Human-centered Product Development 2019 course blog

Our team worked similar hours to this project. At the start our project was a little bit behind the schedule, because of the late meeting with our client. After that our project proceeded in time and our weekly hours between each member remained the same. At the beginning most of the work like ideation, planning, analysing results and blog writing was done together with the group. Interviews were done individually. During the end of the product development process, each of us had more hours than in the beginning. At the very end tasks were shared and co-working was done online. The steps and results of our human-centered design process can be seen here: https://prezi.com/view/soxmJb7YO7j9nkEB28zG/ Total Weekly avg Sami 42 3,82 Jouko 42 3,82 Mikael 38 3,45 The above table shows the total hours and weekly average hours. The table is just a model so every single hour during the weeks are not listed there. The table represents the hours that each member remembered t...

We tested our 2nd MVP with one on-site user test followed by interview and three interviews based on video prototype. The test plan and interview frame is as appendix. Based on these user tests, we got following results considering our UX goals and also user interface / interaction which was our main distinguishing factor. Results considering UX Goals: Intuitive Overall, the design was considered intuitive, because user needed just to wear the cloth. Other things happened automatically based on the movements. Hardening material was considered intuitive feedback system for guiding towards correct posture, although it was mentioned that unless knowing that feature, it might confuse user at the beginning. Not necessarily intuitive: vibration notifications: It is important to design how would they work and when they are given. Hassle free - Does not distract the normal flow of the work and does not add any extra steps while using it. The point is to make work of the user f...

How to measure abstract UX-goals for not yet implementable futuristic designs? In this course we make designs for future. We “aim for a product with a future view – aim is for a product to be introduced or on the market around year 2025-2030”. Therefore everything cannot be implemented nor even prototyped very easily. If the the features of the design is not ready to be implemented, there are still ways to get user feedback on them. In so called Wizard of Oz method there is a hidden tester controlling the system, but the participant thinks the machine is doing the things. Using this method the test team can test features that are for example either impossible or too difficult, time demanding or too expensive to implement. The product can be also demonstrated by different forms of descriptions, scenarios or story telling. Some parts can be prototyped, some drawn, some textually explained. In our case user testing was done by a combination of a light version of Wizard of Oz, in whi...

Based on MVP validation, competition analysis, results of previous interviews and the feedback from proof of concept presentation we made some changes to our design. Since there are already available shirts or vests that track posture and are connected to mobile app, we wanted to differentiate our design from those. We designed to differentiate with features and the user interface and interactions. The ideas that we consider valuable are automatic workspace adjustment, meaning that the tables, chairs, lamps and screens are adjusted automatically for the user. This brings another design plan to surface, which is the user recognition. Like in our previous concepts, the automatic user recognition is crucial for the automatic workspace adjustments and for the safer usage of the product itself. The difference between our product and the existing ones is the fact that it is notifying the user about his/hers/its posture and makes the adjustments to it accordingly. Additional posture fea...

Our concept focuses on solving problems in two areas: authentication and ergonomy. For authentication there are multiple solutions, and for that reason alone, our design would not bring much new. But as a combination with other features, it seems to be unique. We could think authentication as an easy-to-implement solution, assuming all other parts of the system are available. For correcting ergonomy, there are different product available. One of the closest to our design would be TruPosture-smart shirt, which monitors posture and gives notifications and feedback on correcting the posture. (www.truposture.com) Considering posture, what it does is pretty much the same than in ours, but the differences are in the feedback system. In addition to vibration and audio-visual feedback via external device, our design uses the haptic feedback done by the self-hardening materials, that actually guide towards correct posture. There are also “not-smart”, mechanical solutions available for po...