#14 Team EnVision

Design Brief Ilse Tse (A11425276), Jeffrey Lima (A10776340), Joey Wong (A11399060), Yuka Okina (A12155014), Lauren Gong (A11921626), Adrienne Chang (A12125503) DESIGN OPPORTUNITY & TARGET AUDIENCE

The EnVision Maker Studio provides tools and resources for engineering and visual arts students to work on projects for a more hands-on learning experience. Our design opportunity was to provide an approachable and safe environment for students to make the most out of the resources available in the studio. Since the studio opened in January, we anticipated that most users would be new to the space and noticed that new users faced more problems in comparison to experienced users; so our target audience was first-time users of the studio. Through our needfinding process, we narrowed down our opportunity to familiarizing users to the Envision Maker Studio’s physical space and procedures. Our goal was to help users easily identify the locations of different workstations and tools and to facilitate some of the most important procedures required in the studio, such as signing in when they enter the space and putting on safety goggles in caution areas. Needfinding: Data Collection

The facility director, Jesse DeWald, initially provided us a document of opportunities for improvement. Suggestions included encouraging collaboration between students of different majors, improving acoustics for lectures, and ensuring that students sign upon entering. During our first expert interview with him, we learned that his main vision for the space was to have a welcoming, collaborative, and safe environment for students to work in. He wanted students to take responsibility for their actions by completing the safety training, signing in, using safety goggles where appropriate, and returning tools and resources. With these concerns in mind, we started our needfinding process with interviews and observations during open access hours and class times. Our initial interview questions focused on students’ experience with the safety training and familiarity with the studio. Key questions:

○ Why did you come here? ○ Do you ask for help or speak or others? ○ Do you move around the tables and tool carts? ○ Can you tell me some of the rules from the safety training? ○ Do you swipe in when you enter the studio? ○ Do you wear safety goggles every time you cross the caution tape?

○ Would you feel comfortable giving a tour of the space? We also asked additional questions for students whose classes were in the studio:

○ Is the background noise distracting during lecture? ○ Can you hear the lecturer?

Over the course of eleven interviews and multiple observations during classes and open

access hours, we learned that most students were unaware of the required procedures and resources available in the space. Many students didn’t wear safety goggles when working in caution areas and didn’t sign in when they entered the studio. A visual arts department employee who was using the 3D printers couldn’t recall any details of the safety training. An ECE missed the sign-in station the first time he came in. A first-time ME student mentioned that he only came to use the 3D printers and was reluctant to explore other resources because he didn’t know what they were and didn’t see other people using them. Despite this, all interviewees expressed interest in learning what other resources the studio offers but haven’t bothered to find out since they primarily use the 3D printers.

We noticed that a lot of students don’t return tools to their proper locations, most likely because they don’t remember where they grabbed it since we observed that the studio had a lack of signage. We also didn’t know the location of the materials or what some of the tools were even though two of our team members have a background in mechanical engineering. Students revealed their unfamiliarity with studio features when both the ECE and ME student said that they were unaware that they could move the tables and tool carts due to how large and stationary they looked. This is also evident when we found that only two students who received personal tours of the studio from Jesse were confident enough to give a tour to others. Overall, the interviews and observations highlighted how ineffective the safety training was in teaching students about the studio’s procedures and how students were unaware or reluctant to explore the rest of the studio’s resources besides the 3D printers.

Needfinding: Analysis

Affinity Diagram: a visual representation of the similarities between Jesse’s and users’

concerns.

After collecting data, we used an affinity diagram to sort it into two categories, Jesse’s and the students’ concerns, to identify which areas overlapped. This helped narrow down our design opportunity by identifying our most important problems and eliminating those that we couldn’t find data to support. For example, Jesse’s concern for collaboration was met since the ME and an ECE student working on a project for a competition both mentioned that people in the studio were very friendly and helpful when they were hesitant in using tools. For the problem of poor acoustics, we learned from our interview with Will, a ME graduate student enrolled in one of the studio’s CSE classes, that the noise in the room was not disruptive since all students sat near the lecturer and could clearly hear him. We assumed it also did not bother students during open access because lecture was quieter than open access hours.

