in|situ| Lab - Log In

This website is not maintained anymore. The in|situ| lab has become two labs: ex)situ and ILDA.



Video Prototype




Video: Real context is good, stop motion is good, Short scenario, doesn't really illustrate challenges need a clearer scenario story. Scenario is credible, particular target users ok, detailed paper prototype, not many interaction points. While there is room for improvement, you've done a good job.

Report: Missing critical incidents in interviews. Scenario: 3 little stories, no real links between. Could use the same user or more connection between the people. The situations are ok, but not the story ... Using the application over time will be interesting. Focus on other interactions techniques rather than login (usually only the first time.... with personal phone).



Video: Do not need to say personnas, rather say the peoples' name. It is long for the position example, with the red dot, could be shorter. Why is the orientation of the device changing all the time? Do not use finger pointing to show elements in the video, only for touch+tap. Using both make things unclear. No context, there are no people also... it is difficult to figure out who is using it and where. Not really a story, more about isolated parts. The interface is not new, and looks less usable than existing apps (google map)Need to work more on all aspects! We want a story, interactions (new). Here, you are more simulating google map...

Report: There are good personas, clear situations and incidents. However there are not really well presented in the video. You need to propose new interactions and alternatives for doing the same action.



Video More a how to rather than a video prototype. No context and character are not well presented. This is more a tutorial video. Quality of the video is not really good. It can be cheap but you should avoid making "apprximate elements". The zoom in zoom out effect is confusing. You should tell a story for people that do not know why and who is it for. Use stop motion for interaction. Add interactions techniques to the video.

Report: Too general, "l'utilisateur...". Good ideas in the scenarios but we do not see them in the video. Incidents are not good in the document... but you get some nice ones in the interviews...



Video: Nice context. Nice hack for entering text. Drag and drop is nicely done. Should type something real. Red icon may be associated to delete? Dragging with instruments to avoid selection of the place to drag. The vibration feedback is great! It was almost a same personna in each situations. Maybe take more advantage on who they are (students, vs, visitors, vs professors). "This is my lab", this is my topic...

Report: Need to better articulate the design concept. Proper functionnal table. ok, good job overall.



Video: Good use of video prototype. Clear context and clear characters. The story is good. Interface really text based and button based.... This is strange for a touch table. Also think about unpredicted events. Interesting interaction techniques. Can improve with new interactions and breakdowns.

Report: Concept is good and clear. Scenario is fun and clear. Good job.



Video: There is context, and characters. Nice scroll and interface. Color & feedback is ok. Good to take friends, the focus and the shot is clear and good. Good alternatives. This is great job. The interactions are well presented. The story is clear and interesting. You could shorten a bit the video.

Report: Missing a bit of description, too many bullet points. Incidents need to be more in context, extracted from the interviews. Otherwise it is good.



Video: Write bigger letters, it is hard to read. Also should minimize use of text, show don't tell. The watch should be on someone and possibly somewhere as the guy is looking for a restaurant. May not start with a breakdown or propose something to solve it. The navigation part is good.

Report:Is ok, need to present more ideas. The functionnal table is not correct. The scenario is mostly descriptive. Need to focus on interactions.



Video: Nice graphics. Who and Why is not clear in the video. Interactions are not really detailed. It is more story telling than video prototypes. Zoom in and zoom out are exaggerated. Telling the story should reveal what the story is. We are not sure what is happening with the video only. You need to design more the interactions and the interface rather than the context (which is nice but less important for the design of the interactions).

Report: The report is not written as fluent text, there are bullet points instead. It is not clear that the user scenario come from interviews and incidents. The user profile are not precise. They are too general. The functional table is not really helpful for design.



Video: More like a how-to video that explains how it works. There are characters and places but the story is not really putting in the context. Instead of "I want to send a message", use real example like "I need to ask my friend about the next conference". There are many buttons. The new stuff are not really emphasized. It is a bit long and repeats several time the same things. You should focus more on the story and the novelty.

Report: The use scenario is not really to highligh the design but more to describe the interface. The functionnal table is fine. The extreme user is good. The scenario is interesting but the video does not show it well.



Video: Nice video effects. Clear concept, missing the context at the beginning, possibly show users interacting with the device at different location. The interface need improvement on path visualization. There are interesting interaction techniques.

Report: It is good. Shows well that you based your design on your interviews and technical report. The story in the design could be a little bit more specific with concrete elements of places, people and time.



Video: The context is nicely presented. At the beginning the story is clear with specific personas. A lot of humor and details. However, the video is too long. You should cut some parts and shorten everything. The breakdowns are good and they help the design. Do not need to show the hands of the users all the time, you can shoot from a different angle and focus on the interface instead.

Report: Ok



Video: It is original, there is a number of good ideas. but It is only a how the system works. There is no clear story. The video is really long. The nexlet need a closeup view. You should avoid these long text pauses. Also show the interactions instead of describing it with text. It is more about a series of videos. You need to create a story.

Report: There is a powerfull concept but some problems in the way it is used. Need to work more on it.


This is a video tutorial for video prototyping: VideoForDesign