For instance, in response to UE 1, User 5 said, “I’d feel a little bit betrayed. Even though I know everything is being recorded I feel like there is a certain level of confidence that should be maintained between parties.” User 2 had an interesting perspective on this enactment, although she was an outlier. User 2 said that she actually preferred the always on recording of her memories because the video artifact told a "completely accurate" version of the memory that expressed her remorse at cheating, as opposed to how Yuting's personal perspective might bias the retelling of the event when she gossiped with Sharon without the evidence of a video memory.
System Automation vs. User Control
While all the users indicated that they liked an element of automation in the music playing in User Enactment 3 because it was unexpected and interesting, User 3 and User 5 both described the experience of the music switching as they looked at the building as somewhat "abrupt". User 5 suggested that the experience could be improved by allowing the user to opt in or out of the experience. User 4 indicated that she felt the automated experience was "creepy in a good way". When asked to elaborate, she said it was "creepy" because she was uneasy about a device knowing that she was at the concert and "good" because it evoked a positive nostalgic experience. User 4 suggested that the creepiness factor could be reduced if the system indicated how it knew she was at the concert, for example if she had put the concert event in her calendar the system could tell her that it was showing her this memory because her calendar entry documented it.
Public vs. Private memories
A preference for privacy was also observed among some users in response to UE 3. When we asked if the participant would like to transfer their memory to the park bench so that other people who sat on the bench could view his memory as well, User 3 and 4 both responded no. User 3 and 4 expressed concern over other people being able to view their faces in the memory and potentially identify them. They also saw the event that occurred between themselves and their father as personal. Both User 3 and 4 indicated, however, that they would consider sharing the memory with the public if their identity and the memory was presented in an abstracted form, such as in a text narrative format rather than a video. User 1, 2, and 5 however, all expressed a willingness to share their personal memory with the public since it was a positive memory. User 1, for example, expressed pride in her father because he rescued the kitten and was willing to share that with others. User 1 and 5 did mention, however, that the primary reason they wanted to transfer the memory to the bench would be so they could revisit the bench at a later date after their father had passed away so they could relive the memory they shared with him. This seemed to indicate that the primary motivation behind uploading the memory to the bench was still for a personal reflective purposes, rather than for the public's benefit. Finally, User 2 strongly advocated for the ability to edit or revise memories that she shared in a public space such as the park bench. She also mentioned that she would prefer to be able to delete the memory.
Shared Memory Experiences
All the participants had a universal preference for having a personal memory experience as opposed to one that was projected and could be viewed by others. User 5 did express that she wouldn't mind if the memory was experienced communally as long as the people viewing the memory with her were present in when the original memory occurred. She thought it would be potentially annoying or embarrassing to have to explain the memory to others who were not present for the original event.
Memories with Negative or Mixed Emotional Connotations/Memories of Strangers
All the participants reported that they enjoyed seeing the memory of receiving their acceptance letter and seeing themselves at orientation. User 2 thought that it would be important to ensure that these memories only occurred at appropriate times, such as one year after orientation, rather than every time one passed Rackham building since that could become annoying. The participants also felt that seeing a positive memory of their ex boyfriend or girlfriend could leave them potentially upset depending on how much time had passed since they had broken up and the circumstances of the break-up. If enough time had passed and they felt sufficiently "over" their ex, the participants all thought that they would feel nostalgic viewing a memory of their date. Finally, most participants felt that seeing a memory of a stranger from the past was irrelevant to them and that they would prefer to see memories related to people they care about. User 4 and User 5 were an exception to this, as they said they both had an interest in history and would enjoy seeing scenes from the past especially if it was related to their personal interests in some way.