We took the safety training ourselves and we found that it stated the need to sign-in before entering and the use of safety goggles in certain areas which are important points Jesse mentioned. However, many students failed to follow these procedures because they overlooked the sign-in station and the caution tape on the floor. Additionally, we found that users weren’t aware of all the resources available to them because they didn’t feel comfortable exploring the space due to unfamiliarity shown by their curiosity yet reluctance to actually explore other resources. In the end, we narrowed down the problem to studio procedures (sign-in, safety goggles) and students’ lack of familiarity with the space.

DEFINING OUR TARGET AUDIENCE Although classes also use the studio, we found that most of the difficulties navigating

through the studio emerged during open access hours since during lectures, students weren’t using the space as much as they are sitting at the tables. Students in classes also didn’t need to sign-in and complete safety training before entering the studio. Through our interviews, we found that people who received tours and the more experienced users,who have been accustomed to the space over time, were more familiar with the space and its procedures than first-time users. For example, an ECE student who has used the studio all quarter was aware of the areas where he needed to wear safety goggles and felt comfortable giving tours to others while the first-time ME student only assumed that the areas with caution tape required goggles and wasn’t comfortable giving tours. Since the studio recently opened, we observed that there weren’t many people using the space (maximum of ten people during open access hours) so majority of the students entering the space would be first time users. Therefore, we defined our target audience to be first-time users during open access hours. Demographic Variables

Our target audience consists of both female and male undergraduate and students (ages 18-22) majoring in Engineering or Visual Arts at UCSD who are using the EnVision Maker Studio for the first time during open access hours because the studio is only open to students in those departments. Psychographic Variables Reasons for using the studio:

All of the users were working on a project either for their personal interest or for a class. From the people we interviewed, most were there as part of a class in order to complete a project. A few other people came due to extracurricular involvement, design competitions, or to spend leisure time working on a personal project. The majority of the users are in engineering so they have relatively the same desire for learning hands-on skills and creating things. Most engineering individuals coming on their own were interested in using the 3D printers. Our interviews with visual art students revealed that they would like to use the space to do their work and to store their projects. They also would like to use the microscopes for their art projects, which engineering students don’t frequently use. However, Visual Art majors also said they found most of the resources available in the studio to be inapplicable to their project needs since they are more targeted toward engineering students. Behaviors:

We learned from previous experience and research from Professor Renner that people tend not to look up or down; they are more likely to see things that are at eye level. This explained why many students missed the sign-in station because it was below eye level. Our

observations and interviews showed that students didn’t want to move the tables and tool carts around because they disliked the inconvenience; these items were large and heavy so they would individually take tools off the cart rather than move the cart itself. This revealed that our users prioritize time and efficiency. Almost all users were willing to ask for help if needed and many were also curious about others’ projects which contributes to the collaborative atmosphere and the interaction between different majors that Jesse desired. RESEARCH FOR DESIGN Data

Sample Size for Interviews/scavenger hunts

Second Round of Interviews and Observations

Second Prototype - First Iteration (5/8-5/14)

Second Prototype - Second Iteration (5/22-5/28)

4/27 - 3 5/11 - 1 5/23 - 1

5/2 - 1 5/13 - 2 5/24 - 3

5/4 - 5 5/16 - 9 5/25 - 2

5/6 - 2 5/18 - 1 5/22-5/28 - 6

5/20 - 1

= 11 = 14 = 12 Total = 37

Key Data from Interviews and Observations

Second Round of Interviews and Observations

Second Prototype - First Iteration (5/8-5/14)

Second Prototype - Second Iteration (5/22-5/28)

YES NO YES NO YES NO

Used correct door 2 0 12 0 5 0

Swiped in 5 0 11 1 5 0

Moved tool cart 0 11 0 10

Put on safety goggles/gloves 4 3 0 11 0 2

(found:)

