Problems with King George Square

The team has had a small hiccup in regards to where the concept is going to be deployed. According to external sources we have found out that King George Square will be fairly busy/limited in space due to an upcoming circus event. Therefore Design REHAB have had to alter the location slightly and have decided to deploy the installation at post office square in Brisbane. Edward and Hilal have outlined that when they were last in the city that it would make a suitable area.

The team do not know the best time to deploy the installation and so we have decided to deploy at 12pm when lunch time is starting. This will maximize the amount of people who may interact with the installation. We hope that this change of location is a good decision for the project.

Group Meeting - 27th May 2015

Group Meeting

27^th May 2015

Workshop on Friday:

·      4:30 pm at International House.

·      Building and Filming.

Site of choice: King George Square.

Workshop:

·      Main speaker, “tutors”.

·      9 people preferred.

·      Edward’s friends as backup.

Filming – Monday.

Building – Saturday.

Decided concept: Share and Care.

Workshop Evaluation

­DECO1100: Workshop Plan

Topic of Concern

Whether or not the thesis is accurately and effectively received by the audience

Workshop Goals

• To obtain a solution to the user-installation communication issue
• To gain insight/opinion on an installation from an external source
• For the workshop to act as an effective resource for the end result (the implementation of an installation

Tangible Outcomes

• Open survey of existing installations (would you interact with the installation? If so, how?)
• Group scenario (fringe/worst-case scenario) acted out by workshop participants
• Body-storm of the installation in a worst-case scenario and an ideal scenario

	ACTIVITY	MATERIALS	OUTCOME
0:00	Introduce the workshop. Get to know each other.	(Slides, maybe).	Participants understanding the workshop.
0:08	Survey the audience (favourite installation/s) i.e. which is their favourite (from our installations but we’ll leave one out for later).	Table of our installations.	A table of results showing which kinds of installations were favoured by the participants.
0:10	Have the participants form groups of three (3) and pick an installation and assume how you would interact with it.	Marker, paper.	A record of an outside opinion.
0:15	In the same groups, write and perform a fringe scenario of a chosen installation.	Marker, paper, chairs and anything they need to perform the scenario.	Videos (if participants are ok with it) of scenarios.
0:20	Bring out the left-out installation for the participants to hypothesise which thesis it was intended to reflect (in their groups).	The final installation, more paper and the same pens, unless they lose them.	None.
0:25	Have one person from each group share their hypotheses with everyone else.	None.	A record of an outside opinion.
0:30	Thank participants.	Pizza. And maybe coffee.	Pizza and coffee.

Overall, the workshop was received effectively. Since it was well-planned and prepared for any difficult situations (e.g. no input from attendees being the most prominent concern) the team agreed that the workshop was a definite success.

Tangible outcomes from each section were easily achieved. Having given the attendees more or less time in certain areas, there was a lot of freedom in how they responded, how long it took them to respond, etc. In a casual /interview with the attendees it was clear that, not only did they feel comfortable in the workshop, but they also felt that they had a lot more time to complete the tasks given to them. The feedback received from one of the participants were as follows:

"The whole workshop felt planned out like there was a timetable or something but at the same time it felt like improvised and kinda free somehow"

The workshop took place in the International House College thanks to team member Alison Collins letting the team know that there were multiple common rooms available for various uses. Since there weren't too many attendees, the size of the room was perfect. Although there was an odd number of participants (with the tasks involving partner work) Edward stepped in to act a part of a participant.

The workshop took place in the International House College thanks to team member Alison Collins letting the team know that there were multiple common rooms available for various uses. Since there weren't too many attendees, the size of the room was perfect. Although there was an odd number of participants (with the tasks involving partner work) Edward stepped in to act a part of a participant.

A copy of a simplified and flexible version of the workshop plan was finalized shortly before the actual workshop resulting in a series of steps:

1. Introduce the workshop, team members and attendees (include the project)
2. Provide an example and explain the concept behind an interactive installation
3. Explain Fringe Scenarios and explain the importance of drawing in audiences to an installation
4. TASK: participants discuss and write down possible fringe scenarios of
5. Briefly explain our concept (the Share & Care)
6. TASK: fringe scenario(s) of Share & Care
7. Discuss how draw could be improved for the Share & Care

As a part of a casual interview, most of the participants were reported being comfortable with the environment that they were in although they initially expected that there would be a larger amount of people in a larger room. For future reference, earlier planning and advertising of the actual workshop would be preferred. This could lead to more people and therefore more feedback on our installation(s).

As they say, there is safety in numbers and it’s exactly what the team members and the participants would prefer. Participants feel comfortable in larger groups, leaving them less isolated and more willing to interact with the team and other participants. As for the team members, more participants means more feedback and in times like these, there's always room for feedback.

Concept Portfolio - Share and Care

Share and Care

Thesis

Thesis Two: “Public spaces are anti-social spaces”

Stance

Installation seeks to show that public spaces are anti-social spaces, but that they don’t have to be – that people do care about each other in society but indirectly.

Site

·       A public space, in particular with relaxed people with a certain amount of free time

·       A walkthrough path area with many people

·       Particular location: King George Square

Description

The Share and Care is an affirmation box system – strangers write a kind affirmation for a random stranger and receive one in return. A tray table with paper and a pen come off the main box, allowing for users to write affirmations to be submitted. A team member will sit inside the box to provide the user with a new affirmation note once the first note is submitted.

Target Audience

·       General public

·       People with more time, relaxed users

·       Younger population, who are more likely to engage with installation

·       Individuals

Scenario

User A is walking through King George Square as they do every day during their lunch break. They feel that although the public space is relaxed and interesting, they don’t interact much with the other users of the site and feel somewhat socially isolated. User A passes the Share and Care and decides to write an affirmation for a random stranger. They write a small, kind note and submit it into the slot, before receiving one back from a random stranger. The message is heart-warming and although User A has no idea who it is from, they feel somewhat more commented with the others around them, buoyed by the mystery of who their messenger may be.