Always on Data Capture and Privacy
Participants in our user enactments expressed a need for control over their private memories. This was especially evident in UE 1, where we tested user responses to always on memory capturing. When the secret that they had told their best friend was exposed to someone else, Users 1, 3, 4, and 5 all felt betrayed. They also indicated that if they knew that they were being recorded at all times they would behave differently and wouldn't feel comfortable being themselves or expressing themselves candidly. For instance, in response to UE 1, User 5 said, “I’d feel a little bit betrayed. Even though I know everything is being recorded I feel like there is a certain level of confidence that should be maintained between parties.” User 2 had an interesting perspective on this enactment, although she was an outlier. User 2 said that she actually preferred the always on recording of her memories because the video artifact told a "completely accurate" version of the memory that expressed her remorse at cheating, as opposed to how Yuting's personal perspective might bias the retelling of the event when she gossiped with Sharon without the evidence of a video memory.
System Automation vs. User Control
While all the users indicated that they liked an element of automation in the music playing in User Enactment 3 because it was unexpected and interesting, User 3 and User 5 both described the experience of the music switching as they looked at the building as somewhat "abrupt". User 5 suggested that the experience could be improved by allowing the user to opt in or out of the experience. User 4 indicated that she felt the automated experience was "creepy in a good way". When asked to elaborate, she said it was "creepy" because she was uneasy about a device knowing that she was at the concert and "good" because it evoked a positive nostalgic experience. User 4 suggested that the creepiness factor could be reduced if the system indicated how it knew she was at the concert, for example if she had put the concert event in her calendar the system could tell her that it was showing her this memory because her calendar entry documented it.
Public vs. Private memories
A preference for privacy was also observed among some users in response to UE 3. When we asked if the participant would like to transfer their memory to the park bench so that other people who sat on the bench could view his memory as well, User 3 and 4 both responded no. User 3 and 4 expressed concern over other people being able to view their faces in the memory and potentially identify them. They also saw the event that occurred between themselves and their father as personal. Both User 3 and 4 indicated, however, that they would consider sharing the memory with the public if their identity and the memory was presented in an abstracted form, such as in a text narrative format rather than a video. User 1, 2, and 5 however, all expressed a willingness to share their personal memory with the public since it was a positive memory. User 1, for example, expressed pride in her father because he rescued the kitten and was willing to share that with others. User 1 and 5 did mention, however, that the primary reason they wanted to transfer the memory to the bench would be so they could revisit the bench at a later date after their father had passed away so they could relive the memory they shared with him. This seemed to indicate that the primary motivation behind uploading the memory to the bench was still for a personal reflective purposes, rather than for the public's benefit. Finally, User 2 strongly advocated for the ability to edit or revise memories that she shared in a public space such as the park bench. She also mentioned that she would prefer to be able to delete the memory.
Shared Memory Experiences
All the participants had a universal preference for having a personal memory experience as opposed to one that was projected and could be viewed by others. User 5 did express that she wouldn't mind if the memory was experienced communally as long as the people viewing the memory with her were present in when the original memory occurred. She thought it would be potentially annoying or embarrassing to have to explain the memory to others who were not present for the original event.
Memories with Negative or Mixed Emotional Connotations/Memories of Strangers
All the participants reported that they enjoyed seeing the memory of receiving their acceptance letter and seeing themselves at orientation. User 2 thought that it would be important to ensure that these memories only occurred at appropriate times, such as one year after orientation, rather than every time one passed Rackham building since that could become annoying. The participants also felt that seeing a positive memory of their ex boyfriend or girlfriend could leave them potentially upset depending on how much time had passed since they had broken up and the circumstances of the break-up. If enough time had passed and they felt sufficiently "over" their ex, the participants all thought that they would feel nostalgic viewing a memory of their date. Finally, most participants felt that seeing a memory of a stranger from the past was irrelevant to them and that they would prefer to see memories related to people they care about. User 4 and User 5 were an exception to this, as they said they both had an interest in history and would enjoy seeing scenes from the past especially if it was related to their personal interests in some way.
User Requirements
Based on the themes and insights we discovered from the user enactments, we generated a list of user requirements for our Nostalgia product. In order to empathize more with our users, we framed the user requirements in a series of ten "I" statements.
Based on the themes and insights we discovered from the user enactments, we generated a list of user requirements for our Nostalgia product. In order to empathize more with our users, we framed the user requirements in a series of ten "I" statements.