Storage cubbies 4 0 9 1 2 0

Soldering station 3 2 9 0 2 0

Toolbox/oscilloscope 2 2 11 0 1 1

Re-work station 2 2 8 2 2 0

Prototyping area 3 2 11 0 2 0

Tool carts 2 0 11 0 2 0

3D printers 6 0 9 0 2 0

Digital imaging area 4 0 9 1 2 0

TA/supervisor 5 0 2 0

Second Round of Interviews and Observations (First Column in Data)

After making initial observations to narrow down our target audience, we came up with more focused questions to interview first-time users. Over eleven interviews and observations, we took notes on how students work through the space or asked them questions like did you notice the caution tape, do you know who the coordinator is, and did you know you could move the tables around? In one of the three interviews, we invited an engineering student and walked him through the responsibility contract, safety training, and studio space. Initially he asked “Can I touch things?” and said he was “focusing on not breaking things” when asked about moving the tables/tools/computers around. He did not know what the caution tape on the floor was for and felt relatively comfortable taking tools to use on a project. However, he didn’t know where everything was located in the space and was unsure of what some of the signs meant. First Prototype

The first interpretation of the data indicated that the most prominent needs were to improve the effectiveness of the safety training and students’ familiarity with the signs and stations within the space. Our first solution was a virtual map (ex. Google Map’s Street View) that allows users to learn about the stations and safety procedures. We thought that this would be most effective if it was implemented in the safety training so that students would be exposed to the layout of the room and be better prepared to use the space when they enter it.

Rapid prototype of virtual map of the studio space - intended to provide more detailed

information on each station.

Using our prototype, we had the opportunity to test our virtual map with a fellow team. They showed confusion at the order of the tour and how one would know how to interact with the map. The team’s feedback helped us see the difficulty in creating an intuitive experience for users in order to test our hypothesis. There was not enough data backing up the idea of using a virtual map and Jesse also expressed reluctance at implementing something so complicated onto the website. We therefore conducted nine interviews during open access hours to further evaluate users’ knowledge of the space. Second Prototype - First Iteration (Second Column in Data)

Some students were there due to class projects and others were working on projects for extracurricular activities (clubs, competitions). We asked users where the location of the major tools are, their knowledge of different features of the studio, and their awareness of safety procedures. Additionally, we inquired about their experiences and problems with the studio. On our next affinity diagram, we organized the data into multiple categories with common patterns/problems in order to find the problematic areas.

Affinity Diagram - Categorized Data from Interviews

The affinity diagram showed that students were mainly concerned with safety, materials,

and location of resources. We decided we would resolve our problem of unfamiliarity by creating signs for the different work station areas that coincide with the map. Although we would have liked a virtual map of the studio, we decided signage would be the most realistic for implementing and testing. However, we kept the floor plan from our previous prototype and turned it into a physical map.

To implement our signage prototypes, we put up multiple black and white signs on 8.5x11 paper to address issues like users forgetting to use safety goggles in caution areas, being unfamiliar with the workstations, and informing users of the tool carts’ mobility. We also used styrofoam blocks to raise the sign-in station so that it would be closer to eye-level. In order to stay consistent with our interviews, we created a scavenger hunt to see how our signage would influence problematic areas. Starting from the elevator, the users were asked to find EnVision, go to all the work stations in random order, take an unreasonable number of tools off of the tool carts and put them back on.

Over the course of eleven interviews, no one wore safety goggles or moved the tool carts, choosing to carry the tools back and forth. After inquiry, it was revealed that most didn’t notice the caution signs or the ‘move me’ sign on the tool cart. They confirmed our earlier data that even if they knew that the tool carts were moveable, they would not push it around because they are heavy and difficult to maneuver. Although all users found the stations, the general consensus was that the signs were hard to notice because they were too small and didn’t stand out from the white walls.

