This is the old Design Jam site. Visit the new site here.


From Design Jams
Jump to: navigation, search

The Fab Four Team members:

Jon Searle @natteringjon

Benjamin Ellis @benjaminellis

Sagi Chaitas [1]

Jan Srutek @jansru

Grant Morison @_maximus

The eponymously named FourTeam wasted no time in choosing a name, and dived straight into exploring the problem. We explored the design problem space by breaking it down into smaller components and unpacked the elements of the design brief in detail. E.g. what does it mean to 'keep track of', what is 'online content'. The below picture shows a mindmap we produced in the process of exploring the design space.


We broke down the action of 'keeping track of previously visited online content' into two essential components - finding content, and re-finding that content in the future. We mapped out the steps alongs the user journeys and identified two parallel paths in the process of finding and retrieving (re-finding) web content. After further examination we realised that the paths for finding and re-finding are very similar (the user journeys are common from the Awareness to the Experience stage), but with an emphasis on different parts of the process.

Awareness - recognising a problem or need related to online content Assess - decision point: is it worth looking for?

Hunt - process of locating the online content Found - piece of online content located

Assess - decision point: is this what I was looking for?

Experience/engage - consuming the piece of content

Assess - decision point: is the content not great? (not worth storing) / great? (worth storing) / or "whatever" (at this point is seems of no value, but it might possibly be relevant in the future) Storage - process of storing the piece of content for future retrieval - either human memory or using tool. Both human memory and a tool (information system) store either automatically or with some active input from the person.

Many current online tools focus on the end of the find process - e.g. and traditional bookmarking. Fewer have focussed on the early part of the refinding process. This is where we put our emphasis.

We identified three different scenarions for re-finding online content:

1) (finding a known piece of content) 2) (finding a piece of content while knowing something about it) 3) (finding a piece of content previously seen that one does not remember about anymore) [what were the actual wordings? - need pictures of the papers we had on the flowchart here]


The team focussed in on the persona of "Dave".

[need picture of Dave's persona and scenario here]

Scenario: Dave read a blog post last week, via a link from a friend. The link lead to a film review, and wasn't on a site he usually visits. Dave didn't bookmark the page after reading the review. The film sounded great though, and now Dave wants to find it again.

5192453812_85b1f888ba.jpg Sketching and wireframes

3 alternatives from each team member, were discussed and pooled into a second set of iterations, exploring the user interactions. We started with 6-up sketching templating with the aim of producing as many ideas as possible quickly, and without focusing on detail. Team members then presented their sketches in turn, and other team members collectively critiqued them. We summarised the candidate solutions after the first round of sketching (email client feature, or browser plugin) and picked on solution to refine further. In the second round of sketching we iterated the design, drawing on the best solutions from the first round and produced a set of more detailed screen wireframes, organised in a user flow.

[we need pictures of the final sketches here]


And Jon kindly presented the designs :) The presentation started with painting the picture of Dave, his behaviours, and his needs, which lead into the description of the design problem we were trying to solve. Next, followed the description of the user flow and the technical solution on the backend. And we closed the presentation be describing the user flow, highlighting the most interesting features illustrated on the wireframes. The audience (including mentor Leisa) appreciated that we focused on a clearly defined design problem rather than trying to solve the challenge in its entirety, as it allowed us to come up with a coherent design solution under the tight time constrains. The audience also liked we described the persona's behaviours and goals, and based our design requirements on those.

Personal tools