- I want control over what memories are captured, stored, and shared. I want to give my consent and permission in the recording and sharing of memories.
- I want to be able to edit, crop, revise, and delete the recorded memories. This capability is especially important if the memories are shared with a public audience.
- I want to experience the memory in the right context and at an appropriate time.
- I am interested in public memories that are related to my personal interests.
- I want to be notified when the device triggers a memory experience.
- I want to be able to opt in/opt out to the memory experience.
- I prefer to experience memories privately rather than communally.
- I want to experience meaningful memories.
- If my memory is shared with the public, I want to be protected by a level of abstraction.
- I am primarily interested in experiencing memories about people I care about as opposed to strangers unless there is some historical significance.
IDEATION AND SELECTION
After we analyzed our data, we brainstormed several potential design concepts to address the insights discovered in our enactments. We came up with concepts for public memory repositories (such as in the park bench enactment) and design ideas for private devices (see image of whiteboard below). We used the user requirements listed above as our criteria to evaluate and select a design concept. Since users expressed concern over privacy issues when sharing their personal memories with the public and wanted more control over what memories are captured, stored, and shared we decided to select the design concept of a personal augmented reality glasses display with embedded context-aware sensors (drawing on the far right of the whiteboard).
SYSTEM PROPOSAL
The system we are proposing, Nostalgia glasses, is a smart headset that allows the user to re-experience meaningful, location-based memories through an augmented reality display and context-aware sensors as illustrated in the storyboard above. Nostalgia glasses would feature a camera mounted in the front of the glasses to record images and video of memories as they occur in the moment. Users would have the opportunity to turn off the recording, however, to ensure the user's privacy is protected.
In the storyboard, the main character is on the Diag at her first day of orientation at the University of Michigan. Her Nostalgia glasses record all the memories that she experiences as indicated by the red light being on in the storyboard. While the memory is being captured by the camera, the sensors embedded in the glasses record her GPS location and measure her skin conductance to gather information about her affective state to gain perspective about whether the event being captured is positive and meaningful or not.
A year later, as illustrated in scene 2, the main character is walking through the Diag and sees the new students enjoying themselves in orientation. She stops walking and pauses to watch the orientation activities. In scene 3, the accelerometer in her Nostalgia glasses recognizes that she has stopped moving and is likely to be receptive to a memory experience. The GPS sensor recognizes that she is in the Diag and searches for memories related to the Diag's location, especially those that occurred around the current time of year. The Nostalgia glasses also recognize that her gaze is focused on the scene in front of her for a prolonged period of time, indicating that she is interested in the events taking place. Using computer vision, the Nostalgia glasses recognize the words "New Student Orientation" on the sign in the Diag and searches her memories for the same text phrase. Finally, a sensor in the side of the glasses near her temple monitors her skin conductance to see if she is in a relaxed or anxious state of mind.
Based on the contextual information that the Nostalgia glasses gathers, in scene 4 the Nostalgia glasses offer a slow transition into the augmented memory experience so that she is aware that a memory is about to be shown on her display and has the ability to opt out of the experience at any time. The memory of her experiencing orientation is visually displayed as an overlay over the location of the Diag, thereby reinforcing her positive connection with the physical place. By using hand gestures, she is able to "fast forward" through different parts of the memory as seen in scene 6. Finally, whenever she wants to end her memory experience, she makes a fist, as seen in scenes 7-8, and the memory experience will end. Although it is not shown in the storyboard, we would also like to include an optional feedback interaction at the end of a memory experience. If the memory was inappropriate or if it was fantastic the user could give the Nostalgia glasses negative or positive feedback. Based on this user input, the device would use machine learning capabilities to fine tune its memory selection, triggering mechanism, and context sensing to make sure it is showing the user meaningful memories at appropriate times. In scene 9, the main character continues on her way refreshed by her positive memory experience and feeling a reinforced connection with herself (personal identity as a student), her school (social identity of belonging to the University), and the Diag (physical place).