Secondary Research We found examples of good signage in a book, Make Space by Scott Doorley, where it

gave tips such as making signs consistent and making signs bigger when in doubt. In addition, we learned that people were more likely to see signs that were bold and large.

Also, when we looked into other engineering maker design studios on campus, we found from our observations that the undergraduate engineering students were unwilling to ask for help if they were unaware of who was in charge.

In “Take back your city with paint”, Edi Rama illustrates how the use of color can have political impact and instill a sense of community. The evidence suggests there is a very real correlation between environmental design and its impact on people’s behavior. To incorporate this idea, we used colors in order to maximize the quality and effect of our signage.

Second Prototype - Second Iteration (Third Column in Data)

Using our data, we informed Jesse that the signs needed to be bigger and more colorful. While they were helpful, students were still looking around for the signs because the signs didn’t stand out. Since they were still reluctant to move the tool carts, we suggested making the cart stationary and providing baskets or work aprons to aid students in carrying the tools around. This would solve the confusion of locating the cart since it changes every time we visit. However, Jesse thought baskets were unnecessary and that having to go back and forth wasn’t problematic. He did agree that it would be easier to locate the tools if they were available at a single location and was thinking about hanging the tools on a wall instead of the tool carts. Since no one was noticing the caution signs, we suggested moving the safety goggles closer to the caution areas to make it more convenient to which Jesse mentioned he was going to place a basket with the goggles next to the caution areas.

Students also had a hard time remembering the tools’ placements on the carts. Based off of MAE Design Lab, we suggested putting silhouettes of the tools onto the cart but were directed to use life-size pictures of the tools instead. We printed one set of tool cart pictures and taped it on the tool cart, which allowed students to easily identify the tools’ locations on the cart. Our group brought in another ten students for more scavenger hunts where the data showed that although students had no problem finding the signs, students were often unaware of what tools were as they were unlabelled. Another common problem students had with the scavenger hunt was identifying where the caution tape was, since the students didn’t tend to look at the ground for the tape.

For our final round of iteration, we created bigger, more colorful signs for the workstations so that students see them right away. We laminated the studio maps and placed them next to the sign-in station. Additionally, we tried making the caution signs more colorful with a caution tape border to make the design more intuitive since it corresponded with the tape on the floor. Some of the names of the stations had to be changed as well, such as from drilling to re-work station, due to Jesse’s request. Although our users expressed confusion at what some

names meant, we were unable to explore more descriptive or intuitive names of the stations. Our secondary research and data showed that students had difficulty identifying TA’s so we created a schedule of TAs’ office hours during open access hours and placed it next to the sign-in station.

After we implemented our second round of prototypes, we modified our scavenger hunt and timed how long it took each user to complete a task. Another seven scavenger hunts revealed that the labeled tool carts proved to be very effective because it made the tool return process a lot faster and more accurate, although students experienced some difficulty identifying the tools without labels.

It was hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the TA schedule because we didn’t have access to photos of all the TA’s so users were sometimes confused by the schedule. Although it was placed next to the sign-in station, only one user noticed it while signing in. Others had to be told that there was a schedule but were able to deduce where it would logically be placed. The new workstation signs proved to be very effective since our data showed that the time it took for students to move from station to station during the scavenger hunt decreased. Most agreed that the color helped the signs stand out and the photos on the tool carts made it easier for them to put tools back.

Scavenger Hunt for Second Iteration

Our main method of evaluating the efficacy of our second iteration was through a scavenger hunt which we asked users to complete a list of steps that took them around the studio. The first version required users to do unnecessary tasks such as cutting foam so for our second iteration, we refined the instructions to obtain relevant data as shown below.

Instructions: Purpose:

○ Go inside envision ● How quickly could they find EnVision?

● Did they go through the right door? ● Did they notice the sign-in station? ● Did they notice the studio maps?

○ Find storage bins ● How quickly could they transition from station to station?

○ Find Soldering station

○ Bring me an oscilloscope

○ Find Re-Work Station

○ Find Prototyping Area

○ Find the Digital Imaging Area

○ Grab a box of wrenches, a staple gun, a meter stick, pliers, measuring tape, ammeter/voltmeter, caliper, banana plugs, and clamps and place on the table closest to the rework station

● Would they move the cart or individually move the tools to the table?

● Did the pictures help them return tools to the correct location?

● Would they recognize all the tools?

○ Now put everything back

○ How many 3D printers are there?

○ Find a TA ● Did they notice the TA schedule? ● Were they able to correctly utilize it?

Limitations

During our data collection process, we also brought in students outside of Engineering and Visual Arts major. Since EnVision just opened, there was not a lot of publicity to get new student traffic so we were pushed to bringing in students from other majors in order to collect enough data. These students don’t necessarily have the background to use the tools and resources available in the studio so our data may be skewed towards unfamiliarity of the tools. Learning from Failures

Out of our many prototypes, the laminated floor plan, caution tape signs, and the “move me” signs on the tool carts were ineffective. Though the studio map definitely helped, it limited the users to explore the studio without it. Most users didn’t see the maps next to the sign-in station and had to be instructed to take one and majority of the users stated that they would prefer to wander the studio rather than use a map. Unfortunately, all the users continued to miss the caution tape and didn’t wear goggles in the caution areas. Although our signs had caution tape borders and were at eye level, it was still not effective so we proposed future solutions like putting caution tape along the walls at eye-level and caution tape borders on the work stations signs that were inside of the caution areas. Lastly, students were still reluctant to move the tool carts despite the sign on the carts since they were heavy and difficult to maneuver.

DESIGN SOLUTION

A mind map of our data leading to our design solution

Our final design solution focused on improving the familiarity and approachability of the

space for first-time users (Engineering and Visual Art majors) during open access hours by helping them locate different workstations and tools and follow important studio procedures for signing-in and wearing safety goggles. The implementation of signage, floor layout, TA schedule, and tool cart silhouettes are meant to facilitate students’ familiarity of the different work stations, safety protocols, and other features of the space.

One of our first prototypes was moving the EnVision sign from the inaccessible door to the actual entrance since our data indicated that many users had confused the door that the EnVision sign originally was in front of as the entrance. After moving the sign, users had a clear marker for the entrance of EnVision and no longer confused that door as a possible studio entrance.

Another aspect of our design solution was elevating the sign-in station to eye level since many users were walking past it and had to be reminded to sign-in. We did so by cutting up

styrofoam blocks to prop up the computer with the sign-in screen so that now upon entering the space, students are greeted by the sign-in center that is directly within their line of vision. Since this proved to be effective in grabbing students’ attention, Jesse decided to purchase a taller table to elevate the computer permanently. The screen of the computer changes based on the scheduled use of the space; if the studio is being used for a class, the text will change, informing students that it is unavailable for open access hours. Jesse commented that this has successfully deterred students from entering the space and disrupting class.

A landscape photo of all the signs implemented around the room.

Additionally, we placed laminated floor plans of the space next to the sign-in station.

These act as portable maps that students can reference at their workstations to familiarize themselves with the studio while working on projects. This is meant to help supplement the large signs we have implemented for each station in the studio. The colors of each station on the map are coordinated with the colors used for the station signs for easy correlation. The signs are large

and brightly colored in order to grab students’ attention and clearly label the space in a way that contrasts the bare, white walls. In our improved scavenger hunt, we tested our studio maps, and found that though our map was straightforward, it limited users’ ability to navigate on their own because they were fixated on the map.

The sign-in station with the studio map and TA schedule, the station is elevated with foam. Our data also informed us that many first-time users had no idea where to ask for help in

the studio. Therefore, we created a TA/Staff schedule next to the sign-in station to inform students who to ask for assistance. Our prototype testing indicated that users are now aware of where to look for a TA for help. We decided to place all these resources at the sign-in station so upon entrance, students are immediately able to use the space in an effective way.