DEMO PROPOSAL
In the our system proposal description and storyboard we have highlighted the aspects of the experience we want to simulate and how the users will interact with the final design product. The table below shows the summary of how we plan to demo the experience based on the assumption that we can prototype by using Google Glass. We also explain the reasons why we cannot prototype a higher fidelity experience.
If we cannot use a Google Glass device for prototyping, since it is expensive and difficult to procure, we will use Google Cardboard instead. The difference between simulating the experience through using Google Cardboard and Google Glass is that Cardboard is a virtual reality platform while Google Glass is augmented reality platform. Since our Nostalgia glasses would make use of augmented reality technology, layering an augmented memory over the real world location, using Google Glass to simulate the experience would be ideal.
ConCLUSION
At this point in the project we have used our findings from user enactments to narrow our scope to create a personal device that enhances a user's sense of place through the experience of location based memories. We have refined our scope to focus on the individual experience of visual memories and have created a detailed storyboard showing the interaction experience of personal memories. We are still uncertain about how to incorporate the idea of experiencing other people's "public" location-based memories on one's personal Nostalgia glasses, especially considering the privacy considerations raised in our user enactments, but this is a concept that we would like to ideate on further. If we include the option to experience other people's memories on the Nostalgia glasses, we will have to pay special attention to creating interactions that meet our user requirements by giving the user control over the editing, revising, sharing, and deleting of the memory. While at this time we are focusing on the visual components of the memory experience, we also think it would be interesting to explore how we could add sound to the memory experience in a non-intrusive way. We also were intrigued by the idea of adding a layer of abstraction to the memory experience (as mentioned in our user enactments to increase the level of privacy in shared memories), which could be achieved by either by turning the memory into a narrative text format or an expressive visual artistic rendition of the visual format.
Appendix
UE1:
This user enactment is designed to explore the following 2 research questions:
This user enactment is designed to explore the question: "How people react when their memory was triggered automatically?”
This user enactment is designed to explore the question: "Do people want to share their memory with public?"
UE4:
This user enactment is designed to explore the question:”Do people want to share their memory with others? ”
UE5:
This user enactment is designed to explore the question: "What types of memory do people think meaningful to them?"
This user enactment is designed to explore the following 2 research questions:
- How people react when their moments were captured all the time?
- How people react when their personal moments were shared by others?
- Setting:
- Part I: In a room in NQ, show the interior of starbucks via projector on the screen. Have a few chairs, tables and coffee cups set up to simulate the interior of the coffee shop.
- Part II: In the same room, show the space of Diag of UM campus via projector on the screen.
- Props:
- tables
- chairs
- Coffee cups
- Camera
- Background:
- Part I: You (the participant) are are at the Starbucks with your best friend A (one of the group members) after the graphic design midterm. You looks anxious and really love to talk to your best friend A.
- Part II: Your best friend A is bumping into B, who is you two’s common friends and have a conversation with B. You are not in the Diag, but you(participant) are able to observe what’s happening between A and B.
- Part I: Script:
- Participant: “Hey, there are too much going on in my head, I need to talk to you...”
- Best friend A: “What’s up? Seems you are having trouble?”
- Participant: “I have a secret I want to share with you….I feel bad about myself about the graphic design midterm...”
- Best friend A: ”What’s wrong with the midterm? You got the first Prize for your design!”
- Participant::”Yeah! That’s why it makes me uncomfortable...cause I actually used someone else’s design in my project... and now I am embarrassed to tell professor...
- Part II : Script:
- Friend B::Hey Jane! It has been a while since we work on the design project last Month!!!
- Best friend A:”Hey yeah! I just survived from my graphic design midterm… which actually didn’t turned out to be very well…”
- Friend B:”Oh yeah I heard about that project, I think Molly got the first prize! Her design is quite amazing!”
- Best friend A:”Yeah...I like hers’ too!”
- Friend B: ”But I don’t know why it seems her design is very familiar with a piece of work I have seen previously… I don’t know why...Maybe I am wrong”
- Best friend A: “Well since you mentioned that, you know what...actually she did use some others’ design in her project…she told me a week ago...which made she really nervous now after getting the first prize...”(Showing her phone to S to see the scene in the coffee shop... )
- Process:
- Part I: The participant and the group members are seated in the Starbucks talking. The participant and group member then enact the Part I script. (End scene).
- Part II: 2 group members(researchers) act out the Part II script. The participant is not with them but is able to see what’s going on outside the scene.
- At the end of the enactment, researchers asking how participants feels when they saw their shared memory/secret with Best friend A was shared to others by showing the memory via phone. Researchers also ask how they feel when there is always a camera recording what’s happening in the coffee shop and would they act differently with and without recording and what’s their concern.
This user enactment is designed to explore the question: "How people react when their memory was triggered automatically?”
- Setting:
- Part I: In a room in NQ, show the picture of Hill Auditorium or blow up a photo. Have a few chairs set up to simulate the interior of the Auditorium. Have team members sit in the seats to simulate the crowd. Play a video of a musical performance on the large screen. Dim the lights to mimic a musical performance.
- Part II: In the same room, on another wall, draw the exterior of the building of Hill Auditorium (or blow up a large photo).
- Props:
- headphones
- chairs
- video of music performance
- Background:
- Part I: You (the participant) are are at a concert in Hill Auditorium with your best friend (one of the group members). You really love music and are really happy and excited to be at the concert.
- Part II: Imagine you are walking past Hill Auditorium in the daytime on your way home from class. It’s a nice day and you stop for a moment and look at the building.
- Part I: Script:
- Participant: “I’m so happy to be here at this concert.”
- Best friend: “I know this music is amazing.”
- Participant: “And these are the best seats I’ve ever had. I’m so close to the orchestra.”
- Best friend: “I’ll always remember this.”
- Process:
- Part I: The participant and the group members are seated in front of the projector screen watching the video of the music performance. The participant and group member then enact the Part I script. (End scene).
- Part II: The participant then enacts walking by the exterior of Hill Auditorium while wearing the headphones. When the participant stops and looks at the building, the group member starts playing the same song in the video of the concert. We then ask the participant how s/he felt about the experience being automated. Did it feel intrusive or not?
This user enactment is designed to explore the question: "Do people want to share their memory with public?"
- Setting:
- In North Quad room. Create a park like scene by projecting a video of Central Park on the screen.
- Props:
- Combine two or three chairs together into a bench.
- Background:
- Script:
- Participant: It’s such a nice day. I’m glad we went for a walk.
- Dad (Group member): I know. We should do this more often. Hey look, there is a bench. My back is hurting a little bit. Want to sit down for a bit?
- Participant: Sure.
- (They sit down. Dad looks up in a tree above.)
- Dad: Do you see that kitten up there in the tree?
- Participant: Yes, it’s trapped. What should we do?
- Dad: Let’s go rescue it.
- (Participant and Dad rescue the kitten together)
- Process:
UE4:
This user enactment is designed to explore the question:”Do people want to share their memory with others? ”
- Settings :
- Probes :
- Laptop which participants will use.
- A watch that displays the memories
- Background :
- Task(s) :
- Process :
UE5:
This user enactment is designed to explore the question: "What types of memory do people think meaningful to them?"
- Settings : A room at NQ will be a street in front of Rackham building. The room should have a projector and a big screen.
- Props :
- The slides projected on the screen that shows the context
- Background : One sunny and free afternoon, you are taking a walk in the campus. When you are passing the Rackham building, your device displays :
- a day you got an acceptance from UofM (display an acceptance letter from school, a video of people celebrating you) - Good Memory
- a day you first met your ex-girl/boyfriend (play a scene from a romantic movie, when main characters first meet.. the movie should be sad ending) - Ambivalent memory
- a day Mr.Geller graduated the school 50 years ago (play a graduation scene from any movie or drama) - A memory of a person who you don’t know
- Task(s) : Please pretend you are walking at the campus.
- Process : Show participants the three memories above. After showing all, ask what they felt for each scene.