Our caution tape sign to warn users to put on safety goggles.

The o-scopes sign with a photo of the kit to indicate what they look like.

Next, we implemented signage that is intended to help students better understand the other features and safety procedures of the studio. One sign says “Goggles Beyond This Line” near the floor of the studio that is sectioned off by caution tape to clearly indicate that students are expected to wear safety goggles within the designated areas. Since people don’t tend to look up high or down low, these signs are colored and placed at eye-level in order to attempt to grab students’ attention walking through these areas. We also created signs highlighting the position of the oscilloscopes using arrows. These were necessary because we initially assumed they were toolboxes and had signs labeling them as toolboxes. After putting these up, Jesse informed us of the error and we made the correction to the sign.

Tool carts with photos of where all the tools belong.

Lastly, we implemented photos of tools on each of the tool carts in order to clearly

indicate where students should return specific tools after using them. This design solution addresses the problem of students not knowing where to return tools and subsequently ending up with tool carts that have a disproportionate number of different types of tools. The silhouettes are made of pictures that we took of each tool; they are printed to scale in order to make the process of returning tools efficient and visually intuitive.

Although we can still refine our prototypes, our current design is important because they have significantly improved the experience of first time users by reducing the amount of uncertainty and confusion in the studio. Before, first-time users experienced difficulties navigating through the space. Now, our prototypes have improved the studio flow, a clear sign-in station, and correct equipment placement.

In addition to our final design solutions, we also came up with potential solutions that we didn’t implement due to client specifications and time limitations. We proposed creating a 3D surround view of the room with annotations within a phone app. The idea was to help first time users familiarize themselves with the studio. They could easily open up the app and move their phone camera over areas throughout the space. The 3D image would be annotated with safety tips, equipment locations, and a search feature.

Another potential design solution we proposed was a video walkthrough with Jesse showing users the studio. This video would then be uploaded to the studio website and all students would have to watch it before entering the space. This would allow for efficiency and consistency in the orientation because Jesse is currently giving individual students tours. Although Jesse approved this idea, we were unable to implement this due to time restrictions.

We also proposed potential design solutions that made the tool carts more user friendly and mobile. We made signs that personified the tool carts by placing speech bubbles labelled, “Take me to your workstation.” However, our data suggested showed it was a failure since students either didn’t notice the signs or didn’t feel inclined to move the carts due to the inconvenience and weight of the carts. Alternative solutions were baskets that students could place their tools in and carry to their workstation, or a work apron that they could use to access their tools wherever they happen to be working. However, we were unable to explore this idea since Jesse would rather just place all the tools in one location on the walls.

Another concept we discussed was using pathos in our signs, such as a sign with an otter wearing safety goggles that reads, “Do as you otter!” We also discussed moving the safety goggles to more obtrusive areas, such as next to the entrance or along the caution taped area. After mentioning this idea, Jesse confirmed that he would be buying a basket to hold all the goggles and would place it next to the caution areas. Another idea was to also place the caution tape at eye level. While most station names were straightforward, our data suggests ambiguity in certain names such as the Digital Imaging Station, Re-Work Station, etc. Our team considered testing other names but Jesse expressed reservation towards changing the names. Future Work

The data we collected from our research showed much room for improving our prototypes. Looking ahead, we will create bigger and more colorful signage, propose a more mobile and efficient way to transport a large amount of tools when necessary, and provide safety goggles in more than one location in the studio. Lastly, we will also be testing three different prototypes to improve the tool cart: taping images of the tools on the cart, tracing the outline of the tools, and taping the outline of the tools.

APPENDIX Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9iSv8Ux3ZSaVWl6M21Xb3hMeTg Videos: Take back your city with paint: https://www.ted.com/talks/edi_rama_take_back_your_city_with_paint?language=en Books: Doorley, Scott, and Scott Witthoft. Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration . N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.